Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

If you type into google "define: compete," you get this.
-----
com·pete
kəmˈpēt
verb
strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.
-----
You are literally arguing against what you are arguing for.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Teams should always strive to improve and win. Being finalists at Lone Star during my first year in FIRST played a huge role in getting me really excited about the program. That being said, while I have the goal of building a winning robot every year, I would much rather build a robot that I am proud of, and to learn and teach during the season. Even if my team doesn't win any events, if those last three things happen, I would consider the season a success.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, could you elaborate?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I'm going to share my PM to the OP but with more detail.

Honestly, I dont personally view it as a black and white issue here. I think the pursuit of winning positively impacts lives and drives students to be better.
I never ever kid my students. Life is full of competitions for jobs, good grades vs your peers, and other pursuits in life. Tell it like it is.

FIRST makes it easy for our own personal selfish goals. To create a platform where I can inspire kids who like STEM, where we dont have to reinvent the wheel or create our own projects/programs to achieve this.

We have lots of data on current and former students who have gone through our program for all 16 years. It doesnt necessarily mean that keeping track/celebrating our successes keeps us from focusing on our overall goals/objectives.
In our community, we lose in all sports and never get any recognition vs. all of the private and Honolulu schools. Experiencing success in FIRST competitions provides our kids a sense of pride and happiness that they hardly ever get. Of the 35 students in our program, only 8 of them live with both parents. The rest come from either broken homes, single parents, live in with guardians, grandparents, or in some extreme cases this year neglection from parents who sometimes never see their child for days at a time.

-Glenn

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Separate from all other arguments, where does it say that team's goals and ideals should match those of FIRST exactly (And who enforces this?)?

Don't be so condescending about team's goals. Everyone has their own unique team and circumstances.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Sometimes we forget the fact that we can be inspired by our efforts to win, even if we ultimately lose. Hopefully that doesn't stop us from being inspired ;)

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Our greatest success last year was being recognized for gracious professionalism on Newton. That seems consistent with FIRST's goals. And I see many teams at Regionals that are not focused on winning as their measure of success and source of inspiration.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

To be clear, this ^^ is from the team that captained their alliance all the way to a Finals rubber match on Einstein that year. They won Inland Empire, Sacramento, Newton, and Chezy Champs.

I'd say "consistent with FIRST's goals" is a pretty big understatement.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I really don't get this sentiment. FIRST did stop crowning a singular champion, back in 1999. The concept of having the "ultimate goal of winning the World Championship" was "devalued by FIRST" with the advent of alliances. Yet teams still strove for it, despite the fact they had to share the honor. It was still the highest on-field honor they could achieve. How is that different from the two Championship change? Teams still have the highest honor they can achieve on the field, even if they have to share it.

As for the Stanley Cup, there's a lot of fascinating history there, including some slaps to the face about who can and can't be awarded the cup over its history. Worth reading into.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

My point is that he says competing should be inspiring, NOT winning, but competing is by definition "attempting to win."

You can't have the goal of competing without also having the goal of winning, or you're not competing at all.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I don't understand what you're trying to tell us either. You say it like you're disagreeing with him, but you haven't clarified what your disagreement is.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

It's that the case he makes against winning is self effacing. It's like saying "I love to go on solo road trips but I hate driving and being alone."

To say you're inspired by competing but not inspired by trying to win is complete nonsense. It's the same thing.

If he's trying to make the tired point that any team that is "all about winning" doesn't understand the goals of FIRST and is doing their students a disservice, then I disagree wholeheartedly. I'll paste in something I posted to Facebook on the day of the double CMP announcement:

One of the favorite memories I have was in 2013 when 254, a team we've all been inspired by for years, picked us on the Archimedes field to play in eliminations. For a few hours that day, we got to scrape at the greatness reserved for only the best of the best. For a few hours we had the hope of becoming world champions.

It didn't matter that to me that we lost, because for a few hours we got to walk down a narrow and hallowed path. The chance to do it again is something that drives anyone who has had the opportunity to be there. It genuinely saddens me that future students in FIRST won't get the chance to know this feeling.

People say it's not all about winning, and they're right. It's about trying. But if you're not trying to win, to be the best that there is, then why try at all?

You will never be able to convince someone to try their hardest for second place.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The way I feel about the subject is as follows. I want to win. We want to win. First and foremost, I want my team to do its very best to push the limits of what we can achieve, and strive for greatness. That involves everyone on the team putting in incredible time and work, learning new skills, and getting new experiences. We continually improve, refine, enhance, augment our process, our robot, our way of thinking, and our conduct in pursuit of victory.

We are all captivated and amazed by what we can achieve in such a short time, and what our true potential is when we work hard, REALLY hard. That's inspiring. And the most efficient motivation we have to push ourselves so hard is a thirst for victory. The blue banners in people's signatures and hanging on shop walls didn't come from uninspired people just plodding along, they came from people who desired victory and chased it and never stopped. Blue banners are not a celebration solely of winning, but of success achieved through the means of inspired people coming together.

"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Sorry for my longest CD post to date:

What inspires our team?
This certainly has many different answers even on the same team. In 2012 we went to Championship after captaining the winning alliance in Palmetto...first time...still only time. It was incredibly inspiring for our team:
(1) On Newton, we were in awe of 1717's machine, and found it incredibly inspiring to be in matches with them...even more so when our drive-team had strategy discussions with them and interacted as "colleagues".
(2) Our robot was particularly good at climbing the bridges, so we gained inspiration by being able to make a positive contribution to our alliances and finishing in 14th place on Newton. We "double-balanced" with some great teams!
(3) We let a team from Israel borrow a flash drive for their Chairman's video...we kept that file on the flash drive to this day. Inspired by the opportunity to help someone from so far away and so different, but yet the same.
(4) Many of our students were inspired by the sheer enormity, the different programs (we had no FLL or FTC teams in our system and had never seen those programs live) and by all the vendors displays.
(5) I personally was inspired by visiting the other divisions and seeing some of those teams I had watched videos of...Team 1986 comes immediately to mind - loved their robot!

In 2012 we did not stay for the Einstein matches...that is not what it was about for us, and we had a 14 hour drive home. We would stay now - we're a different team today, helped by the experience in 2012. I suppose I would feel differently if I was affiliated with 1114, 254, 148, or another super-team...but I am not at all worked up by the two champions...just by the two championship events.

Today - we have several team members who have watched the elite teams all year. We've helped get some other teams started, and have our first FLL team that we mentor. We host an off-season, and have a bunch of good friends on other teams that we correspond with and share experiences with.

WHEN we go back to championship, I hate that my team is not going to get to see all of those elite teams that they have been following all season. That they are only going to have half as much of a chance to be in those strategy discussions with their favorite elite team. That the team from far away that may need to borrow a flash drive might be at the other championship. As long as it's plural, it feels like something has been taken away that can't be given back.

I understand we all weigh priorities and objectives differently. For me, based on my experiences as a one-time championship attendee, and hopeful to return soon, I personally consider having everyone together in one place at one time much more important than making the experience more accessible....even with the understanding that my team would be eligible to return under the new arrangement. I like the feeling that it is hard to qualify - and that when we did...and do again, it represents a significant achievement.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

That neatly explains why I'm not understanding you. You have merely misread his statement completely.

He didn't say that trying to win is not inspirational. He said that winning is not the part of the process that is necessary for inspiration. You've been focusing on the equivalence between "competing" and "trying to win", while not noticing that he hadn't distinguished between them. The difference between competing and winning is the one he was making.

You're basically saying the same thing he did. That's why your contrary "tone" confused me.