|
Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
After an amazing experience at internationals, there are a few things about gracious professionalism that I found lacking, specifically something that happened in our division. A team whose robot was broken was with us in our last round . According to them, their drivetrain was completely broken after falling off the pyramid and they couldn't get the shooter working. We lost that match by 5 points and because we still ended with enough autonomous points, it cost us the second spot in seeding. When alliance selections came around, one of the team's coaches went around telling teams not to pick them because their robot was completely disabled. Then during selections, the first alliance captain selected them as a second pick. The majority of teams were confused at this selection and assumed their scouting didn't pick up the fact that they were broken. The team then went on to finals in our division, performing as though they did not have any issues. I am not accusing any teams of stacking the odds. It is completely possible they did have an issue but, it does seem likely that teams were trying to bypass FIRST's system where lower teams can have a chance to compete. I believe this is against the spirit of gracious professionalism and FIRST.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
This was already addressed in another thread, and a response was made by the leader of the team in question:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=26 I closed the other one because of forum rules violations. If this one gets out of hand I will do the same. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I know what you are talking about and me and another member of my team where extremly confused. This is not at all gracious and i was thrown off that a team so known whould do that. But to be fair i didnt believe it because they have not climbed all season
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I don't post on here very often, but this time I feel like I have to. First off, if we are talking about gracious professionalism, do you not think that it is the exact opposite to be posting rumors that could have severe consequences? Many teams that were also in this particular division have confirmed that they were told this one robot was broken, which was evident in their last match. Many have even said that they saw the kids packing up their pit, as they expected that they were done. Someone decided to take a chance on a team that is extremely highly regarded. Any team in this situation would do anything and everything that they could in order to perform for their alliance.
Of all of the places that vicious rumors occur, it is sad that the FIRST community is becoming one. Please, think of the consequences of what you are saying before you post. You are not only hurting the reputation of an individual with these accusations, but also an entire team. A team with great kids that do not deserve for their championship experience to be dampened. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
I think the OP is showing a lot of courage by posting here considering 2 other users, posted anonymously even if one of them was indeed the OP. The people involved here are very big in FIRST and in the CD community, which makes it so hard for someone who isn't, to say something, we have to remember that this is a program for kids, not adults. I wonder, would this situation be different if this was team 4XXX and a student coach? Should it be? I ask that the CD community limit the bashing and really think about the ethics of what might have happened here. Even if it didn't happen, we as a community can learn from it and know how to approach the temptation of a world championship and maintain our gracious professionalism and keep in mind what it is most important. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
---Disclaimer--- I hold the Thunder Chickens in the highest regard and don't think anything malicious happened. ---Disclaimer--- I've read some of the really hateful and sarcastic posts, as well as Paul's explaining the situation. The only question I have left is why, if 217 was so disabled that they were telling teams explicitly not to pick them, why then did they not decline the selection? What they did in the pits was tantamount to the same thing as declining during selections so if they were willing to essentially decline, why did they not actually? The assumed (assumptions make an $@#$@#$@# out of u and me) conclusion is that either of their two alliance partners had some inside knowledge that no one else in the division knew that led to these two picking them. I think the most likely explanation is that they didn't think they would get their robot working and made some miraculous repairs, which coincided with the alliance captain either choosing foolishly or bravely. But it has to be admitted that it leaves some very interesting questions. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Something that ran through my mind is that if the intent was to let 217 drop to the #1 alliance, a good strategy towards achieving that would be to say "we would accept if you picked us." This way you cannot call a bluff without risking an immobile robot on your alliance. If it was said "if you pick us we would decline" it would make it really simple to call a potential bluff because you could just pick 217 and be rejected and move onto your next pick and select them after the decline. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Another possibility is that 'we're not working' means one thing to 217 than it does to 1538/1986. To 217, them not working could mean missing shots in auto but still able to feed down the field. If that's all 1538 wanted, then they may have asked for details about exactly what on 217 wasn't working and made their decision based on more data than other teams but not because it was hidden from the rest of the division, because 1538 went out and took it. Of course, that is debunked if 217 went around telling the rest of the division what on their robot wasn't working/to what level they were broken. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
There are many, many different possible scenarios that may have happened.
Take for instance (and I've seen this happen before) where the exact situation happens. A team informs all the other teams in the top 8 that they are broken, and do not expect to have the issue fixed in time for elims. The interested alliance takes a look at their robot and says "hey, if we work together, we could just get that fixed in time!". No one else attempts to pick the team, the interested alliance picks them, they get fixed in time, and all is good. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I too hold 217 in the highest regard and have personally never seen anything at a competition that would make me think differently.
