Right and Wrong
 

Ben,

I hate to pass judgment, but I am going to: You are right and you are wrong.

Your are right: What is legal at one competition may not be legal at another -- but this will only affect those that push the limits of the rules even though they have been asked not to.

You are wrong: This year's game is not setting up a scenario where judges and refs can play favorites as they like -- I won't even address this silly concept.

Your are right: Many people seem to disregard the "professionalism", unfortunately, I think I need to point out to you that you are one of them.

You are wrong: No judge will scream bloody murder if a robot so much as goes on the opposite side of the field.... the word silly comes to mind again.

You are right: The volunteers with good intentions will screw up - they are human.

So, to quote another... "Each of us has a finite amount of available energy. It is up to us to decide how it will be expended. You can expend significant energy whining and complaining about what is wrong with FIRST, life, the universe, and everything. Or you can re-direct that energy into finding a way to improve the situation and making something positive out of the whole experience. So, where do you want to direct your energy?"


Aidan

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

If the rules were very precise, a team could possibly find a loophole and still build their robot around a strategy that FIRST is clearly trying to avoid. By making grey areas, teams will naturally stray from such a strategy in fear of penalties. Thus FIRST eliminates the unwanted strategy. Doesn't this discussion prove that the rules are acomplishing what they were meant to?

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Wow - one of the great things about CD is getting to see different perspectives, thoughts, and discussions. Then every once in a while you come across a post which is just so off base that it actually manages not to offer one constructive or useful thought.

Ben, I've read some very well thought out and constructive posts from you, so don't think I'm commenting on anything other than this post. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you either:

A - are having a real bad day / needed to vent
B - needed some cash and volunteered for some university study on the effects of minor exposure to Mad Cow patties
C - had a traumatic childhood experience when your junior league "under 8" soccer team was robbed of a playoff victory by a corrupt and evil referee who had bet on the other team
D - lost a bet and had to post claims with no actual logic or foundation of truth
E - don't understand FIRST, the 2004 game, and the roles of refs, inspectors, and judges


Again, main word that comes to mind when scrolling through your post is "wow". Not sure where to start, so here goes:

This has option "B - mad cow university study" written all over it.
What game have you been analyzing? If you are a rookie in FIRST, then I understand the lack of understanding in how different and structured the roles of judges, refs, and inspectors are. And "tricking" other teams - how in the world does that relate to the rest of the sentence about judges and refs? Forget I asked, I really have no interest in an attempted answer.

umm, this makes me think it might be option "C - bad childhood experience with a ref."
I don't know about your team - but most everyone else plans on playing FIRST FRENZY - Raising the Bar. Please don't try to lower the bar. Also, FYI - FIRST will be having conference calls with all head refs at all events so that they know the rules and the intention behind them. There is no "vagueness" to these rules - please don't confuse "simple" with "vague"...there's a big difference.

wow. could be a result of option "A - bad day, needed to vent"
I'll chalk this up to youthful frustration. Life is too short to be so paranoid and cynical. If you want to apply that quote to Presidents, Congressmen, and Enron - feel free, you'll have many valid points. But a non-profit volunteer driven event? Trust me, the refs and judges will have a full understanding of the clear, concise, and non-vauge rules. If you want to lawyer the rules and try to push the limits of what the clear intention of a rule is - feel free, but don't complain when the call goes against you. Will some mistakes be made, and a few probably incorrect calls made - absolutely. But it will be a simple mistake, nothing based on prejudice or bias.

this one makes me think option "D - you must have lost a bet."
No way you would have voluntarily taken credit for that prediction. When going on the other side of the field is outlawed, please reference back to your predicitions so you can say "I told you so". (Lavery, please let me know if there is an upcoming update with the "it's illegal to go to the other side of the field" rule so I can quickly edit this...thanks. :) )

big WOW. clearly a result of option "E - don't understand FIRST, the 2004 game, and the roles of refs, inspectors, and judges" Ben, there is good news here with a big silver lining: you have painted yourself such a cynical, pessimistic, flawed, incorrect of view of the game, the judges, and the refs that you will most likely look back and be pleasantly surprised and happy with what you see is reality in March and April. You've actually managed to lower the bar for your expectations so much, that it would be almost impossible for the game not to raise the bar and be much better than you predict.

