[FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions
 

Posted on the FRC Blog, 10/12/15: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ns-Definitions

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

I really like this. Providing a standard vocabulary should make Chairman's applications easier for teams, since they won't have to worry about misrepresenting themselves. Furthermore, it will, along with the published winning Chairman's submissions, provide greater accountability in the FRC community. I'm glad these definitions are provided to us during our first year of creating a Chairman's submission.

Thank you Frank and the HoF teams!

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

The definitions are straight forward. What I love is the requirement that the team being helped has to agree to the relationship or that the help took place. Would this mean that teams will have to submit the team numbers or substantiating documentation to put these claims in the chairman's essay?

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

Not to descend into my standard winter/spring behavior too early, but why does this matter if there isn't really a lot of teeth to this? I think it's a step forward but how is this actually supposed to be enforced significantly better than what we had before?

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

By "event", do they mean JFLL Expo / FLL, FTC tournament / FRC district competition or just a generic "event"?

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

Does it need to be enforced? Or does the FIRST ethos of Gracious Professionalism ensure that there's no need to enforce it, so long as everyone is aware of a consistent set of definitions?

Part of the problem we've had in the past, I think, is teams taking credit for "starting" or "mentoring" a team that existed in their school system, even if they didn't have much interaction with them - after all, if they held a kickoff event the team attended, or talked with them once or twice during the season, that's interaction enough, right? Some people/teams may have said so honestly while others did not. Now the new definitions give teams a benchmark to measure themselves against, something they have never had before.

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

If teams actually do adhere to these definitions, I would expect to see a dramatic reduction in the number of teams claimed as being started, mentored or events previously claimed as being run by teams... The big question is whether or not judges are going to attempt to verify said claims. Hopefully CA judges won't continue to be swayed so much by the number claims that apparently led to this point...and focus more on the quality and effects of outreach efforts.

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

I would like to think this is the way it works but I am a bitter cynic with only occasional trust in the "system" to work. It's probably just me and not the environment but w/e.

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

They won't. It's a logistics issue really; The type of people you want as a judge are the type of people who don't have a lot of free time. Families, jobs, hobbies... they all get in the way. At best the judge will read your essay a week prior your event, maybe mark it up with some things to ask about, then watch your presentation, interact with your students, keep notes, and then after all teams are done, make a decision. I know I've had Chairman's judges who spent the week prior to the event traveling and they had no ability to read the essays in advance. The Chairman's judges (and all judges) are stretched thin as is without the onus of verifying claims.



Of course, this also assumes that the teams actually READ this and take it into account. Not that they have much incentive to do so since ignorance actually benefits them. (but I'm a cynic)

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

A friend once told me that the crux in judging for FRC is that those with the most "power" at an event typically have the lowest vested interest in utilizing that power in a way that teams would like.

EDIT: While that is a harsh way to generalize it, there may be a nugget of truth there.

I'll try to word the way I view the problem properly without sounding like a total jerk or a hopelessly ignorant fool but there's a good chance I will continue to fail.

Another cynical way I approach this move is that this is the minimum level of transparency of criteria HQ wanted to allow. Maybe FIRST thinks that a pursuit of their own doing concerning enforcing accurate representation of facts and statistics for teams would evolve into a pursuit by teams of calling for accurate representation of facts and statistics that FIRST does or does not publish.

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

Best thing since sliced bread. Hope team's honor the requirement.

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

Awesome changes! Our team discussed a lot about this last season/this off-season and we are happy to see these changes to the definitions.

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

At least it's more obvious to these teams what these definitions are. Before there wasn't even a clear line as to what is really "mentoring" or "started" was. At least people's moral compasses are the enforcer here and the line is clear, which is more than we had before.

Great work FIRST.

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

Big fan, great idea, happy this is a thing. Props to all that made it happen.

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

I love the motivation behind this change, and I think the definitions are reasonable and will help judges figure out which teams are most deserving of the Chairman's Award. That being said, I agree with Andrew's point above that a team's ignorance regarding these definitions could end up giving them an advantage, and while I'm not sure what could be done about that, it's unfortunate.

