Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

Not necessarily. Every team has the freedom to choose their own path. I don't think they should be penalized because that isn't the same path HQ chooses.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

The interesting thing about FIRST now is that it's so big the meaning of it is so different depending on who you ask. The championshplit is an example where the meaning of FIRST to the board of directors has a wide gap to traverse before it gets to people who oppose the move. The mission and the vision are tools to guide anyone at any level or division of the intertwining organization, but if someone asked me what FIRST meant to me, I wouldn't recite the mission and vision.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

That is an odd collection of sentences. Odd because I think what they convey is that the program should change its plans to align them with participants who chose to diverge from the program's core values.

Either that, or your use of "penalized" is specious.

I don't think the program is penalizing anyone. Maybe groups who choose to diverge from the program's path are be penalizing themselves?

To everyone who might feel like this decision somehow penalizes their group or wrongs their group, or makes their group a victim of some sort of injustice; I have to echo what WilsonM wrote earlier...

Haven't you been listening to what the FIRST elders have said for years and years (listening to the fundamentals of what they said - not just cherry-picking marketing slogans)? If your group isn't aligned with the vision that they have outlined, then your group is choosing to be out-of-step with the program.

Choosing to be out-of-step is fine, but try not to be shocked or outraged when/if it bites you in the backside occasionally.

Blake
PS: FIRST the non-profit business might sometimes pick controversial ways to implement its mission/vision, but I don't think it has purposefully or accidentally stepped away from it with the Championshplit decision.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

People with this pedigree should know how to manage change, I guarantee they do a much better job of change management in their own companies.

The way this split happened is the worst possible way of managing change; at the very least they should have shown the need for the change, explained how the change will benefit the stakeholders, and outline the details of the change.

What we got was: the change, a few details, we're listening, it is happening, stop complaining your wrong.

These are my views, not those of my team.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

After watching this, I think there is plenty of disappointment to go around

Mentors/Active CD folks

• It should have been no surprise that there was a moderator, given the mob that had already assembled on CD prior to Champs. FIRST has the internet too.
• Go and re-watch the video and listen to how your “questions” sound. I asked non-FIRST people to listen and they heard the same thing I did: low volume screaming and a lot of loaded questions. I have been reading many of your posts for years and lost so much respect for you all in 30 minutes. I doubt you behave this way with your teams or at work. There was an opportunity to approach this change and offer constructive input and set a good example for the students (even if it fell on deaf ears) that you squandered. Remember what an influential group you are to thousands of students.
• Any change is going to be painful and it’s fair to be upset that the direction the program is going is not aligned with the direction you feel the program should take. I do think the message of “more than robots” has been clear for many years now. To me this also implied "more that winners".
• Give FIRST some credit. They have delivered an amazing experience to a ton of students for over 20 years. They don’t try to do anything haphazardly and clearly do weigh pros and cons. Their board is filled with smart and very capable people.
• I hope all the threats of quitting on some of the initial threads were just anger and shock. Please don’t quit. We love you. We need you. We can make this work.

FIRST

• Teams are some of the best problem solvers in the world. We break your game rules in less than a week despite your best efforts. We're great at constraint based design. Explain the goals (more students getting a Championship experience, reducing costs, etc) and the constraints (available places where such a large event can be held, etc). We can help you solve complex problems! After all, we’re rocket scientists =)
• What about 2 back to back tourneys in STL (Mon - Wed) then (Thu - Sat)? Two 400 team events in one central location (this does not address the cost reduction concept very well). I’m sure there would be hundreds of ideas that CD could hone down in a few days given goals and constraints.
• Utilize the HoF or WFA winners. You have identified them as the role models for FIRST for many years at every single competition I have ever been to (FRC, FTC, FLL). They are touted as teams and individuals who not only understand the mission and ideals of FIRST, but live them every day. If you really thought they were the role models you have represented them as, you would have included their input in this important decision. Shame on you for not talking to a single one of them. Put them under NDA if you have to (you do this every year for pre-release field parts for kickoff).
  
• There is going to be some frustration with any change, which I believe you prepared for and are ignoring as the community starts to deal with the change. That does not mean all ideas expressed are bad ones (even if the questions are loaded or the tone is impolite).
  
• We're struggling with the reality of "more than robots". Help us out.
  