I guess time will tell - but I would encourage you to step back, take a deep breath, challange yourself and work constructively with your team to have a fun and enjoyable season, and take the season to learn a bit more about what FIRST is truly about. I think you're going to be surprised and wish you a truly wonderful season.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Jason... you're the man.

Yes... that statement merited a post in this thread.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Jason Morella has appropriately addressed the content of the subject post. But I just cannot let the final closing comment go by without responding.

Ben, I don't know why you are participating in the FIRST program, or what you perceive you are getting out of it. I am not going to tell you what you should or should not believe about the goals of FIRST, how it should impact your life. I am not going to play "values police" and tell you that all your views are wrong because they are not consistent with the stated values of FIRST, or how those values should be reflected in the implementation and play of the game. Those are all things that you are going to have to figure out for yourself.

But I am also not going to just sit here silently and allow you to insult a group of people that I honor, respect, and admire. You have flat out crossed the line with this statement. You have very effectively impugned the integrity, intentions, and character of virtually every volunteer who has willingly given of their time and effort (and, frequently, finances) to support this program from which you benefit. You have just called them liars and cheats, and lumped them all together as the type of people that would willingly throw a match.

Your statement is incorrect. It is inappropriate. It is insulting.

I hope you will recognize just how unacceptable this type of comment is within this community. And at every upcoming competition event that you attend, I hope you will go out of your way to find every volunteer judge, referee, field attendant, score keeper, and stage hand, and apologize.

-dave lavery


Brandon - this has gone far enough. This thread started off bad, and has become worse. Please close the thread.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

In simple terms, you're pissing in the well you drink from. These people put in countless hours worth way more than is what is put in our measly kits. One of my team mentors kept track of his hours he put in on the project last year and at $15 an hour he would have made over $15,000. And that is only for one person and his wife didn't kill him. The volunteer for FIRST are by far the programs most valued asset. I remember a certain judge at LSR that was so impressed with the program and my team last year that he brought his whole family to visit us at the championships. This is how FIRST should work. We should work to impress these judges and refs enough that they really want to come back and are as excited about the program as we are. If we don't appreciate them for the great work and effort they put in and instead refer to them as biased liars then we may be losing out on some great people who have much to offer to your FIRST experience beyond the robot.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

You're right - I apoligize, and I was actually have a pretty terrible day. I had just come out of an arguement when I checked the board. I guess I unloaded my fustrations onto you guys.

Sorry - and I didn't mean a lot of what I said. I respect FIRST volunteers a lot, and did not intend to berate them the way I did.

I sincerely apoligize, and I will be sure to keep away from my PC when I'm upset in the future.

--Ben

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Hey guys- I guess the title of this original post was correct because with 61 replies now there apparently IS controversy.

But I think it is time to get building and stop arguing. The rules are as they are and we all have our strategies to work with. Hopefully all our teams are up and running.

For the record- I never meant to imply anything about judge/ref corruption in my original posting but I do think this game is more human oriented than it should be. That's just my opinion. But rest assured- I know of at least one robot that will be heard in this game and I'm sure there are a number of others in the wings.

What I really want to know is "where did they pack the clowns?" ;)

Good luck and my guys will see you at NJ, Md and Ga.

WC

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

All -

I slammed Ben pretty hard, in public, for his earlier statement. Given that, I feel I must also publicly comment on his response since then.

Everyone has bad moments they regret, and makes bad decisions that they later realize were mistakes (yeah, even some of us rocket scientists!). One of the true signs of strong character is the ability to recognize those times, and stand up and take responsibility for the mistake. Only then can you learn from it, get past it, and move on.

Ben has recognized the impact of his public comments. He has publicly and privately apologized, and taken full responsibility for his statements. Although I certainly disagreed with his initial statements, I must commend him for his character in correcting the situation, and his stand-up behavior since then.

Ben - You have done the right thing. Thank you.

-dave

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I'm going to close this temporarily to let things cool down. Hopefully we can reopen this, as there has been some good discussion earlier on.