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

The biggest impact here is that it will help both the teams AND the judges follow a more clear set of definitions when defining quantity and terms used often by teams in their essays, interviews with judges, and their presentation.
This is a big improvement versus the status quo where many teams in the past have used such terms loosely to their advantage.

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

It could be as simple as having a link in a compliance statement on the submission website - "check this box to acknowledge that you and your team has read and complied with the definitions supplied here." With something like that, no team can claim ignorance...

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

This is a good thing and long overdue, but I still see two potential issues that this document seems to allude to:

• FIRST seems to value only FIRST programs. This document infers that robotics and engineering programs that are not affiliated with FIRST are not given the same if any "credit"
• The Chairman's award seems to have returned to a competition of who can start, mentor, and assist, more teams and who can run more events.

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

To your first point. makes sense to me.

TO #2: That is not it at all. What they are trying to do is standardize what it means to "start" ,"mentor" ,"assist" , teams. It is in no way stating how this is going to be weighted.

I do have a questions about how this is going to be enforced, if it was ever intended to be. Why have the second part of the definitions here at all unless there needs to be some sort of supporting documentation required or each mentored team listed? It makes no sense otherwise.

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

This is a great addition to the Chairman's Award rules and criteria... an excellent tool to encourage and provide consistency. I'm very happy to see this put in place. We often have discussions about what a particular term really means and what it might imply to the judges... now we have it defined for us. This is definitely a positive change. Thank you HOF teams for your work on this. :D

^ This is a perfect suggestion... can't claim ignorance after that.

^ My interpretation has long been that the Chairman's Award does emphasize outreach within the FIRST community. This has also been reinforced with the updated short answer questions in the last couple of years that specifically asked about interactions with and encouragement of other JFLL, FLL, FTC, FRC teams. Alternately I have viewed the Engineering Inspiration Award as encompassing more efforts not necessarily associated with FIRST, as well as emphasizing STEM related outreach as opposed to more charitable efforts like Relay For Life or Special Olympics. Of course, that is just my personal interpretation since it is not explicitly spelled out in the award criteria.

^ An excellent point! Stating the requirement of agreement of the receiving team certainly implies that there will be some sort of validation or expectation of follow-up.

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

I do know of one instance where a Team X claimed to have mentored Team Y. Some set of judges asked Team Y about this, and Team Y did not agree. Team X was removed from contention for Chairman's.

It may not happen all the time, but it does happen.

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

"^ My interpretation has long been that the Chairman's Award does emphasize outreach within the FIRST community. This has also been reinforced with the updated short answer questions in the last couple of years that specifically asked about interactions with and encouragement of other JFLL, FLL, FTC, FRC teams. "

I can think of at least 2 recent CCA teams that focused a lot of time and energy on Vex based outreach...I hope that openness to other programs promoting STEM growth is still in effect. If FIRST CA judges are going to weigh alternative program use as outreach less than FLL, FTC, etc. then I would hope they clarify that asap.

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

I agree, the changes to the questions and this form both seem like that is the way FIRST is heading with out directly telling teams that.

There are a lot of schools and students who don't have every opportunity to be on a robotics teams, any type of competitive STEM team. It's my belief that we should all be trying to support the grow of all STEM education. I love FRC but there are tones of schools where an FRC team just doesn't make sense, maybe FTC does, or VEX, BEST, Botball, Trinity Firefighting, OCCRA, MATE, or any of the other dozens of programs that want to inspire students to learn more about STEM.

I'd be interested to know how the HOF teams felt about this since the way the blog reads these definitions were published by them.

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

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the discounting of other STEM initiatives varies heavily from judge crew to judge crew. I know presenters from various teams have definitely come away with the impression that FIRST-related activities were weighted more heavily, based on judge questions. However, results seem to be a mix.

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

That I agree with, my worry is what is being told to judges in training. If CA judges are all being told to limit the importance of spreading STEM through other means besides FIRST programs, to me that greatly changes the meaning of the award.

