Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Judges will have the rubric. I suspect they'll see through it if the team doesn't have any empirical evidence. Also keep in mind that it's pretty evident when judges read the essays ahead of time - so I bet they'll have pre-formed questions.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

It's also obvious when they don't read the essays before hand :(

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

I'm not sure about needing empirical evidence...

"Submitted by Frank Merrick on Tue, 10/13/2015 - 10:24.
Hi Liron. We had talked about requiring some documentation briefly, but did not want to turn this into a legalistic exercise. Our working assumption is that most teams, in keeping with the ethos of Gracious Professionalism, will not mislead about their support for other teams, once presented with reasonable definitions they are told they must adhere to. With the number of teams applying for Chairman's Award, some percentage certainly will still intentionally mislead, but we don't want to punish those who don't by requiring additional paperwork. (Boldened by me). BTW, our Chairman's crew has had a 5" thick binder full of 'empirical evidence' for a few years now and the judges rarely examine it...maybe we should just reduce it to a 3x5" card? ;)

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Before if teams made a statement like that and were called out on it, they could fall back on the "oh, well by mentored we meant emailing them once during the season, and by started we meant we sent them a link to usfirst.org". Now that grey area is removed. Teams would have to straight up lie to make a statement like that, as opposed to just stretching the truth. Yes, you are correct, it's not going to stop the teams who are fully willing to cheat, however it is going to make a lot of teams pause, especially those who were making a habit of living in the grey area.

Couple this with the fact that winning Chairman's essays now need to be published, it would take a lot of gumption for a team to lie knowing that other teams may call them out based on these new definitions.

Is this a perfect solution? Obviously not. At the core of FRC is an honour system. Teams who blatantly ignore this honour system are always going to gain an advantage. I've seen teams make the elimination rounds at regionals with a robot they illegally worked on by taking it out of the bag and I've seen teams win Chairman's by claiming to start and mentor teams that they barely had any association with. However, these definitions will definitely collapse a lot of the grey areas of terminology that many teams have been exploiting (either intentionally or accidentally) over the years. Perfect? Nope, but a definite improvement.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

This sums the whole argument up for me. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we had before.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

(Educated guess/opinion) I'd think whatever would serve to be a "competition" for the given league, based on the various example criteria. Not nessarily an official event either; off-season events are fair game as they often involve a comparable level of effort (think: IRI, etc.). Not that this matters, as the description of the "event" should serve to demonstrate the level of effort put forth (let the result speak for itself). The point is what "run" means, not what "event" means.

Another point is that it is possible to have events where two teams are involved in running it while one also happens to be a host. CAGE match seems to be an example; While 1529 is the host, both 829 and 1529 appear to put forth about 50/50 of the effort (volunteers, logistics, etc.). Here's the question (hypothetically/rhetorically): If "majority" effort is required, then would neither team get to claim "running" the event? Or since 50% rounds up, would both teams get to claim such? The latter makes more sense to me (as the intent of the definition is to prevent teams from grossly overstating contributions) but I could see this issue coming up given that a lot of such partnering teams often compete in-season together; as the fact that two teams are (in presumably good faith and reason) claiming to have "run" the event, which in the former interpretation would cause issues for the arguments put forward by the teams.

Defining stuff like this isn't easy, is it...

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Just to pick on this one, 1529 would be able to claim "hosting" and both 829 and 1529 would be able to claim "running". As a note, in that case a smart team would likely put something to the effect of "ran event in coordination with team XXXX" or "hosted event and helped team XXXX run it".

As another example: For IRI, 1024 would claim "hosting"; the other three teams involved would be claiming either "running" or "assisting"--probably which one would be dependent on involvement.

If it's 50-50, or so, and you really want to be safe, you can always claim "assisting" with the hosting of the event.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

PM'ed ...

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

We did the same thing. When we won at Champs in 2012, one of the judges specifically commended us for providing the evidence and said it made the decision easier. I know other teams have gotten similar comments. Your mileage may vary.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

You should. Maybe not QUITE a 3x5" card but definitely reduce it a bit.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Both IMHO. Card/page for quick reference, Binder for absolute proof (and dramatic effect).

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

We also have done the same thing since 2007, increasing in size until it was 15 pounds each (3 binders) when we won the CCA in 2011. :)
Even without competing for such an award, it has now increased to 5 full size binders.
We also have a PDF version where we scan each page prior to putting it together now.

I think the binders in general provide "evidence" as you mentioned, where judges can reference it if necessary.
During our interviews, we brought in team binders, but the judges only perused them, primarily listening to presentations and looking at our standup/pull-up poster displays.
They did however hold onto the binders back then, and I'm sure they reviewed it even further, so we've been told.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Just as an aside -

I hope teams are doing this actively. In our exuberance at winning the Bayou Chairman's last year, we left our binder somewhere and never found it. Fortunately most of our documentation was saved - but we still lost some of our favorite parts (thank you notes and such)


-D

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Honestly I really like these definitions, they're reasonable and clear and keep teams who've only gone over to see an FLL team once to say that they've "mentored" that team. Obviously, it's kind of an honor code but I would say it's a huge step in the right direction.

Re: [FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

I can only speak for one specific judge from that era (my father) - though I'm 99% sure he's the judge Karthik is referencing - and in all discussions we had over CCA, the binders of 'evidence' really helped cement in both of those cases that these teams had a lot of support behind them, and deserved the recognition they were given.

I think whatever format you choose to showcase that support can be helpful, so long as the judges take the time to check it out.

MKI students have done it in binder-format as Glenn & Karthik are describing, but also digitally on a giveaway flashdrive alongside our printed material handouts. (Important note: Not on the same flashdrive as the video! Ours was separate, with a little tied-on note about what the drive contained & a thank-you for their consideration!)