That said, the one voice I would very much like to here regarding this matter (because I don't think anyone from this team has said anything yet pertaining to the subject) is that of team 1538, The Holy Cows; the team that actually drafted them. If anyone would know about how much 1538 actually knew about the Thunderchickens' damages, I'd be 1538 themselves. <speculation> My initial guess is that when told the robot was irreparable, someone from from the 1538 camp went over and investigated exactly how bad the damages were and personally assessed the probability of a successful repair (I mean, that's what my team would do, and were not even close to Chairman's caliber). If anyone could fix said fallen robot in time for the playoffs, I think the current World Chairman's Award Winner might be on that short list. [sidenote: Congrats btw on said achievement] That would personally give me the confidence to make such a risky selection. Sadly, I did not personally see the match where said fall occurred, however I did see the last match where they sat dead in, and I hadn't the clue what was going on. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
If other teams ever face situations like this, I think what Joe said could be valid. Take the chance and pick the team. If you think you need them to win. If they are the ideal bot. You pick them, and you get their bot functional. Take the risk. As Paul said in the other thread, if you have something to say, say it with a real account like the OP did. Do not hide under the veil of anonymity. People can not trust an anonymous source for information usually, and the person/team in question doesn't really have to answer. That said, I hope whatever went on, if anything, can be resolved within the team. To the other captains; don't dwell on the issue, it won't change anything, and in the end if "ifs and buts were candy and nuts..." |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Since clicking over to the other thread before lobbing base and offensive accusations seems to be too much trouble, I'll just copy two highly relevant posts over here:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd just like to point out that you're accusing the 2013 CCA winners and a former WFA (Paul Copioli) of pulling a ridiculous stunt that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows is wrong. Do you really honestly think that the Thunderchickens want to win THAT badly? The explanation offered by Paul is more than adequate and is, frankly, something that happens a lot. My team was the beneficiary of a similar #1 pick in 2007. We weren't working a bit all Friday but pulled some magic that night and had a perfect double lift Saturday morning. We actually didn't bother telling anyone anything cause we were certain we wouldn't be picked, and 1114 snatched us up as a sleeper. I'd love to say we went on to win the regional, but we had some unrelated mental lapses that dropped us in the semis, but still. To anyone not paying attention, a completely busted robot magically works flawlessly come elims. The 217 situation was only a little more extreme in the timing of everything. *Because when wrestling a pig, everyone gets muddy, but the pig likes it. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
By that point, fixing 217's robot before eliminations was probably like business as usual for 1986. :rolleyes: |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Still, doesn't say a whole lot, but it does at least confirm my initial thoughts on the matter. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=22 Now, that post is from a valid account, a mentor, and someone who did not offer an angry post. All that can be done at this point is to let 217 to worry about 217. As I said, I hope they do look into it on their own and can find out what was up. And I'll repeat, other captains should forget about the incident. Move on and have a fun offseason. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I have nothing else to add. To reiterate my earlier post, the pick offered both huge risk and reward. We were gutsy to go for it, and we ended up getting our butts kicked in the finals for it (no disrespect to 217).
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
One thought that hasn't been said in these threads is that 1538 made an extremely risky pick with some very high level teams still on the board. 180(last years champion), 1985, and 2439 were all there. These three teams had all been major players in a regional championship and they were all working at full force. The fact that 1538 would pick a broken 217 bot over these three teams probably cost them a major shot at Einstein because as Connor has said 217 did rebreak during eliminations. The fact of the matter is that 217 told everyone that they had a major problem and the cows took a chance on it and it cost them. Does anyone from either 1538 and 1986 want to explain the thought process EDIT: (after rereading please know that this question didn't mean to sound this acusing: I just want to learn how elite level teams go through a tough decision like this) that went into the pick and if you also considered bringing 2439 in as a backup during finals? I think that would ease the minds of many people. I also think there was no "backroom" field playing going on I actually apuald 217 for being honest with the top 15 instead of telling teams "we are 100%" like most teams would do going into alliance selections. I truly believe that they didn't know if they could get their problems fixed.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
While this is an important issue to discuss, accusing others of "Ungracious professionalism" is both cliché and rather inflammatory. Perhaps I shouldn't be the one to throw stones, as I've put my own foot in my mouth a large number of times, but while you have an important point to raise, I don't think that was to way to do it. GP is thrown around a lot now, usually in the context of "I'm more GP then you."
I agree that the situation seems a little fishy at first glance, but I'd be inclined to believe the respected mentors who gave their first hand accounts of their experiences. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
All that said, I'll just point out #WinAnyway. *Dude, I got to shake hands with Paul Copioli. Yeah, really. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Mr. Copioli made it clear in his post in the closed thread that he will not be addressing this issue further, and I won't speak for him.
