Chief Delphi
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128421)

Gdeaver 02-04-2014 17:01
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Thank you Siri for pointing out the toll this game has taken from the volunteers who are the life blood of this franchise. Plain and simple First screwed the pooch this year and has caused serious damage. That aside regardless of the problems of the game I feel that our team's goal of preparing our kids for a tech future have been met. We built a robot to play the game, worked thru some major people problems, taught them to work together as a team, and lastly they found methods and ways to deal with and play the game and win. Not our best year but some good life experiences have occurred on our team. Yes, First corporate you screwed up. Don't sugar coat it with stats and believe your own PR. Don't do it again next year.

wilsonmw04 02-04-2014 17:18
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
All this doom and gloom reminds of those foreseeing FTC's destruction after the FVC split. Every one needs to reevaluate why they are raging right now. so much rage and so little perspective. Sounds like some folks need to spend some time relaxing with family and get away from robots for a while.

IndySam 02-04-2014 18:02
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1368535)
All this doom and gloom reminds of those foreseeing FTC's destruction after the FVC split. Every one needs to reevaluate why they are raging right now. so much rage and so little perspective. Sounds like some folks need to spend some time relaxing with family and get away from robots for a while.
I really don't know where your getting this "rage" thing from. People have strong feelings about something they care deeply for but I haven't seen any rage a little anger maybe but no "rage." Saying people have so little perspective is condescending and not at all helpful.

Folks have a right to express their feelings about something they have pored thousands of hours and countless dollars on.

magnets 02-04-2014 18:55
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
I'm not angry. I'm really sad. In the past 5 years or so, FIRST has lost so many great people like Woodie Flowers/Dave Lavery (from GDC) and Bill Miller and key members of the FIRST community like Karthik, Paul Copioli, and Jim Zondag have all expressed frustration with how the season is going. Tons of refs are unhappy. Most of the times when teams are eliminated, they leave, not happy that they're out, but they aren't really mad. This year, teams are angry and bitter because of their losses. Teams that seed first in small events are angry that they're third robot is a box on wheels, and can't beat the number 8 alliance. The combination of incorrect scoring, pointless penalties (1114 in SF in Waterloo), incorrect calling of fouls, and field issues doesn't inspire anybody. FIRST's survey (that they used to convince themselves they hadn't failed) doesn't accurately represent the quality of the game. If you went to the Olympics, and 10 countries didn't place in an event because of a scoring issue, then it wouldn't be a very good game, even if the other 100 countries all thought it was fair.

I am super, super frustrated about a few issues. Making major changes to the game at this point would only make people more upset. However, the lack of fixes for the field is just unacceptable.

We payed many thousands of dollars to put up with the incompetence of the FMS developer. Creating a device which turns on one light for 5 seconds, and then another light for 5 seconds is really simple. So is turning on a colored light when somebody pushes a button. If FIRST doesn't have the resources to do this with the over complicated field system, then use a light switch or a simple timing circuit. Expecting one second accuracy for a timed competition is not unreasonable. I had the opportunity to use a referee tablet this weekend. It is awful. I pity the refs who put up with them. There is a several second delay on the tablet for the screen to respond, an additional delay for the green dots on the field video display to appear, and an additional 10 seconds for the goal lights to turn on.

The tablets worked just fine in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Why did they have to ruin them this year?

Siri 02-04-2014 19:08
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1368535)
All this doom and gloom reminds of those foreseeing FTC's destruction after the FVC split. Every one needs to reevaluate why they are raging right now. so much rage and so little perspective. Sounds like some folks need to spend some time relaxing with family and get away from robots for a while.
I'm not sure who's raging, but I will point out that while it didn't "destruct", FTC really didn't recover from that split in terms of number of teams and events. (A member of FTC HQ actually pointed out to us when we started our FTC team--her answer to our very-late KoP arrival was that they couldn't compete with VEX. No, really.) The point being that FIRST is fallible, and if you consider trying to bring issues to light to be "raging"... well then yes, I'm raging in the hopes that we as a FIRST community (including HQ) can overcome these challenges.