I am still gathering feedback from my team and my personal thoughts about the change. Overall I was not surprised by the change given the mission statement that has been consistent for many years. I do think there was a better solution, which is now lost since contracts have been signed. I am certain the process for making and communicating the change to championships could have been handled much better.

I’m not from a team that has the ability to make it to the highest level of the competition, so please help me understand why having 2 CA/WF winners is so terrible? There seem like many worthy teams and mentors. As far as the competition is concerned, it appears that the randomizer setting various teams on various fields has a large effect on who wins Einstein. Put two really high scoring and compatible teams together on the same field and it can be a run away.


-matto-

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

I agree with your entire post.

To address your last part, in my opinion, I don't think that's a problem. We have so many deserving teams and mentors of their respective awards, and I think it'll be great to bring them recognition faster.

What I'm disappointed with is that I'll miss out on seeing half the great teams and robots from around the world. Does this mean I'm less motivated to be the best? No, myself and my team will try just as hard to achieve our goal of being the best we can be. Does it mean I'll leave FIRST? Not at all, this is such an amazing program.

I'm just a bit upset that this was the solution. I'm still not convinced there wasn't a better option that didn't require a split in the Championship event.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

They certainly didn't do it purposefully. Did they do it at all? It's difficult to say, at least until 2017.

So why do we write here at all? What's done is done. There are certain elements that are set in stone and cannot be changed. What good does talking about it online do? I can't speak for others, but for me, I think the leadership is missing something important, and I hope that maybe I'll say something that gets passed on to someone else, and eventually makes its way to the leadership and that makes the little light bulb go on for them.

I say that they are missing something because I have seen three attempts to communicate with the First community about this decision. There was the announcement itself, there was the town hall presentation and discussion, and there was the post-announcement survey. In my opinion, all three of them demonstrated that they didn't understand their audience. All three of those communication attempts showed a complete misunderstanding of how their communication attempts would be perceived.

With that in mind, I think that I have a different way of explaining things that might help one side see the other side's point of view. There are more than two sides, but the biggest general groupings are people who absolutely hate the split, and people who think it doesn't really matter, and that people should embrace the positives of the split plan. People in each general group post here, but it doesn't seem like either side is doing much in the way of convincing. Why not?

In my opinion, what we have here is a case of rationalism versus emotion. The primary arguments for the split are highly rational. They deal with numbers of teams who can participate, and the costs for each team. They could be shown on a spreadsheet.

The anti-split crowd's arguments are frequently emotional. The most common arguments are either that they want to gather all of the best robots in one place, or that there cannot be two world championships, by definition, and that somehow that's important. They sometimes try to argue beyond that, to rationalize their arguments, using the literal meaning of that word. It doesn't often work. The rationalized arguments often ring hollow.

You might think that, as engineers, we should embrace the logical over the emotional. I think that is completely wrong. We use the word "inspiration" a lot. It's in our name. Inspiration is an emotional reaction. The leadership needs to understand the emotional nature of the reaction, and play off of that. Never, ever, dismiss it as irrelevant. In understanding those emotions lies the key to First's continued success.

Think about this. First is not the only student robot competition in the world. There are others. Some have thousands of participants and a global reach. Rationally, the others are just as good as First. However, they aren't as successful. I think that's because there is something about a First event that is highly emotional. Something about the environment we have created taps into some really primal emotions in a way that appeals to us in a big way. Whether students, alumni, or mentors, we want to keep coming back and be a part of it. There is more screaming, cheering, and crying at our events than there are at those other events, because there's something about our events that seem more important.

That's enough for the moment, but I think if you want to understand why there was so much hostility toward the split championship model, first understand the emotional appeal of the phrase "world championship". After understanding those arguments, you may still conclude that the leadership's plan for two season finale events is better than a single event, but you will understand why some people don't see it that way.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

Some folks might leave because of this, but i highly doubt it. There are several true robot competitions out there.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

Hmmmm, I did think about it, and... I disagree.

My rational and emotional reaction is, "Says who???".

Don't drink too much Kool-Aid. A little is OK, and goes a long way. Too much isn't healthy.

Sorry for the minor sidetrack everyone - You may now return to discussing the Town Hall Meeting Video, if you care to.

Blake

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

My comparison of First versus other robotics competitions might have been tainted by my location in Michigan. We're pretty First-centric around here.

I did a little bit of google-style research in response to your post, and may have underestimated one of those "other" competitions.