We were the 15th seed in the Newton division, and Paul Copioli came over to us while we were waiting in the practice goal queue to tell us that 217 had fallen off the pyramid, that they were broken, and to cross them off our pick list. After we'd gotten back to our pit, I had the opportunity to talk to him further about both our efforts to climb, and specifically the problems that had plagued 217 all season. It was around this point that 217 had mostly vacated their pit, and Paul explained that even though he advocates a "never say die" attitude, it was about time to shut it down. He expressed to me that if they were picked, they'd do everything in their power to fix their robot and do what they could on the field. Your team might make the decision that once broken, you'd decline any selection (which would likely be FRC190's decision under the circumstances). It's not unreasonable to assume that Paul and his team are full of pride for their machine and their abilities, and that they'd try their darndest to compete. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
In response, my team is not at all bitter about this, in fact we're extremely ecstatic we made it to championships, let alone being an alliance captain. That was an amazing experience!!! We just found it suspicious when we were told try fell from the pyramid, and we hadn't seen tem climb, and were then picked by the #1 alliance. We are not making any accusations or trying to ruin the reputation of a team, just looking for a few answers.
Seriously though, championships was an incredible experience, thank you all so much!!! |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
They demonstrated some great defense and prevented a climber from reaching their pyramid in the quals. Combine that with FCS ability, and we thought that we would potentially be able to take on 1114, who we expected we would face if we won our division. We thought that between ourselves and 1986, we had a large enough lead in offensive strength over the rest of the bracket to pick up any slack in scoring if the FCS wasn't working 100%. We were proved wrong.
Edit: See also Jon's post. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Paul told us that they were broke several times over the course of Saturday morning. In their last match Saturday morning they did look broke. They didn't make a single shot during the match, including auto and they were barely driving. If I remember correctly, they never moved more than 1-2 feet from the pyramid. Clearly, something was wrong. After the match we discussed taking 217 off of our pick list. We had some back and fourth as to where 217 should be on our pick list. In the end they ended up 6th on our list of second round picks. However, the 5 teams ahead of them were taken in the first or second round.
In the end, we rolled the dice with 217 with the knowledge that they were broke. It was a high risk, high reward pick on our part. We would either get them in some state of repair and get a great pick or fail to and struggle along during the elimination tournament. I'm not going to get into numbers and specifics as it's late and irrelevant to this thread. However, we felt that 217 could play a specific role between us and 1986. Another thing we took into account was Paul's coaching ability, lets face it - there's something to be said for 2 state championships, 6 Einstein appearances, 2 world championships, 1 championship finalist and countless regional wins. Some people have a knack for winning, Paul is one of them. With this in mind, we rolled the dice and made the pick. After alliance selections, I went straight to 217's pit and had a colorful conversation with Paul about how they were broke and how dumb we were for picking them. I told him to get his pit crew to their pit so we could figure out what needed to be fixed and fix it. I also brought in kids from our pit crew to help assist in repairs. It was an all hands on deck situation. Some may say this was a dumb move on our part, but we looked at who the back up robot (2439) would be and felt comfortable in being able to work well with them in the event that we were unable to repair 217. Having 2439 as the backup robot was an insurance policy that eased our mind about picking 217. Throughout the elims 217 was plagued with issues. In some matches, they didn't shoot everything in auto, in some matches they didn't shoot anything in auto. In some matches their full court never worked consistently. In fact, we even had to call a timeout between our two semi-final matches to allow us more time to repair some electrical issues they were having. I hope this helps clarify things, Jon |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Again, I would like to say we're not making accusations, we just wanted answers. I personally have known the Holy Cows since my freshman year when we meant up at the first ever Utah Regional. I have talked with them frequently since then, and have been friends with many team members as well. Team Titanium, 1986, is my all time favorite FRC team, ask any member of our team and they'll tell you how I won't ever shut up about how incredible they are to watch. 217 has been amazing to watch throughout the years as well, but until championships I had no personal experience with them, however talking with their drivers and coach, they were and are an extremely nice team to work with.
That being said, I know I personally am satisfied, as is the rest of the team, with the answers that have been provided. We meant no disrespect toward any of these three incredible teams. Thank you for your answers and explanations everyone, and congratulations to The Holy Cows for their Chairman's win!!! |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Holy cow, did we just resolve something on CD with a sense of civility? Thanks mods for letting this one play out.