I haven't seen anyone predicting a raging self-destruct here. I haven't even seen anyone saying this game will have a long-term negative affect on FIRST. I have seen many people saying that these problems are detrimental and they need to be identified, root-caused and addressed rather than perpetuated for the good of the community. To that end, some of what we have now is purely complaining (I personally don't have an issue with this), some of it's already constructive, and much of the complaining can help inform construction.

Kevin Sevcik 02-04-2014 20:03
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1368535)
Sounds like some folks need to spend some time relaxing with family and get away from robots for a while.
Not to be flip about it, but i think some of us are explicitly worried about this happening. If we told the refs and volunteers that have been dealing with this game and field that next year is going to be another 6 weeks of marginally operable scoring software and an impossible number of fouls to track, i think a distressing number of them might decide that a relaxing weekend at home is much better idea than volunteering.

GaryVoshol 02-04-2014 22:13
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets (Post 1368568)
The tablets worked just fine in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Why did they have to ruin them this year?
I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.

Anupam Goli 02-04-2014 22:53
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1368648)
I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.
Perhaps this game is exposing flaws in the tablet system that were never caught during testing or the past couple of years.

Dale 03-04-2014 00:33
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
There have been a lot of good comments here and I hope the GDC is watching and learning from this year. I know from experience in designing the BunnyBot game each year that game design is a tough, under appreciated, time consuming job.

One thing I would like to add for future games is to keep an eye on safety. What kind or robots are teams likely to build? This year's game is a scary one from the standpoint of the potential energy stored in many of these catapult mechanisms. Sure teams are required to have safety straps and locks but it's all too easy to forget to put them in place when making "one quick fix.". Someone could get seriously hurt this year.

Citrus Dad 03-04-2014 01:29
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1368442)
You're aware that yesterday was April 1st, right?
Oh, right....:o

mutantlog 03-04-2014 10:09
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1368596)
Not to be flip about it, but i think some of us are explicitly worried about this happening. If we told the refs and volunteers that have been dealing with this game and field that next year is going to be another 6 weeks of marginally operable scoring software and an impossible number of fouls to track, i think a distressing number of them might decide that a relaxing weekend at home is much better idea than volunteering.
As someone who gets involved with FIRST once a year to referee, I'm happy to identify myself as someone who would stay home. I've already said elsewhere on here that I plan to review the rules before signing up in VIMS next year. I'd like to earn my 10 year service pin next year, but if I look at the rules and get the same feeling in my gut that I did when I read this year's rules, I'd seriously think twice, and I can't imagine that's a desirable outcome for FIRST.

magnets 03-04-2014 16:41
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1368648)
I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.
To be totally honest, I didn't use a 2012 or 2013 tablet, so I have no idea. I agree with your comment that previous games didn't rely on the responsiveness of the tablet. But I know that the 2011 tablets were about 1 second latency between your touch and the tube changing on the tablet screen.

mathking 03-04-2014 19:14
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1368648)
I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.
Honestly I think this might have been the most universal frustration with the game. In trying to brainstorm rule changes for our off season competition, one of the things we thought of was placing the onus on teams to get it right. If you put the ball in play before the other one scores its a technical foul. Pedestal issues were certainly the reason for the majority of the replays I have seen. I used the panels in 2011, 2012 and 2014, and the response time was about the same in all three.

jlindquist74 04-04-2014 02:04
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets (Post 1368923)
To be totally honest, I didn't use a 2012 or 2013 tablet, so I have no idea. I agree with your comment that previous games didn't rely on the responsiveness of the tablet. But I know that the 2011 tablets were about 1 second latency between your touch and the tube changing on the tablet screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking (Post 1368979)
I used the panels in 2011, 2012 and 2014, and the response time was about the same in all three.
I know I'm not the only software engineer in the house. That this problem continues to exist... does anyone else find that professionally offensive? Look at the FMS, look at the tablet application, look at the tablet OS. Allen-Bradley HQ is a short drive from the Wisconsin Regional. I would've asked for a couple panel engineers to come out on practice day to observe and investigate if I had indications the OS was the bottleneck. We owe all of our kids (and everyone else's) better than this.

(Software's so wonderful. There's so many ways to Do It Wrong™!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek R (Post 1368110)
When I play soccer, I don't show up on Saturday and take the pitch with 10 random other people. Tell me one, since you claim "most," legitimate sport in which you have random teammates.
That's no bug. That's a beautiful FIRST feature I point out to others. You have to be ready to collaborate with strangers. Even better, you have to do it when you know you'll play against them in the next game. They'll know your weaknesses and strategies, and you still do it. Being bossy or arrogant will not serve you well here.