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

And I can think of at least one of the Chairman's videos being changed to say "other robotics teams" when released to the public rather than "VEX robotics teams" (which was the version shown live at the Championship).

It's also been no secret that the Chairman's award focuses on FIRST related outreach, especially with the changes to the online submission short answers questions starting in 2014.

I doubt you're going to ever hear FIRST say "We don't value non-FIRST outreach" In stead, they've made it clear they have emphasis on FIRST-related outreach.

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

It may help to keep checking Frank's Blog to see direct responses from him regarding some of the questions in this thread...


Receiving team documentation

Permalink 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."

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

Related to the definitions in the new document,
I'm glad FIRST is providing these definitions. It will be helpful for teams in several ways.

Now teams have clearly defined terms they can use when writing Chairman's Essays.
Also, teams will have a standardized set of terms/measures with which they can compare themselves to other teams to know if they're really doing what they should be in terms of helping other teams.
Lastly, it may help motivate some teams to move from an assist role to a mentor role or a mentor role to a start role.

In the 2nd portion, it also clarifies a somewhat muddy distinction between "running" an event and just helping.

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

I wonder where Frank got that particular phrase from :p Hi Frank!

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

I actually did laugh out loud when I saw this.

"Team A creates and publishes a scouting database compiling statistical data from competitions, and the database is downloaded and used by other Teams"

There are only a couple of teams that publish scouting databases. There are a few more if you include scouting apps. I know my previous team did mention the scouting database as part of the Community Service Slide. I also know they never claimed the other teams that downloaded the file as being "mentored" or "assisted" in their chairman's presentation.

So it is either (a) some team did claim that or (b) somebody thinks that a team like ours had claimed that but not sure so adding this clarification will make sure it does not happen. Either way it is sad we have to come to that.

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

I took that more as something relatively benign-- Karthik/Simbotics have been releasing a pre-Champs scouting database since forever, so given that this was constructed in collaboration with HOF teams, I can see how they might see this as uncontroversial statement or at least one that's just coming from their experience. I certainly didn't read it as a jab at any particular team.

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

Or, that scenario now falls under the new category of Providing Published Resources and it doesn't actually have anything to do with previous teams.

This isn't FIRST "cracking down" on what criteria need to be met to win a Chairman's Award. The CA has always been rather up to interpretation (even more so in the recent years) and this is simply a way to find some sort of common ground for CA submissions.

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

A massive thank you to all the HoF teams who helped with these definitions. I'm sure there was a lot of debate over what it means to "start" vs. "mentor" vs. "assist" a team. What would seem tedious to some will be a huge assistance to the entire FRC community going forward - so thank you heaps!

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

I made that comment because of how specific it is and how few teams it can direct at. They could have made it more general like saying a team developed a software utility or tools instead.

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

You're 100% correct. It was just an example of one of the many types of beneficial resources FRC teams have created.

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

This is a good move, and I like the concise definitions. Hopefully this will smooth out the churn in direction business teams take and reduce the gamification this season w.r.t. what and how to write & present for CA. Teams do so much but only get X number of words and Y number of minutes to show the impacts. There are so many good programs, I'd much rather hear about unique community approaches (e.g. Kell) in the CA winner announcements.

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

I think this was an incredibly smart move. As we see more and more very deserving teams submitting for the CA, it’s important to standardize terminology. FIRST is a technical program, and that doesn’t apply to just the robots. When submitting for the CA, students are learning how to write in a persuasive AND technically accurate way, in the same vein that many professionals use in their day to day lives. It’s important to teach them how to follow technical guidelines and provide ethical and truthful statements.

In the same way that as an engineering consultant I have to provide accurate summaries of my firm’s capabilities in a project bid document, FIRST students need to write about their accomplishments in a professional and truthful manner. This is another side to the professional world that doesn’t always get emphasized but it’s a huge teaching opportunity for our community. It standardizes the terminology and places everybody on an even playing field. This move leaves little to the imagination and eliminates differences of interpretation that teams may or may not use to exaggerate or spin their claims.