 |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Also our team takes no responsibility for the original thread :)
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Well when you are talking about a HOF team and a Team being lead by a National Woodie Flowers Award Winner and also the Elite level team from Missouri(I'm so glad the rest of First now realizes the level of Team 1986 past just being the titanium standard of Missouri :p ) you would hope that people wouldn't have reacted so negative at first. A huge shout out to these well deserving teams for handling the questions from everyone with an extreme amount of Gracious Professionalism and Congrats on the 2 World Awards that this alliance had.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I certainly don't wish to perptuate this tread any further, but since some have speculated on the role of 1986 in the story I will add just one post with this information:
1986 was not privy to 1538's plans or reasoning before they made their selection decisions. They informed us just shortly before alliance picks that we would be their first selection. 1538 did share with us that although 217 was broken, they intended to take the risk that they could be fixed, and hoped to select them as a 2nd pick if they were still available. They considered it a high risk / high reward gamble. As the captain this was their perogative and we did not question it. Our assignement was to do what we do and score lots of points, to buy more time by helping win matches. Between the time of alliance picks and the beginning of eliminations, 217's pit was an intense whirlwind of repair work. Their mentors and students worked as you would expect a team of their caliber and experience to work, repairing one sub-system at a time. They worked with 1538 sharing parts and resources. Paul gave us periodic updates on what was fixed, what was still broken, and what was unknown. They considered the available time to be not only that before elim matches began, but also the time between matches, and they hoped to keep working and improving as eliminations progressed. Anyone who suspects a deception need only look at the outcome. Although 217 was able to get most systems working intitially, problems returned and they were plagued with issues as the matches progressed. Among other problems, the drivetrain itself was not performing due to the overall damaged condition of the robot. 1538 decided to take a championship-sized gamble, but it did not pay off this time. The story is as simple as that. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I think that this actually shows more gracious professionalism in FIRST than ungracious professionalism.
Like 217, team 4 was in a similar situation in our Inland Empire Regional. We could not figure out how to get a good intake system to work and if you watch the game replays, a good portion of them are us attempting to feed Frisbees into various intake systems. We were pretty much useless even though our other systems worked well (shooter, drivebase, hanging). When most teams asked us how we were doing, we told them that we really wanted to get our intake down because we knew that we could do full court shooting if we could get it working. One of the teams which had been seeded, 1323 MadTown Robotics, saw this and quickly sent over several members to help us out. They knew exactly what needed to be done and how to do it. Within an hour, we had a consistent intake system which allowed for us to shoot Frisbees. Although it was too little too late for team 4 as an alliance option, we really can't thank RC and the MadTown crew enough for the help that they gave. I see 217 in a similar situation. As it was pointed out several posts ago by Jon Jack from 1538, it was a gamble for them to pick 217 but they did everything in their power to fix that robot. In 2006, team 4 did not receive our robot for GTR, but so many teams (including 217) made it their duty to come out and help us build a robot (which was famously called "One-day Wonder"). I think that gracious professionalism in FIRST is more about the community and how in a time of need, can make things work out. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Does anyone have a recoding of the match 217 fell in? I've seen a bunch of falls that had little or no impact on the robot performance, and then I've seen 1023's fall that damaged pretty much everything, and I'm just curious as to what this particular fall looked like, considering the effect it had.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
maybe they just fixed and had favorable qualities
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
After nearly five months of effort, and hard work, you get an opportunity to play in division elims. Elims! It's as close as you could reach to winning as you could at that point. Imagine the feeling of elation the team members must have felt (maybe you experienced it). Imagine the joy of knowing your intense hard work, long periods of having little sleep, maybe even skipping meals, and not getting to see your friends and family almost at all. I would've been very happy. As the team's representative, would you be able to decline the invitation, end your team's season, and take away that joy? I wouldn't. Even though declining would've been the fair thing to do, towards teams 1538 and 1986 who might have been able to choose an alliance partner that is fully functioning (I am deliberately avoiding stating that was the case since I don't know the details behind this), but I can't see how 217's could look his team members in the eye, having declined, ending their season and preventing them the possibility of getting to Einstein. Also, Paul Copioli, in the post linked by Jeff in the thread's comment, said he personally told all the people he talked to that if they pick 217, they will accept. To the OP: I understand that you might be frustrated or angry by this, but I recommend forgetting this and moving on. Being mad about it will only hurt you in the long run. I know, I've been there. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
At heart, 217 is a competitive team. They take their robot's on-field performance very seriously. They take the time to ensure that their robot will live up to the legacy of domination they set for themselves from 2006-2011 where they were one of the most dominant teams in the world. One of 67's goals (as I've read in their design logs) is to win the world championships. I'd bet 217 sets forth a similar goal. Competing at a high level in their division, making it to Einstein... These are all goals 217 holds very seriously. To that end, they would never decline an alliance offer from a team, unless they were in a position to put their own alliance together (Newton 2011). They did the right thing by telling teams their issues. It is a noble thing that many teams in FIRST don't do. They made sure every team knew that by picking them, it's an likely possibility that they would be sitting on-field with a dead robot. I'm sure that is exactly what Paul expected would happen, were they picked. But they wouldn't decline, because declining would mean missing out on a shot at Einstein that they didn't even have a chance to compete for last year. So Paul made sure that every team knew the risks, and let every other team decide their fate after that. It just so happened that the teams gutsy enough to try them made up the #1 seeded alliance. I don't think Paul or 217 would have intentionally tried to rig the system just to get a shot at Einstein. From what I've gathered from working with Paul and 217, they would much prefer to let their robot handle these things for them, not behind-the-scenes, cloak and dagger efforts. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Personally, I am completely satisfied with the information we've gotten from the teams on that alliance. I just hope the message gets out to all of the top teams from the division, so no one dwells on it unnecessarily.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I think this incident is really getting under peoples skin(it did to me, though I let it go even before Paul's post in the previous thread), because it was Paul who went around and told all the teams that they were done. I think that if a different non well known mentor or a student from 217 went and told all the teams they were done, teams wouldn't have been as upset and "outraged" that this happened.