But the point remains the same. There are several robotics competitions in the world. The ones that have the greatest appeal will be the ones that tap into the emotional responses of the participants. Looking at the presentation made by First leadership at the town hall, and seeing their answers to questions posed, it seems to me that the leadership has some gaps in their understanding.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

I agree, and I'm pretty sure that your opinion is shared with many people within the program.

Now excuse me if I'm somewhat repetitive, but yes, this is upsetting for people. It's disappointing to not be able to see all of the powerhouses and inspiring teams in one place, as well as friends from half-way across the country and maybe the entire world, under one roof. However, as a rookie, this is my reality check. It doesn't mean a complete fall from grace, but instead, a change to how I approach the program as a whole. Instead of all fun and games, I now see it in a more business-like perspective, which isn't necessarily bad.

Maybe there wasn't any better option, I mean, considering the way that the people of FIRST have set their goals towards expansion. FIRST has always been evolving, and now we must adapt to it once more.

We'll work as we go to develop the nature of the program. Perhaps we might end up loving 2 championships more than we do one. I'm hopeful that we do.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

I'll give you all the all but the "one champion" and "diluted event" arguments. Those usually come off as selfish more so than emotional.

I think everyone who subscribes to those arguments should have to in person ask every wait list and rookie all star team at 2016 champs to leave and see what happens. Whenever you say those things you are personally insulting someone and you can't use a blanket statement to brush that away from you. Cutting the attendance of wait list and RAS teams is a very easy and practical way to open up space but then it isn't very emotionally satisfying to us is it? If you want to raise the "bottom" telling them they aren't good enough to go to the "real" championship is just going to make the "bottom" resent you. It is for this reason I find a lot of the "nay" arguments to be hypocritical at best.

Also if you believe FIRST is removing your ability to be the only winner and that makes you quit than you literally just quit because you can't be the only winner.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

I've seen some arguments I would agree are selfish, and others that could appear selfish because they aren't worded well.

Most of the "one championship" variants, though, don't seem very selfish to me. Most of the people who are really wrapped up in "one championship" are people who understand that they are highly unlikely to ever be part of a championship alliance. They don't want "one championship" for themselves.

There is a powerful emotional tug to the phrase "world champion". The very existence of a world championship feels very significant. When explaining First to other people, I drop that phrase a lot because I know that when I tell them that there is a world championship, their opinion of First goes up a notch. We are a significant enough activity to bring teams together from all over the world. When my team competes in a district match, the fact that we could go on to the world championships is a motivator. The fact that we can watch the people we compete against at the world championship, and that some of them might appear on Einstein Field, and maybe bring home the blue banners, is significant.

Some of you right now are thinking some variation of "that doesn't make any sense", and are tempted to explain why, really, there is no practical difference between what we do now, and what we will do when there are two championships. You are thinking rationally. It doesn't work. As long as you do that, you won't understand the force behind the opposition to the split.

On a closely related note, although the relationship might not be obvious, the First leadership really needs to understand that the "championship experience" doesn't end at the stadium door. They really proved that they didn't get that this year.

Actually coming up with a plan is still not obvious. The "emotional" side also must understand the practical realities. First leadership is absolutely right that the system that exists now does not scale, and would break as more teams are added. They really did have to do something, and no matter what they did, something would change and someone would be unhappy about it. I'm not going to say that they made the wrong decision. I will say that they don't appear to understand why people are unhappy with the decision. That makes it difficult for them to communicate, and if they never get it, they won't be able to take steps that might give back at least some of what has been taken away.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

What if FIRST gave a party and no one came?

What if the top tier teams looked at the split championships and the possibility that they might have to fundraise for yet another event after that to crown a single champion? Might they consider skipping those those championships entirely? The IRI already exists to bring together top tier teams. Might the most competitive teams simply decide to avoid Detroit and Houston and just go straight to Indiana (or some other new event)?

I'm not sure that FIRST is considering this possibility sufficiently. Top tier teams aren't only the most competitive--they usually are also the most organized and networked. Organizing a separate championship event won't be that difficult. Look at the success of the Chezy Champs as one example of staging a significant well run event on a low budget, where all of the teams left happy.

And if those teams didn't attend, how would the other teams feel about going the the dual champs now? They wouldn't be able to rub shoulders with the best teams or see top level competition. And how would they feel about winning a further diluted championship?

FIRST needs to think about this more dynamically. It's not a static situation with no other avenues available.