Sports is sports. FRC is FRC. We must be cautious about making either more like the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking (Post 1368301)
At the start of the year (and even more after Crossroads) I have felt that what is needed are dedicated scorekeepers, so that a few more eyes are watching the match and the referees are focusing on fouls and not scoring.
But this is where it's needed. As scorekeeper for football, basketball, and lacrosse, I cannot see everything that happens on the field. The action is too fast, with too many actors over too wide an area. (Just like FRC!) My focus has to stay with the ball. I can't credit points, tackles, or assists properly if I'm looking for holding or fouls off the ball. The stripes don't do my job, and I don't do theirs.

Side note: I bought an iPad to develop scorekeeping software... using other people's software showed me what a bad idea this is. I have to look at the screen to be sure I touch the right spot, which means I'm not watching the action anymore. Give me something tactile, whether it's a keyboard or a button pad, that lets me keep my eye on the ball.


There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

We've had a couple of bad days. Our robot broke down, or came up short. We rose in the standings but didn't get picked at alliance selection. Our Chairman's presentation got lousy marks. I didn't downplay that. I just told them that the joys and pains of winning and losing would fade over time, and pale next to the memory of the camaraderie of the weekend... the makeovers, the games of Spaceteam in the airport, or Cards Against Humanity in the hotel lobby. The mechanical and cooperative skills they build will carry them through their professional lives.

Winning still matters. And losing still hurts. And some people should be happy I don't have video of them getting hit in the junk by the launch spring during build season. Because man, that was priceless...

wilsonmw04 04-04-2014 06:30
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlindquist74 (Post 1369111)

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it.
I must have no credibility at all with my team. Maybe I don't get it. We had an over all losing record this year. When I look at kid's faces, they don't give a rip about that. I see excitement about the next event and talking about improvements for next year. Winning is nice, but that is not the reason I do what I do. Yeah, maybe I just don't get this competition thing.

scooty199 04-04-2014 06:56
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlindquist74 (Post 1369111)
I know I'm not the only software engineer in the house. That this problem continues to exist... does anyone else find that professionally offensive? Look at the FMS, look at the tablet application, look at the tablet OS. Allen-Bradley HQ is a short drive from the Wisconsin Regional. I would've asked for a couple panel engineers to come out on practice day to observe and investigate if I had indications the OS was the bottleneck. We owe all of our kids (and everyone else's) better than this.

(Software's so wonderful. There's so many ways to Do It Wrong™!)



That's no bug. That's a beautiful FIRST feature I point out to others. You have to be ready to collaborate with strangers. Even better, you have to do it when you know you'll play against them in the next game. They'll know your weaknesses and strategies, and you still do it. Being bossy or arrogant will not serve you well here.

Sports is sports. FRC is FRC. We must be cautious about making either more like the other.



But this is where it's needed. As scorekeeper for football, basketball, and lacrosse, I cannot see everything that happens on the field. The action is too fast, with too many actors over too wide an area. (Just like FRC!) My focus has to stay with the ball. I can't credit points, tackles, or assists properly if I'm looking for holding or fouls off the ball. The stripes don't do my job, and I don't do theirs.

Side note: I bought an iPad to develop scorekeeping software... using other people's software showed me what a bad idea this is. I have to look at the screen to be sure I touch the right spot, which means I'm not watching the action anymore. Give me something tactile, whether it's a keyboard or a button pad, that lets me keep my eye on the ball.


There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

We've had a couple of bad days. Our robot broke down, or came up short. We rose in the standings but didn't get picked at alliance selection. Our Chairman's presentation got lousy marks. I didn't downplay that. I just told them that the joys and pains of winning and losing would fade over time, and pale next to the memory of the camaraderie of the weekend... the makeovers, the games of Spaceteam in the airport, or Cards Against Humanity in the hotel lobby. The mechanical and cooperative skills they build will carry them through their professional lives.

Winning still matters. And losing still hurts. And some people should be happy I don't have video of them getting hit in the junk by the launch spring during build season. Because man, that was priceless...
Agree with this entirely.