I've always had good interactions with 217, as well as Paul, and I can say that even though I was angry that it appeared that 217 had sandbagged their way into the #1 alliance. Paul came up to several members of my team after and he looked truly shocked and you could tell he was thinking that everyone thought that they had sandbagged the division. Is it right to tell teams you are done and then accept an invitation to an alliance? If you were going to accept no matter what , why even take the time to tell teams you're broken? These are questions that each team needs to ask themselves and live with the choices they make, and the reputation they earn through making those choices. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I'm amazed at how civil this thread has kept, kudos to you chief.
Robots break when they're driven hard, when they are driven to win. I was able to speak with Paul immediately after the fall and assessment of damages. This was more than a 2 hour fix evident by the lack of full functionality in the elimination tournament. It's one thing not to be picked on the world championship stage, its another completely to decline when there is a possibility (no matter how slim) of getting things fixed and functioning. I think Paul went above and beyond to talk to all 15 top teams and let them know what the odds were. I think 1538 made a solid decision plus the first replacement bot was a good machine. Worst case you have world championship top 12 rank team as your third pick. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I just have a couple of questions on this issue. As part of our team's scouting crew, I thought I was losing my mind when 217 came out in QFs and started shooting full court. "What!" I thought. "How did I miss THAT? I need to resign my post."
Then later someone told me that they had NOT been shooting full court all weekend...which is the correct answer? I totally missed their MO, or that their FCS was brand new? Second, based on our scouting data (not my own personal skill), we did not see 217 as a viable pick option (no disrespect intended to 217). Therefore this makes me curious what data or skills other teams were noting that put 217 on the radar at all. I ask these questions in the hopes of expanding our team's scouting ability because we are still very much learning. Thank you. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Am I the only one that can look at this scenario and say, "If I was 217, I'd probably decline several alliances, but would still accept 1538/1986's invitation"?
1538 and 1986 together have a wealth of strong team members, as does 217. If I was on 217, I could easily see them thinking, "Yeah, with these partners, we can maybe do this", where with weaker partners they might think it impossible. Having met and spoken with Paul on a few occasions, I'm confident in saying that the intent was not 'convince everyone to leave us for the #1 alliance'. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Chances are alot of the helpful scouting done that caused 217 to be picked despite their Championship Q-round troubles would be past competition performance scouting. 217 did a fine job at the MSC, in fact good enough to win the thing. Watching any youtube videos of the MSC playoffs would have shown that. Nowadays, so much data is needed to gauge a teams potential performance that external data is needed. Going purely off of CMP data, 217 was not a smart pick. But due to their potential from previous events, it became a smart but EXTREMELY risky pick. Worked to a point, their luck ran out in the Division Championship. With more technology and more video documentation comes more scouting resources. 1538 has some brass buns to make that pick. I don't think I would have had the courage to do so. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I would like to apologize for my posts on the previous thread, and retract my statements regarding 217's intention to decline and implication that they "only wanted to play with the first seed." I did not witness either conversation first-hand, and I regret that I contributed to the rumor-spreading without verifying the facts. It is quite possible that my pit crew made incorrect assumptions and the message got distorted through repetition. I was with my team captain discussing alliance picks when I got the call that 217 was broken and not to pick them. The pit crew could have wrongly interpreted that as they would decline, then got relayed to me. It is also quite possible that the latter statement of only wanting to play with the first seed was meant to be a joke which was not picked up on, or some other completely innocent explanation. That comment was also not made by Paul himself, who I am sure, would not joke about that kind of thing. This was our team's first experience at Championships, and we were so impressed by all of the incredible teams we had the honor of sharing the field with. Congratulations to all teams, and keep up the great work!
