Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   [FRC Blog] We're Listening (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136518)

jman4747 11-04-2015 18:18

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1469242)
Well FIRST has defined what their purpose for championships is and how they want to achieve it. That much is their right. They have asked us to help them make it work and I say we should help.

If you don't think it aligns with your way of inspiring people than I guess FRC isn't for you? Because somehow this just won't inspire any new people ever again?

So I'm going to reiterate this.

FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.

You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.

PS: I'm not (didn't?) say you should quit I said that if it doesn't align with your philosophies then you don't have to stay with the program and complain, though that too is an option (clearly).

piersklein 11-04-2015 19:33

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
As a way of partially fixing this which requires little change: The Winning Alliance from whichever CMP event comes first will be given *free* entrance to the second CMP event where they will play the winning alliance thus crowning a world champion.

Seth Mallory 11-04-2015 19:46

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
I posted this on another thread but it works for here.

As long as FIRST has no touching games like this year then it is just high score wins. In that case the highest score from one of the 2 championships would be the champ. All FIRST would have to do is make sure there are no common game pieces in the finals like the center cans. This maybe one of the reasons for this years game format.

Having another play off for crowning the champ is hard on students. Some students need time in school to get the grades for the FIRST scholarships.

Siri 11-04-2015 19:50

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by piersklein (Post 1469596)
As a way of partially fixing this which requires little change: The Winning Alliance from whichever CMP event comes first will be given *free* entrance to the second CMP event where they will play the winning alliance thus crowning a world champion.

The problem with the head-to-head isn't registration (I think we'd all be appalled if they had to pay $5K just to do a best-of-2 or so series). It's the cost of travel and hotels with less than a week's notice, pulling students out of school yet again, getting mentors off of work...

I'm also not sure people agree on how much of a partial fix this is, except that it's very little. I haven't read or heard anyone that's upset simply that there are two championship alliances; they're upset that there are two because process of getting them is totally...ahem. A final showdown is essentially a red herring in the debate, being both so easy to promote and schedule (while difficult to execute) and so meaningless to the central issues.

On the other poor hand, if this also actually meant that FRC will never bring back defense (through 2020), I think we all hope that we as a community can refrain from actually rioting at the Town Hall.

AmoryG 11-04-2015 19:51

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1469579)
So I'm going to reiterate this.

FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.

You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.

PS: I'm not (didn't?) say you should quit I said that if it doesn't align with your philosophies then you don't have to stay with the program and complain, though that too is an option (clearly).

I think FIRST and everyone here complaining probably have the same goals, we just have different ideas on how to accomplish them. I'm sure the people who thought of this idea are very smart, but there are thousands of people in the community overwhelmingly against this idea, and they are also very smart. Chances are they didn't think this through and it's in FIRST's best interest to listen. It would be very silly of them not to.

cgmv123 11-04-2015 20:14

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1469579)
FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.

You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.

Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?

If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.

jman4747 11-04-2015 20:17

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AmoryG (Post 1469601)
I think FIRST and everyone here complaining probably have the same goals, we just have different ideas on how to accomplish them. I'm sure the people who thought of this idea are very smart, but there are thousands of people in the community overwhelmingly against this idea, and they are also very smart. Chances are they didn't think this through and it's in FIRST's best interest to listen. It would be very silly of them not to.

But the methods are still up to them. And we have to remember that for as much as we know the challenges of running our teams they know what they are having to do to run FIRST. They made a hard locked dicision about how they need to run it in the future so give them a minute to prove it I'd say.

I mean the non-profit USFIRST when I say FIRST. The staff and leadership.

jman4747 11-04-2015 20:26

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1469610)
Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?

If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.

I made an edit.

So you are right, but the non-profit decides how this championship we are arguing about is put on and know what they need to do to do it. We get some of it but they take main responsibility for the catalyst that we use to inspire so lets see before we start thinking about things like jumping ship.

dodar 11-04-2015 20:31

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1469612)
I made an edit.

So you are right, but the non-profit decides how this championship we are arguing about is put on and know what they need to do to do it. We get some of it but they take main responsibility for the catalyst that we use to inspire so lets see before we start thinking about things like jumping ship.