I think Herm Edwards agrees as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

mathking 04-04-2014 09:04
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlindquist74 (Post 1369111)
There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.
Saying that winning is not the goal is not the same things as saying winning doesn't matter. De-emphasizing winning is an expression you used, but saying to de-emphasize winning you have to make in mean nothing is a false dichotomy. The original post of this thread started a discussion about whether people had buyer's remorse for this season. Meaning are you unhappy that you decided to participate? I suspect that there are a great many students unhappy with how the season ended up for there team who are nonetheless very happy they participated.

If we define our goal as winning, then almost every team at every competition is going to fail. When I say winning is not the goal of FIRST I mean just that. The goal is changing the culture. That is a goal at which a lot more teams can succeed. Winning is certainly something to strive for. I would even argue that if you are not trying to win the game on the field then you are going to have a harder time inspiring students. But they way you say "They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win." brings that dichotomy back.

A decade and a half of FIRST experience, two and a half decades as a coach and my own experience in athletics tells me there are going to be kids on just about every team that are participating for other reasons than winning. Sometimes that is very hard for me as a coach. I am by nature very competitive, but I have to remember that I am there for the kids. They are not there for me to live vicariously through them. We had about 170 kids on our cross country team this past season. Only one of them ever won race, and he only won one race. Our girls team did not win a single meet. But our season was certainly not a failure and the kids did not feel that the season was a failure. I know some coaches who would (and do) consider such seasons as failures. And they are the ones who feel unhappy most of the time. Always chasing the once a while season when you win a lot.

Yes, if you are not sincere, your students are going to read it in an instant. So you need to be sincere. I have missed a top 8 position at the Championships by a half an inch. I have been on what should have been the winning alliance at Buckeye and had our robot KOd by the faulty CAN connections of the Jaguars. I have missed qualifying for the state cross country meet by a single place of a single runner. I have had a dead spot in an arena floor turn running out the final few seconds of a basketball title into a game winning layup by the other team. I have had an athlete run her personal best time at the state meet, lead her team to its best finish in a decade but miss making the top 15 podium by one spot. Its not that those things don't hurt. They do. But part of my job as a coach is to make kids realize not winning is not the same thing as failing.

The point is that if you let these negatives define the experience the kids will also define the experience this way. Sometimes you do your absolute best and you don't win. If winning is the goal then you have failed in the endeavor. If winning is something you strive for in order to achieve the goal of inspiring kids to change the world, then you can succeed even when you don't win.

mathking 04-04-2014 09:08
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1369131)
I must have no credibility at all with my team. Maybe I don't get it. We had an over all losing record this year. When I look at kid's faces, they don't give a rip about that. I see excitement about the next event and talking about improvements for next year. Winning is nice, but that is not the reason I do what I do. Yeah, maybe I just don't get this competition thing.
This. Very nice post.

FrankJ 04-04-2014 09:30
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Full disclosure: I am one of the one that doesn't see winning the robot competition as the primary goal of First.

The more the rules shift so that there is parity in the robots the more there is going to be an element of luck in winning. Like it or not parity seems to be a goal of the GDC. This year if you could build a good robot, develop a good drive team, & have good scouting, you have a pretty chance at winning. (Of course the teams that build uber robots tend to have good drive team & scouting)

The biggest issue in not winning is the ticket to worlds. I can see how teams can have losing, and not getting that ticket, hinge on a bad call or poorly thought out rules being very upsetting. Which I think is the major point of this now 8 page thread.

mathking 04-04-2014 10:10
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Frank, I think you are probably right. And I don't think it is unfair to ask for a game design which minimizes those kinds of issues. I think there have been other games where the issues about correct scoring were just as serious (such as the minibot towers in 2011, so the automatic scoring last year meaning you couldn't really tell how many points you and your opponent had) but in those games one really good robot could dominate the game, so there were more teams who could overcome the problems so the "better" robot won.