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
1538 took a HUGE risk in picking them anyway, and it payed off in the first two rounds. But that's where it ended. Nothing more to see; one team felt they could fix a broken robot with potential and picked it regardless. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
The existence of a thread like this is necessary. Otherwise, there would be no shame in the very unprofessional and irresponsible acts that have been accused. If the acts were dishonest, then I hope that discussions like these make the perpetrators realize they aren't more clever than the community.
I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, it just doesn't make sense that you would spend all the effort to tell 15 teams not to select you, but that you would accept if selected. When I heard about the incident on Saturday afternoon, the first comment I had was about how illogical this was, and this explanation confirms that. I think a lot of people feel as if nothing has been resolved. That's okay though, see my first paragraph. This shouldn't actually concern most people. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Here's a hypothetical for the doubters. And I'd appreciate it if you'd actually really consider it. If this exact same situation happened, but the team in question was team 5592 or 30XX or something, would we still be having an argument over them sandbagging their way to the #1 seed? Or would we have accepted the explanation that they thought they were broken and noncompetitive, but managed to pull off some highly impressive repairs over lunch? |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Im going to add my 2 cents quik.
I may not be correct but I was hanging out around 217s pit after alliance selections and they seemed to be working really hard on their robot. My team was once put in s situation in 2012 at the Buckeye regional. At a previous regional our joystick failed and it cost us a regional win(possibly). This problem reoccoured at Buckeye where we told teams to be cautious if they picked us as we may not work in elims. We were picked by the number one alliance who we told the same thing too. they had some of the same controls and some of the same mentors and they were able to add some assisance. We ended up dying part way through a match but luckily, I , the driver was able to quickly get the joystick back working. So before calling this team ungraciously Professional put yourself in your shoes. I think they did the right thing |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
The only alternative to starting a thread about the situation would be to leave Champs suspecting some of the best teams around of using underhanded techniques in order to win, allowing that impression to sit there and fester, and ultimately having a negative impact on anyone involved (in terms of reputation, outlook, and possible future actions by teams who suspected the worst). For those who weren't in the division and weren't in the elims against this alliance, consider what they heard and saw. 217 told them they were broken, couldn't be fixed in time, and not to pick them. Then they saw them then get picked as a third robot for the #1 alliance. Their very first match in elims, they shoot in autonomous, seem to drive just fine, and proceed to do some full court shooting to feed their alliance members. It's extremely easy to jump to the conclusion that something fishy was going on, and many people did. While many of us here on CD know about the best teams and individuals in FIRST and would give them the benefit of the doubt, a large part of the FIRST community doesn't. It's important for us, as a community to occasionally have discussions like this that bring us back to the question "What is Gracious Professionalism?" Would it be declining any and all alliance invitations if you were in 217's shoes? Would it be picking a team that just broke, with the intention of helping them get fixed so they can perform in the elimination matches? Would it be digging into the facts of a situation before passing judgement on another team? This situation, and this thread gives us an amazing opportunity to constructively discuss one of the core principles of FIRST. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I was our mentor/coach that the Thunder Chickens spoke to during the Newton qualifiers. Our team (3997 - the Screaming Chickens) were ranked fourth in the Newton division. I had been talking to one of the volunteers that is related to them through out the competition and had mentioned that a completely "Chicken" alliance would be fun. When they approached us they stated they were damaged from a fall in the practice field and where facing a serious rebuild challenge. They did not say to not choose them. They did not say could not make it back. However, they did say that they wanted us to know about their situation before we made any decisions. I can not speak to what they may have stated to other teams, but I figured it was worth stating that they did not directly tell us to not pick them.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
If team 3XXX were at the center of this, and they were good enough to be MSC champs, then of course it'd be a big deal! I don't have any reason to favor/spite 217. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
THIS IS MY OPINION, NOT MY TEAM'S.
tl;dr: 1538 may have picked 217 over us to increase their chance of winning chairmans. There is another factor not being considered, chairmans. I personally believe that 217 told the first seed alliance not to pick them, and did it strongly. 217 was 2 and 6, in 81st place, there was not much reason (that I can see) to pick them, however they ended up picking them anyways. They had 2 amazing floor pick ups and a great climber, they needed someone to get discs to them quickly, likely a FCS. The curie high score was set by 1538 and us, a FCS. They picked 217 for their FCS, in the one match i watched, they got 15 discs out and made 4 of them. I personally (not my team's opinion, just mine) think that they may have chose them over us because of chairmans, if they had picked us, we would've likely won the division, and possibly more. We have a very strong chairmans team, but this year and quite a few prior, we have not been anywhere near as good robot-wise as 1538, 1114 and the prior winners. If they had picked us, and we had got to Einstein and further, the chairman's award would've been even closer than I'm sure it already was. I have no idea if this was actually their logic, but I can't find another reason for them to pick 217 over us. Anyways, Thanks for that fun 8th match, 1538. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Edit: the above beat me to it :)
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
From a data / scouting performance standpoint, I didn't think 217 was a good pick. I've seen this happen in years past as well, i.e. 'Team 1234 has been here before and knows how to win.' I've never drafted using that logic and I guess I just don't understand it. I'd like to hear more on how that thinking has influenced other team's draft picks at other events, or at this year's Championships. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Yeah, At regionals, districts and MSC/MAR, there are many fewer robots qualifying for elims and the tournaments in general, it probably isn't much of a factor at them, however, at worlds you have 96 teams in elims. Has there ever been a chairman's winner not in division elims?