Re: Town Hall Meeting Video
 

I should probably be studying, not writing ridiculously long posts, but I was reviewing APUSH notes and thought there were some interesting parallels (and maybe this is also an excuse not to do homework...)


Humans are emotional beings. I think we can all agree on that, even if you think enjoyment is not a purely emotional experience. If you disagree, consider this:

If we were truly logical, we would not need to be inspired to do something, we'd already be in it if we wanted to.
If we were truly logical, we would not need a competition, because by the time you compete you've already built your robot.
If we were truly logical, we wouldn't care if there were multiple championships or if many teams were excluded from a single one.

Obviously that doesn't work or apply to the majority of members in FIRST, or we wouldn't be here. What then, is the draw of the competition?

1. The desire to be the best.
2. The desire to see who is the best.
3. The desire to see how you compare to other teams.

The desire to be the best.
It seems selfish, and it is in some ways, but it's also true. There is a reason communism doesn't work. We want what's best for everyone, but we also need something to keep pushing us on. FIRST has both, and that's one of the reasons it has been so successful. Without the desire or the need to be the top, innovation stops.

War, as destructive as it is, has led to some of the most amazing technological discoveries because countries find the need to do better than their enemies. Peace leads to a sharing of those technologies and (arguably) a better life for all. The coopertition aspect of FIRST tries to draw into the best of both.

I draw the line between the good and bad aspects of competition in this way: if I try to do my best, and try to win in that way, I'm doing it right; if I try to pull others down, and try to win in that way, I'm doing it wrongly.

The desire to see who is the best.
The above points don't just apply to those who know they are at or near the top--watching the top teams compete, saying "someday, I want to be able to do that" is what pushes me to keep learning. In many ways, this point fits in with the previous one. Only by seeing what the best do can we understand what we can improve on.

The desire to see how you compare to other teams.
Once again this draws from the first point, but I think there's a difference. No one wants to be at the bottom, or be told they aren't good enough. It's why the idea of "cutting out" some of the teams that would otherwise qualify, or separating the two tiers of champs, is upsetting. In some ways, I think the "everyone is a winner" attitude is in our culture. I've certainly heard it in school, in other classes, and to some extent at robotics. I understand why it's around, and I completely disagree with it.

Everyone cannot be a winner.
Everyone cannot be at the top.
Everyone can try to be a winner and to be at the top.

It's not an easy lesson to learn on a team or in life. Last year, when we didn't make it to champs, it was a hard realization for everyone. But I think it made this year mean more. And if we hadn't made it this year, it would have meant pushing even harder next year. I use the same rule in school--if it's easy, I look for something harder, then when I struggle, I try to learn from those who are doing well. I think that there is an important distinction to make here, though: not winning does not mean failure or a lack of inspiration. Success comes from being inspired, and being inspired means a continued push to do better.

This leads to another issue: the teams and students who aren't at this point yet. Because arguably, pushing to be the best means you're already inspired to stay. This is why I think the DCMP / super DCMP / super regional method is the best in the end. DCMPs (or their equivalents) can collectively reach more teams than two champs, and will still have enough inspiration in them to reach the teams that need the additional push. And it allows for a single champs, for the teams, students, and mentors who use the competition to keep pushing on. But back on topic:

Why do we care?
Because I started off this post by saying that humans are emotional beings. And being emotional, we care about how we compare to other teams, how well we do, and are pushed by outside forces to do better.

And...?
We want to win. We don't want to fail.

The desire to be the top, and the fear of being the bottom, has shaped history. If I tried, I could probably link the rise and fall of the various political parties, social movements/rebellions, historical figures, and even groups/countries to those two concepts. If there's one thing to learn from history (other than the fact that it takes way more index cards than math), it's that motivations don't change much. Crowning a winner creates a sense of accomplishment for the winning alliance, and a goal for everyone else. Yet excluding teams from champs defines them as "not good enough."

Both are emotional responses, both could be classified as "selfish," and both are human nature. But since it's FIRST's goal to inspire students, not send them on long philosophical discussions, I should tie this all together. To inspire students, we need to acknowledge both the need for a sense of accomplishment and the need to be able to aim for the top exist. FIRST seems to be focusing too much on the first, and CD too much on the second. We're not purely logical, so even if one of those goals seems more so, it won't be completely effective alone.

Give students a sense of accomplishment, then keep pushing them to do better. The former hooks students in, the latter keeps them (and their mentors) going. DCMPs for the first, a single champs for the second.