Lil' Lavery 04-04-2014 10:24
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlindquist74 (Post 1369111)
When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win.
That simply isn't true for many teams. There are plenty of teams who are well aware that they aren't going to bulid the best robot in the competition, and they may be better suited not focusing on the primary scoring objective. You hear it all the time in strategy and design presentations, that many teams should focus on doing one task well, especially a complimentary task (like inboudning or passing this year), than trying to do everything. Yet there are plenty of teams who eschew this advice, not because their own hubris, but because they enjoy the engineering challenge, enjoy lofty goals, and want to build a machine that can achive the difficult objectives, regardless of whether or not it will be one of the best on the field.

This year, my team did go simple. We opted for a complimentary design focused on inbounding, passing, defense, and maybe catching. We did that because we wanted to be competitive at all of our events, so we could reach MAR championship. But that hasn't always been our design goal, and that's certainly not the driving force behind all the students on my team or other teams. I've seen a multitude of students who'd rather build a "cool" robot than a winning one. They wanted mecanum wheels and turreted shooters, even if they rarely possess the strategic value on the field to be make them worth the investment in the build season. I've met plenty of mentors who'd rather design for a difficult challenge, knowing we may fail, than tackle a simpler challenge that we know we can accomplish. These aren't lesser motivations, they're just different motivations. Winning is not everyone's ultimate goal, and it's not the only way to foster a culture that appreciates science and technology.

Siri 04-04-2014 10:55
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1369162)
...But that hasn't always been our design goal, and that's certainly not the driving force behind all the students on my team or other teams. I've seen a multitude of students who'd rather build a "cool" robot than a winning one. They wanted mecanum wheels and turreted shooters, even if they rarely possess the strategic value on the field to be make them worth the investment in the build season...
I agree with you completely, but I think your argument misses part of their statement (perhaps an subconscious/inadvertent part). Specifically, "when you tell your kids"...So if they tell you, the issue is moot. More power to them! But if you're trying to dictate to them, it can cone across as heavy-handed and contrived. We can want what we want, we can try to explain alternative approaches, but in then end the goal is theirs. Of course, this also means we can't afford to the reverse: force it to be about winning when that's not what students care about-we can't assume student motivations (making intra-student disagreements tricky).

Tim Lehmann4967 04-04-2014 11:09
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastonevich (Post 1368054)
I would like to see rookies and perhaps 2nd year teams have an extra week of build season after bag night for veterans so that veteran teams would have more opportunity to help without loss of their own build time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastonevich (Post 1368084)
Personally I really like that idea. It would be one solution to the problem for sure. I can only imagine the discussion if it were to be implemented however.
Concerning this subject, rookies already get a handicap with 10 extra points, and a multitude of grants available. Giving more help to these teams would increase their competitiveness even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1368228)
Something like: 4967 (who won Gull Lake as #2 seed) clearly doesn't need more time, why should we give them more time? :rolleyes:
We would gladly accept extra time, but in the spirit of FIRST, I feel that giving all teams equal time is best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart2054 (Post 1368370)
I am well aware of 4967 since we played with them and they are very good but I also think they are more the exception than the rule. Most rookie teams would benefit from some help from veteran teams and I would submit the veteran teams that helped out would also benefit by seeing new ideas that might be able to be implemented or gain a strategy they had not thought of.
To preface this statement, many teams believe we have a veteran team mentoring us, we do not. The most FRC experience we have on our team is a student with 1 1/2 years of business team experience. Beyond that, I do think your idea would be beneficial to both the veteran and rookie team involved. However, as I stated earlier, it would be giving even more of a handicap to rookie teams.

mathking 04-04-2014 11:14
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1369169)
I agree with you completely, but I think your argument misses part of their statement (perhaps an subconscious/inadvertent part). Specifically, "when you tell your kids"...So if they tell you, the issue is moot. More power to them! But if you're trying to dictate to them, it can cone across as heavy-handed and contrived. We can want what we want, we can try to explain alternative approaches, but in then end the goal is theirs. Of course, this also means we can't afford to the reverse: force it to be about winning when that's not what students care about-we can't assume student motivations (making intra-student disagreements tricky).
I agree, but I don't think Sean missed anything. There a middle ground between the students telling you what they want and you trying to force them to want what you want. If my students see me getting enraged by something that happened on the field, it will influence how they see it. If they hear me be upbeat after losing a match it will influence how they react. As mentors we need to be good role models for students. Because like it or not, we will be role models.