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
This has been an interesting read...
I myself am not surprised at the ability to fix a robot post quals and before elims. Heck in 2011, 1114 and 294's pit crews completely ripped off 294's mini bot deployer, attached 1114's backup deployer. rewrote deployment code and got reinspected... so amazing feats like this are the best part of working with amazing teams in crunch time. So given that I am sure 217 and the Cows could have pulled off a minor miracle. But back to the point I wanted to make. Since my team wasn't there pretty much all the information I have seen is coming from CD. But one very interesting point that I can infer from this discussion is that the real crux of what seems to be the problem is the fact that the information given to all the teams was not interpreted the same. So even though Paul in all good faith was trying to tell each team the same thing. Not everyone interpreted it the same. Essentially Paul was saying "X" Some teams inferred "Y" But the Cows inferred "Z". Its a classic communications gap. So not saying Paul is in the wrong, but one of that hardest things to do is providing all the teams an accurate state of 217's robot. From what I have been able to read on CD just by saying "take us off your list we are broken.. or automatic backup robot", this in and of itself generates ambiguity. It does not answer the key question that many teams may have. Namely. 1) Will you decline if picked?. 2) Can we try to fix you if we pick you? Rather it was left for teams to infer that either they were broken or not pickable. This I believe was the cause of frustration, especially since the Cows reasoned to a different conclusion. So given all of this. I actually think the true lesson is (in case you are in the unfortunate position that Paul was put in) the message needs to be extremely clear. Essentially.. "We are Broken and will decline all invitations", "we are broken, but are willing to help the alliance if picked. Please come and look at our robot so you can see the extent of our damage so you can make an assessment" (letting other people see allows for clear and open discussion) Bottom line. A very tough position for 217 and Paul to be in. I am sure he did his best to convey to everyone the same message. It is a bummer that people felt bad about what happened. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
This thread is just driving me nuts.... now I feel like going back to mentoring FLL, just let your team do the best and be content with it...win or lose its your own doing.
BTW if the alliance had won the division, everyone would be praising the alliance captain 1538 for their gutsy move. They took a chance and it did not pay-off. Even if the had picked the best team available, was their any guarantee that their robot will not breakdown in the first match? PLEASE give a break to this alliance.::ouch:: |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
On behalve of our robot, Bryce, I am sorry but we did not make the selection process this year. This happens! It has nothing to do with awards or because we wear green or anything like that. Our robot just simply did not fit into everyone's strategy and the teams on the field did not seem to have a need for us. As simple as that. 217 has proven at the MSC that their robot is capable of winning championships and if other teams choose to recognize it than that is just good scouting on their part. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Chairman's Awards at Regional or Championship levels have nothing to do with robot performance.
Also, by the time Division elimination rounds happen, CCA is decided. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Everyone should keep in mind that this also brings in to question the integrity of 1538, a team that just won Champion Chairman's Award. That doesn't exactly nullify this argument, but it definitely makes it seem pretty ridiculous to me. 1538, 1986, and 217 have at least earned the benefit of the doubt and a little bit of grace. I think 217's alliance should release a statement (if they haven't already), we should take their word for it, and then we should all move on.