It’s never an easy task to get students to document, document, document! They don’t like it when you comb through their numbers and claims with a fine tooth comb to ensure their accuracy. It’s a frustrating process, but I’m glad to know that FIRST is on the same page when it comes to honesty in submissions.

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

During the creation of these definitions there was no discussion about including other types of programs in this new common set of terminology. We were working within the pre-exisiting framework and written criteria and just ran with it. There was absolutely no intent or direction to exclude other types of robotics programs. However, creating these type of specific definitions would have been much harder if we weren't applying them to specific programs.

I think my feelings are well known on this topic; inspiring students to get excited by STEM is the goal, it really doesn't matter what program they use to achieve this goal. I would hope the judges continue to award teams who are inspiring by promoting this vision via any avenue, as they did for 1114 in 2012.

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

thank you for clearing that up

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

Additional information from Frank's Blog in response to my questions...

"Submitted by Frank Merrick on Wed, 10/14/2015 - 15:10.

Hi Joe. 1. The submission will not require the listing of specific teams supported. 2. Judges may or may not attempt to verify claims based on circumstances. If a team claims to have mentored Team 9999, and team 9999 happens to be attending the same event, the judges may ask Team 9999 to confirm the relationship. 3. The examples given are just examples, and are not intended to change the emphasis on the award. If you look in the manual for specifics on award submission, though, you will see emphasis is given to supporting FIRST teams. It has been this way for some time.

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

What the point of these new rules then? Looks like they will just hurt the teams that follow the rules. Those who already bend them can still do it without repercussions.

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

The point is to clarify a point of potential confusion, and provide somewhat of standard terminology.

That being said, the lack of enforcement is just status quo for many things. Remember, nobody's able to say--for sure--that you actually did lock the robot up in its bag when the form says you did! (Unless, of course, you are so foolish as to bag the robot in the parking lot of your event. In that case, ye be right out of luck.)

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

Look at part two of every definition. Why add that if the team in question has no idea they are being "mentored?"

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

Let me ask you this way: You've had to provide references for work/volunteering/other stuff, correct? And being a teacher, I assume you've provided some letters of recommendation for students going off to college. How often have you actually been contacted (or, how often do you know your references have been contacted) to verify what's been stated in those letters? But... isn't the "threat" of being them being contacted enough to make you think really, really carefully about who you choose, or what you choose to say? Or, to put it another way... Some student who barely attended any preseason meetings (let alone build) puts on his college application that he was a member of the robotics team in good standing--IF the college were to call you and say, was this person in good standing, what would you say?

If a team, shall we say, does some embroidery with the truth (such as by using the wrong term, deliberately or not), this gives FRC judges a clearer picture of what they're saying should they choose to verify the team's story. For example, if a team says "we mentored team such-and-such", all a judge has to ask is, "were you talking with this team throughout build season?" (or some similar question--maybe "describe your interactions with other teams", which could go for two or three awards) and the team being checked on doesn't need to know whether they were mentored--they can answer the question, and the judge can quickly make a determination as to whether or not the team actually did mentor the other team.


What this does is it provides a technical definition that can be used both by the team claiming the help to another team and by the judges to ensure that they are on the same page. Just for grins... I believe this post would count as Assisting. (I'm not entirely sure that y'all would actually agree with that statement, but per the definition's examples it should count. Not that I'd be claiming it--way too loose for my taste, not definite enough.)

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

While interesting, your analogy is flawed. The situation is more like this: I apply for a job and state the degree I earned but do not tell them where I earned it. I also submit references, but do not submit contact information for those references.

This is what is happening. Teams can still say the following:

we have started, 2 FRC teams and mentored 12 others. We have started 14 FLL teams and mentored 35. We have started 8 FTC teams and mentored 10.

what is going to stop a team from doing this again? nothing.

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!)

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

I've split the discussion on the newly discovered Chairman's Deadline to the following thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=138730