Siri 04-04-2014 13:19
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking (Post 1369179)
I agree, but I don't think Sean missed anything. There a middle ground between the students telling you what they want and you trying to force them to want what you want. If my students see me getting enraged by something that happened on the field, it will influence how they see it. If they hear me be upbeat after losing a match it will influence how they react. As mentors we need to be good role models for students. Because like it or not, we will be role models.
Absolutely. I think I'm just trying to distinguish between modeling and lecturing. "It's not about winning" is indeed a very pat line that tends to get written off in places where the team culture isn't already aligned to it by/with student support (at which time the line is superfluous).

Just a note, rookies only get extra points in Districts. For thr majority outside of MAR/FiM/PNW/NE, rookies are teams that can get HRS, RAS and RI.

nlknauss 04-04-2014 14:20
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Answering the question from the OP, do I have buyer's remorse?

The answer is no. My mind is always open to whatever game FRC has up it's sleeve going into kickoff. Yes, the game is a part of the product FIRST produces but we are ultimately producing our own product through the robot we build and the experience our students and mentors receive.

At this point in the season I can state that we have successfully took our students through an engineering design problem, that we are leaving the season knowing more than what we went in with, that many individuals have grown, and that we had fun doing it all. I've had plenty of personal conversations about this year's game and have opinions on it but it doesn't effect what we are trying to do on our team. Trust me, we design and prepare with hopes of winning and doing the best we can but there's only so much I can control. We've accomplished everything we can control, so no buyers remorse here.

Mr V 04-04-2014 15:04
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlknauss (Post 1369237)
Answering the question from the OP, do I have buyer's remorse?

The answer is no. My mind is always open to whatever game FRC has up it's sleeve going into kickoff. Yes, the game is a part of the product FIRST produces but we are ultimately producing our own product through the robot we build and the experience our students and mentors receive.

At this point in the season I can state that we have successfully took our students through an engineering design problem, that we are leaving the season knowing more than what we went in with, that many individuals have grown, and that we had fun doing it all. I've had plenty of personal conversations about this year's game and have opinions on it but it doesn't effect what we are trying to do on our team. Trust me, we design and prepare with hopes of winning and doing the best we can but there's only so much I can control. We've accomplished everything we can control, so no buyers remorse here.
Well put Nate.

CLandrum3081 04-04-2014 15:44
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Disclaimer: I don't know everything, I don't claim to know everything, and my social skills are horrid. I don't mean to change anyone's opinion. I am just expressing my own in hopes of contributing to the conversation.

I've read all the posts on this thread, most of them by mentors. A lot of you are talking about the outcome on the kids, the whole point of competing, whether or not the competing part is important, and all that. These are topics I've had conversations with others about.

I am a senior this year, meaning that since our team did not make it to World Championships, our last competition was my last competition with my team. This was disappointing - we had a solid design and solid execution, but didn't make the cut. I could go into every reason why, but I'm sure all these reasons have been pointed out by someone else several other places on CD. These issues aren't unique to 2014 - just made worse in 2014.

We never even made it to eliminations, but I do not have buyers' remorse. Yeah, my family paid the activity fee and the cost to travel and all that, and we didn't make it to Champs. Our robot's ranking didn't represent how it truly performed, and that's the risk we take when we attend big regionals with a limited amount of matches. That happens every year one way or another. I feel our 2014 robot was our best in history, yet the year our team went to Champs was 2012. This stuff happens.

Not only do I not have buyers' remorse, but it would be immature of me to have it. I have already admitted my disappointment, but that's no reason to regret the time, money, and hours put into the robot and into FIRST.

Reasons I don't have buyers' remorse:
1. Participation in FIRST inspired me to major in Electrical Engineering
2. Such inspiration has led me to work harder in school, and I'm going to college almost entirely on a scholarship as a result
3. My technical knowledge and social/leadership skills have improved beyond what I can even express
4. This program has inspired my mother - the most technically limited and un-STEM-oriented person in the world - to volunteer at competitions in 2015 (yes, she knows what volunteers have been put through this year). She's seen how the program has changed my life, and wants to help change the lives of other kids.

I am one of the most competitive people I know, and I wouldn't care if we had the best robot and were in last place at every stinking event for the past three years. The four reasons I've stated above (and the many other reasons I haven't listed) are more than enough to limit my concerns with winning.