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
From what I've gathered, the conversations that 217 had with alliance captains went something like this:
"Listen, we're in a very bad spot right now and if you pick us, we probably won't be able to help your alliance very much. If you do pick us, we will try our best to get everything repaired but we can't make any promises. There are other teams out there that can help you more than we can right now." If this is the case, then I don't see any problem with it. 1538 decided it was worth the gamble and picked 217. They got the robot up and running, but continued to have problems throughout elims. I think that it is unfortunate that teams feel uncomfortable with how the whole situation played out. Perhaps we can discuss ways to approach this situation to ensure that teams don't feel misdirected afterward? |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
I'm sure Paul told every team the same thing, whatever that may have been, and he was 100% honest about it. And yes teams took that statement different ways. Bottom line if you ruled this team out without ever walking by their pit and seeing what was going on there is no one to blame but yourself here. Maybe Paul told teams they couldn't be fixed because he didn't have the necessary parts to make repairs. But if you had asked them and discovered that all they needed were two parts you had sitting in your pit would you have ruled them out so fast? Bottom line here scouting isn't over till your done picking. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
*Sigh*
What a crazy thread. I feel terrible for 1538 and that there has to be any talk about them after championship that is not related to there amazing feat at worlds this year. Congratulations on being our 2013 Hall of Fame team. It is a honor that is truly hard to come by. As for 217, come on my peeps! This team rocks! I remember there was a Michigan FLL team called the Crazy Colorful Chickens and in just reminded me about how awesome having the word "Chicken" in your team makes you. I'm sorry that there is all this craziness surrounding you guys. You were amazing at MSC. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
|
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
To Jeff, Arron and the rest of Team 1986 - It was an honor working with you guys. You guys were incredibly professional and we enjoyed every second of working with you guys. You're clearly a program with a huge upward trajectory and have been for many years. I can't wait to see what the future has in store for you guys. Congrats on the three regional wins this year - a feat which is extremely difficult to pull off. Too bad we couldn't help win a 4th (and maybe even 5th) banner for you guys. To Paul and the rest of Team 217 - All of 1538 has an deep respect for you guys. We've competed with and against each other over the years and we were excited to finally be behind the same driver station as you during the elims at championships. We were oh so close, too bad we couldn't have pulled out those last two wins and made it to Einstein. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I'm as cynical as they come, but to me this looks like a communication issue. Some teams in the division, including presumably those the OP of this thread and the other one are on, took 217's message as "We're totally broken, you should definitely not pick us". 1538, at least, took the message as "We're broken right now, and you probably shouldn't pick us". Why was that? Who knows - different interpretations of the same statement, different people from 217 spreading it, the pits being really loud, etc., etc. As much as part of me would like to think it's intentional, there are enough reasonable explanations by reasonable people around here that I don't think it is.
Lessons learned - before you cross a good team off your list, or add a potentially broken one to it, learn as much about their situation as possible. Don't go off one person's word, no matter who it is. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I'm curious if any of the alliances that feel slighted would have selected 217 knowing what they know now? If no, then why feel slighted?
I find this situation particularly difficult since I can't think of a more appropriate course of action than what Paul took. If we had a robot that had broken prior to elims (and in our estimation couldn't be fixed) I'd sure let other teams know about it. If at that point someone picked us anyways, then at least the team made an informed decision. Who are we to give anything but our best when put in that situation? Weird how good intentions can end up so distorted... |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
If you doubt a decision can be made about the health of robot late in alliance selections, this happened at the 2010 Los Angeles Regional:
In the second last qual match, a robot broke off a front wheel assembly after landing awkwardly coming off a bump. It really looked bad, as the wheel flailed around - just held to the robot by its drive belt. Most teams wrote the robot off as DOA, but the team went back to the pit to repair the robot. A mentor from first pick of the #3 alliance saw the robot could be fixed, and rushed to the field just in time to select that team to round out their alliance. The #3 alliance made it to the finals, losing to the #1 alliance in four tough, exciting matches (first one was a tie). Team 980 was most grateful to Teams 294 and 968 for taking a chance by picking us. What a wild, emotional ride for our team! |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
This seems like an obvious answer, but as some people are still asking the question maybe it isn't. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
That said, I didn't find what Paul said at all unclear. (I was with 2054 at the time, queued for our last qual.) Particularly the 'if you pick us, it's an automatic backup bot' part makes Alan's reasoning entirely sound. What I am curious about, entirely separate from the whole eliminations thing in general, is what on Earth was broken that 217 thought it was time to close up shop. They're basically my build gods (like, I worship to them when I can't figure out how to CAD something). It must have been carnage. I am now more terrified of us falling than I even was before. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
Quote:
Now if you say in your announcement to teams that you are broken but will accept in hopes of getting the robot fixed in time, that is different. I was not in my teams pits when Paul came and told my team, even though we were not in the top 15, so I don't know what he exactly said. Paul has addressed it and so has members of 1538 and 1986, I feel the topic of blaming/accusing them is over. People should now talk about how to handle these situations in the future, because it will happen again, it just might not be a big name team like 217. |
Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
I appreciate this from the perspective of a learning scouter. Our team just completed our 7th season and it's only been in the last two that we've truly begun any real scouting effort, which is how long I've been involved. It's my personal favorite hat to wear and I want to learn all I can. So thank you for sharing the thought process. I'm finding it absolutely amazing how many different ways of thinking and how many different alliance-building strategies there can be.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:34. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi