Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

A lot did not go right this year. This was a difficult year for FIRST and definitely something we need to learn from and grow past.

The design of this game, specifically the rules / referring, was not well executed. The GDC seemed to adopt a formula where they create a concept of a game, think of all of the holes that could be punched in it, and "patch" the game with numerous penalties to try and shape the outcome the way they want it. The results were mixed at best. Some penalties left no room for subjectivity and forced referees to penalize teams harshly for inconsequential actions. Other penalties were so subjective that regionals were decided on how that particular head ref felt about that rule that day. As problems were identified, FIRST would fix some and completely ignore others. To this day, you can still damage a robot and end up with a net gain in points. You can still be penalized heavily for partially but not completely breaking. What constitutes "possession" varies wildly event to event.

To make matters worse, the way refereeing was handled was poor at best. This is not to say anything bad about the referees themselves; they did a fine job with what they had to work with in my experience. FIRST just did not think about how the jobs would actually work. In my opinion, what FIRST should have done is had one referee dedicated to tracking the ball of each alliance, recording possessions and zones. The other referees would then be able to completely focus on the other interactions in the game (ideally one interaction ref for each zone plus a head ref). In practice, you had four referees doing double duty as scorekeeper as well as rules arbiter, and consistency of possessions and penalties both suffered as a result.

One problem I do want to touch on, but may have difficulty putting into words well. This is not intended as a call out of any specific person or event, and I'm thankful to not have much if any first hand experience with this sort of thing. This year, there's been an alarming number of reports of teams and volunteers at odds with each other. Among the things I've heard: inspectors telling teams "I'm not the guy you want to p**s off" when asking simple rules questions, referees and event staff routinely making un-challengeable calls without even consulting the teams affected to get their side of the story, judges accusing teams of being "mentor built" when a specific student can't instantly answer a specific question... The list sadly goes on. I don't know how to fix this, or if I just happened to see and hear of it a lot more this year than others, but a lot of volunteers seem to be treating the teams as sneaky enemies looking for any way to game the system. This is bad - we all need to remember that we volunteers are all here to *serve* these teams, and to make the experience of everyone collectively as high quality and fair as possible.

The appeal process for calls needs to be overhauled. Some people and calls simply cannot be appealed in the current rules - for example, no one can ever override the LRI or head referee. These people are human too, and inadvertently make mistakes, and there's nothing teams can do about it other than hope the FTA is calling HQ or something. Even in that situation, twice this year alone teams have dealt with volunteers misrepresenting the problem over the phone to FIRST HQ to get the call they appear to be looking for. (This isn't new to this year, by the way - ask Wisconsin teams in 2010 about power tools...) I recognize life is not fair and that things will not always go the way they should, but some part of this system has to change.

The game design was not bad for high level eliminations; incredibly watchable. However, it was a nightmare for qualifications. Seeding was by and large influenced by strength of schedule heavily this year. In other games you could perform so well that a lack of great partners wasn't a death sentence, but in this game you'll find yourself in situations where there's just nothing you can do at all to win the match. I think this is the inherent down side to a "single game piece" game, which is a shame as single game pieces are much more watchable than a flurry of projectiles can be to the average spectator.

Finally, there is no good reason that fields do not come with webcasting equipment at this point. A GoPro, a fisheye lens, a pole, and a computer. Instant full field view for the Internet. For all the talk of "making it loud", FIRST should stress the importance of broadcasting events to the point that webcasting equipment is a part of the field as much as any other part of it. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even cost that much.

I'm sure I have more that I'm leaving out but I'll leave it at this for now. Overall this year was not so great on FIRST's end of things.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

To expand on this -

Its difficult to 'make it loud' with the webcasts we have running the way the are right now. If I tell some potential sponsor, friend, or even my grandma about this insane competition I'm a part of where robots shoot frisbees or pass balls and score, then I show them a webcast, its not exactly exciting. Michigan probably has the best example of what should be considered the norm. The state of the current webcasts are a turn-off for anyone other then mentors/students that already know whats going on.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Let's see...

-Aerial Assist was a great game dogged by implementation details. I don't think we have to elaborate further on refs, missed assists, fouls, and the like.
-FIRST really needs to put signs up at the key venue entrances: "Come on in! No reserved seating." It was better this year than most, but at crowded venues it's still an issue.
-While we're talking signs, signs pointing teams to the proper sections for Championship fields would be nice. I still have to peep into the seating portals to get my bearings, and I've gone all four years it's been in St. Louis.
-No free corn dogs! :P
-Championship inspection time on Wednesday felt all too brief, but then we were making some significant improvements. Grain of salt there.
-Maybe not a hard negative, but in 2014 we're getting awful used to smartphones. I'd love to see FIRST adopt Spyder or Megaphone (or both!) and get them a better pipeline for data. Or better, get that pipeline out to students to create better ways to display the data.
-I heard mild frustrations over the inspection spec from others, though we weren't as affected. I do think "inflated to size not pressure" as in other years is a better way to go.
-The fewer things that go "to the booth" for rulings from Manchester, the better. It seems like those calls tend to have the worst outcomes (though I may have a skewed sample).

I'm sure some other things will hit me when I've had a full night's sleep, but these are what come to mind right now.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Also, mobile compatible is a must for webcasts, some of us want to watch in school but we can't get through the firewall on our school network.

I disagree with the above. If the LRI or Head Ref aren't labeled the "final authority" the position is meaningless and any team can get a call to Manchester for anything from bumper rules to a missed possession call.

What we need are people in these positions who are willing accept input from their respective crews, not shy to consult HQ when they are unsure of something, and not too proud to overturn their rulings. The people in the building are in the best position to make most tough judgment calls.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I wasn't at CMP sadly(One year there'll be a chance for me to volunteer or mentor a team) but I was at VEX Worlds. I love the webcasts for VEX Worlds and think they're incredibly high-quality. I also like how they have reserved sections for teams and have RECF officials and Anaheim OC event staff enforcing it.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

You have a good point. That said, I think we could find a medium between absolute authority and getting every call appealed constantly. Perhaps some sort of system to reserve these reviews for extraordinary circumstances. At this point, the only people that can initiate a "booth review" are the regional staff, so HQ rarely hears the team's side of the story or point. I think this is what led to the issues at Orlando and SVR.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Since Google is a big sponsor, maybe FIRST could partner with Youtube to allow regionals to be streamed on a consistent video network (that provides options to do HD with minimal Ads!).

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Seriously though, that would be a great way for them to sponsor FIRST, considering that it would essentially be a drop in the bucket for them.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

How do you get past by all the copyrighted songs? I dont want silent FRC streams.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Yeah... Plus I figure they could get the equipment fairly easily (if they don't already have some they could lend out)... Although I do see a possible issue with their internet connections (some of the networks would have a hard time supporting HD feeds, while others could have a separate stream for each cam -- like BuildBlitz did).

Glad to see it just wasn't me & my crappy school internet connection :P Even the NASA TV stream was doing that too (which kinda surprised me).

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Work with youtube? They've only muted like 3-4 of my 100+ videos I uploaded from the KC regional this year.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Just stream the MC microphones.
Any decent audio mixer should have multiple outputs in addition to the main mix. Send a feed with just the MC mics to the steaming equipment, and the full audio to the main mix.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

First Choice. Not the idea, not the selection - both are great. I'll even excuse the issues experienced with 2 site crashes (never did see that report on why, though). But the "OMG Who is faster to the trigger" aspect, making me have to be at a computer at that very instant. It was good that once you 'had' the item it couldn't be taken away, but I think a better system could be devised.

The game, specifically the inconsistent refereeing caused by high referee workload. WAY too much going on to follow easily. I understand that it couldn't really be automated, but way too many matches were won or lost by referee actions.

I am very much against the de-facto extension of the build season by the 45 pound rule (that's a whole robot!). Repair parts are one thing, essentially unlimited upgrades create an uneven playing field for resource-poor teams. In the Crate days, your first event was where you got to see your robot again, so it really really needed to be finished on Ship Day. Not anymore.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I have 2 view points this year 1 was being an alum of a team who made it to Newton, while my other one was being a "mentor" of another team here at my college. This year we finished our second best in team history (26th at KC). I believe this game REALLY benefited those mediocre teams, while hurting those powerhouse teams (like the one I'm an alum of) where they were paired with teams that REALLY hurt them -- although Titanium had a SWEET strategy that I absolutely LOVED where they passed to every team.

The rules DEFINITELY need to be set in stone & all calls need to written down to be set in stone to allow for consistency.