You mean jump ship before we see how the new championships work, like how FIRST did with this year?

jman4747 11-04-2015 21:10

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1469613)
You mean jump ship before we see how the new championships work, like how FIRST did with this year?

Describe in what ways specifically.

From what I see the championship is fundamentally the same but with more divisions and venue splitting allowing for a ~600 team cap for FRC instead of a ~400 team cap last year. That isn't much different from 2014 and subsequently prior years using the same basic structure. Thus they would be familiar with how the 2015 will work because it is structurally the same as what they have been familiar with.

They made a system and duplicated a part (divisions) while shifting another (FTC/FLL) to make room. It's actually a good example of a systems/industrial engineering problem. Also this concept isn't incompatible with the split championship model and likely could be implemented at either with proper planing.

gblake 11-04-2015 21:35

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1469610)
Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?

If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.

I would say that you are posing either a false dichotomy, or have written an ill-formed question, or both.

"FIRST" is both of the entities you mentioned, and more. There is no "either/or" involved.

An analogy would be that my body doesn't have a vital organ, it has vital organs.

Blake

cgmv123 11-04-2015 22:30

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1469631)
I would say that you are posing either a false dichotomy, or have written an ill-formed question, or both.

"FIRST" is both of the entities you mentioned, and more. There is no "either/or" involved.

An analogy would be that my body doesn't have a vital organ, it has vital organs.

Blake

The question could have been formed better. The point was to question whether FIRST staffers (many of whom seem to be ill-informed about FRC teams and competitions) or actual FIRST teams should be determining the direction of organization. The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.

EricH 11-04-2015 22:56

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1469649)
The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.

That is, to some extent, a true thought.

However, we should be doing our best to inform them of how any decisions they make affect us (as a whole). And, going along with that, they should be thinking of how any major decisions like this will affect teams, and effect the goals and mission of FIRST.

This particular decision, and the manner of its carrying out, match up to some others they've done in the past.
--FVC switching to FTC (result: teams with several $K invested in VEX stuff already did not enter FTC, and suddenly VRC had a really strong foundation to grow on)
--The inaugural district area (result: MASSIVE outcry, questioning, complaining, etc. on a variety of issues. Now, 6 years later, the outcry is going the "other way"--instead of "why do they get them" it's "why don't we have them".)
--Changing of control systems: '08-'09 rather than '14-'15. The former was mostly unannounced--we had a few months, as I recall, but beta teams were few in number, and it was rather sudden. The latter we knew was coming when FIRST put out a call for proposals roughly two years in advance, a call for alpha teams, and a call for beta teams. Slight difference in methodology, showing that they learned from a past mistake.

If there's one thing FIRST takes away from this announcement and its fallout, it should be this: If a major change is coming up, consult the community, in some form, before making the announcement. "Test the waters" if you will, or in another manner, try to get a few key people on board first. At least hear their objections. THEN announce and work on answering other questions that crop up.

jman4747 11-04-2015 22:58

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1469649)
The question could have been formed better. The point was to question whether FIRST staffers (many of whom seem to be ill-informed about FRC teams and competitions) or actual FIRST teams should be determining the direction of organization. The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.

And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.

Abhishek R 11-04-2015 23:04

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1469655)
If there's one thing FIRST takes away from this announcement and its fallout, it should be this: If a major change is coming up, consult the community, in some form, before making the announcement. "Test the waters" if you will, or in another manner, try to get a few key people on board first. At least hear their objections. THEN announce and work on answering other questions that crop up.

I think that's really what's getting most people. I think FIRST's intentions were right. They know the number of teams is growing, and that sooner or later they were going to need an even larger Championship event. Thus, they said, why not have TWO Championship events? I'm not sure if the concerns voiced by the community were thought of beforehand, but it's clear that there wasn't any form of surveying or anything to see what people thought before announcing this major change. As a result, many mentors, alumni, and students were shocked by the shift, and we're kinda left wondering why there was no consultation until after the fact.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:01.

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