**WARNING: Below is the most opinionated part of this post.**

As for competition, it is a huge part of FIRST. However, the importance of competition in the program isn't about the win-loss-tie record. It's about teaching students how to compete ethically and healthily - which means taking the losses, identifying where to improve, and moving forward. Winning is nice, but I don't think should always be the goal of competition. It's a nice bonus added to the skills we learn during the competition, and that's what I thought the "C" in FRC was.

However, I'm one of the youngest people posting on this thread, and I don't know everything. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm open to learning, so if anything I've said is offensive/off-colour/etc please let me know. I didn't mean for anything to be offensive, and I'm still learning. I just wanted to contribute by posting my opinion.

Mr V 04-04-2014 17:15
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLandrum3081 (Post 1369259)
Disclaimer: I don't know everything, I don't claim to know everything, and my social skills are horrid. I don't mean to change anyone's opinion. I am just expressing my own in hopes of contributing to the conversation.

I've read all the posts on this thread, most of them by mentors. A lot of you are talking about the outcome on the kids, the whole point of competing, whether or not the competing part is important, and all that. These are topics I've had conversations with others about.

I am a senior this year, meaning that since our team did not make it to World Championships, our last competition was my last competition with my team. This was disappointing - we had a solid design and solid execution, but didn't make the cut. I could go into every reason why, but I'm sure all these reasons have been pointed out by someone else several other places on CD. These issues aren't unique to 2014 - just made worse in 2014.

We never even made it to eliminations, but I do not have buyers' remorse. Yeah, my family paid the activity fee and the cost to travel and all that, and we didn't make it to Champs. Our robot's ranking didn't represent how it truly performed, and that's the risk we take when we attend big regionals with a limited amount of matches. That happens every year one way or another. I feel our 2014 robot was our best in history, yet the year our team went to Champs was 2012. This stuff happens.

Not only do I not have buyers' remorse, but it would be immature of me to have it. I have already admitted my disappointment, but that's no reason to regret the time, money, and hours put into the robot and into FIRST.

Reasons I don't have buyers' remorse:
1. Participation in FIRST inspired me to major in Electrical Engineering
2. Such inspiration has led me to work harder in school, and I'm going to college almost entirely on a scholarship as a result
3. My technical knowledge and social/leadership skills have improved beyond what I can even express
4. This program has inspired my mother - the most technically limited and un-STEM-oriented person in the world - to volunteer at competitions in 2015 (yes, she knows what volunteers have been put through this year). She's seen how the program has changed my life, and wants to help change the lives of other kids.

I am one of the most competitive people I know, and I wouldn't care if we had the best robot and were in last place at every stinking event for the past three years. The four reasons I've stated above (and the many other reasons I haven't listed) are more than enough to limit my concerns with winning.

**WARNING: Below is the most opinionated part of this post.**

As for competition, it is a huge part of FIRST. However, the importance of competition in the program isn't about the win-loss-tie record. It's about teaching students how to compete ethically and healthily - which means taking the losses, identifying where to improve, and moving forward. Winning is nice, but I don't think should always be the goal of competition. It's a nice bonus added to the skills we learn during the competition, and that's what I thought the "C" in FRC was.

However, I'm one of the youngest people posting on this thread, and I don't know everything. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm open to learning, so if anything I've said is offensive/off-colour/etc please let me know. I didn't mean for anything to be offensive, and I'm still learning. I just wanted to contribute by posting my opinion.
Bravo, it certainly wasn't offensive to me and it highlights the reasons I am involved with FIRST and will continue to be as long as I am able.

Caleb Sykes 04-04-2014 17:26
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1369295)
Bravo, it certainly wasn't offensive to me and it highlights the reasons I am involved with FIRST and will continue to be as long as I am able.
+1.

Travis Hoffman 04-04-2014 18:15
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLandrum3081 (Post 1369259)

However, I'm one of the youngest people posting on this thread, and I don't know everything. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm open to learning, so if anything I've said is offensive/off-colour/etc please let me know. I didn't mean for anything to be offensive, and I'm still learning. I just wanted to contribute by posting my opinion.
Catherine:

Your post was excellent, and your opinion valued. Thank you for contributing! :)

I would like to believe few, if any, of the folks expressing concern, frustration, anger, and any other less than satisfied emotions over this game and the support structure designed to administer it at events believe that these negatives are totally ruining student experiences this season. In fact, I believe the kids on my team have had a very productive and enjoyable year learning and growing together, despite the many unwarranted setbacks we've experienced on the field. Personally, away from the field, this has been one of the most fun and satisfying seasons I've spent working alongside a group of Team 48 students in my 14 years on the team!

However, what those expressing dissent DO believe is that we are not getting the same effort out of the governing body of our community that THEY request from us. Teams are encouraged to learn how to become true problem solvers, to use our resources efficiently and wisely, to work harder to acquire and apply additional resources and competency to address areas of weakness, to ITERATE and to CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE.

How can mentors fully drive home the message FIRST intends us to deliver to students when they themselves demonstrate through their inactions very glaring and overt examples of them not operating by the same credo?

The OP and others sharing similar sentiments in this thread wish to get people to understand that it is NOT SIMPLY OK TO SETTLE FOR LESS when we observe that our collective investment of time, energy, and yes, money, is being underappreciated and undermined by the governing body responsible for delivering a fair and PROFESSIONAL competitive experience on the field.

Is it not our obligation as citizens of a nation to question our government officials if we believe they are not efficiently using taxpayer dollars for maximum benefit of the people? As citizens of the FRC community, why should we treat FIRST any differently? Why should we not hold them to the same standard? Why should we allow them to hold themselves to a lesser standard than they encourage teams to achieve?

FIRST CAN do better - they can and should invest more resources into solving these problems that have popped up to varying degrees in years past, but nowhere near as frequently or as severely as the "perfect storm" of troubles observed during this Aerial Assist season. I don't think anyone should feel comfortable accepting anything less than FIRST's very best effort in this regard.

If FIRST does indeed publicly speak out to us and ensure that they are committed to solving these issues, if they develop and share a well thought out plan of improvement, I am fairly certain that frustrated mentors, students, and - perhaps most importantly - key volunteers we are at risk of losing next season will stand behind them, patiently waiting to see what kind of meaningful positive changes they can bring to the overall game experience for next season.

who716 04-04-2014 20:10
Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 
Back in 2012 during rebound rumble, team 716 went undefeated at the granite state regional all through qualifying, the only team to be undefeated when qualifying ended. but yet we were rank number three, due to the coop points. we decided prior to that competition that we are going to go for the win in qualifying, making us go for the colored bridge every match and RELY on our partners to get the coop points. I seriously believe that if we were rank one like we were suppose to be we would have walked away with a blue banner for that competition. I seriously hated how they did the coop bridge that year.
2013 for ultimate accent there was no way to gain and advantage for helping your teammate or the other team. and one robot could win the whole competition on there own(the full court shooter for example) If you weren't a full court shooter this was deffinelty frustrating to play against. But the game in general was decent,

On to this year, what a year and a game it defiantly has its up and downs but I kinda like it. 2014 is my senior year, and our team hasn't won a Blue banner since 08. so of course being the driver I deffinelty want to brink one home. when the game was first revealed im going to be honest I put my head in my hands and said "dang what a game to end the my career as a student on" but after we got the robot built and got to drive it around I realized that dang we got a robot that can do everything in the game fairly good, so going into WPI our first event it was deffinelty a start to a good season as we ended Quals 10-2 number one seed, the two loses we got one was with not the greatest partners and the second our joysticks got messed up which through our alliance off our game as we were the scoring robot. then in elims we were so close to taking the competition literally. made me excited for our second event.

when we got to Hartford it didn't quite go as planned we got stuck with partners that weren't that great, and 50 points fouls cost us two wins, and the shear brutality of the game had us breaking wheels every 3-4 matches (hopefully we fixed that for Boston) we ended ranked 7- pushed up to 5th.

Overall tis game really suites my driving style. fast and technical. We built a great robot and has been having a decent season.

Basically what im saying is the assisting in this game is good when it works great, and annoying when something goes wrong but life is just like that. Luck is a huge part of first and more so this year but that is also similar to life you need luck. The way I see it this game is better then the previous years because it really levels to playing field to almost out smart the large teams. no coop points to mess with the ranking, and im quite happy that my senior year is this year instead of last year :-)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:14.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi