Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

"Required"?

I didn't hear anyone giving instructions to the kids, either during or prior to the finals, telling them they had to stand for the awards. It just seemed to be a natural and spontaneous thing to do, at least for me, and I imagine it was the same with most of the other mentors and veteran students.

How would you prefer we show our enthusiasm and appreciation for the award-winning teams? This is a high-energy sporting event, not a piano recital. :)

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

i would agree with alan, teams should be showing their enuthusiasm and being spirited. This is supposed to be an exciting competition not formal one. Trying to take the spirit out of first would just be killing it.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

YES!.. i 100% agree with taht.. considering the magnitude of the 30point penalties especially (hitting robot in loading zone, we hit once and they were not in process of loading, they just moved onto there to get in our way)
. . .. .. the inconsistancy at the toronto vs GLr regional stunk. . at GLR the refs were awsome.. they looked like veterans.. at toronto.. they all looked like.. 20s... !.. and as such they made some REALLY bad calls, not only for our team, but for many others that i watched.. it was horrible.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Think back to the award presentations. Look around you, beyond your own team. Notice the hordes of students standing up and cheering the winners. Please don't confuse energetic enthusaism with acting obnoxious. At fifteen, you're much too young to be so stodgy. :)

I seem to recall you once mentioning that your team members consider it taboo to interact with "outsiders", and now you're telling us that they think displaying spirit should be discouraged? I think there's something very wrong with that attitude, and I think you should talk to your mentors -- and have them talk to other teams' mentors -- to try to find out if you're "just not getting it". Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you're that uncomfortable with the amount of jumping up and down that goes on at a FIRST event, you might want to consider focusing on the chess team instead of the robotics team. :p

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Many of my complaints have already been discussed, such as the long queuing times, which could definitely be handled better.

Here's the rest of my list:

Nearly all the announcing on Curie was not understandable. It sounded like they were yelling into mikes causing incredible distortion. Viewers at home on NASA TV or the Internet felt the same.

The NASA broadcast was terrible, switching fields mid-match, no scores, and the real time scoring (which as already discussed was often wrong) taking up much of the screen. My wife said it would turn off anyone not involved in the program, not excite them to get involved.

The lack of ranking information or even the elimination brackets on the field screen was annoying, but not having updated and correct rankings and awards on the website for our press connections was yet again a real miss. Try explaining results to a reporter who keeps repeating, "but the website says this.." and you get the idea. FIRST still needs a system to generate official press releases immediately after every event. Perhaps that's a project for Google...

The peviously unscheduled, excessively long drivers meeting which conflicted with many teams' planned events was a real annoyance as well. Maybe some of it was useful, but the part I saw was pretty much a waste of time.

Overall the event was successful and a lot of fun. I do plan on posting in the positive thread tonight or during lunch tomorrow.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Thank you!! I can't believe I forgot the drivers' meeting. What a frustrating meeting. I commend their desire to get everyone on the same page, but that should have been taken care of well in advance of the nationals. The last-minute scheduling, as you pointed out, was just unacceptable. Teams, especially large teams from out of town, have to do a lot of preplanning to make these trips come off right. Our drivers missed a team dinner to be in attendance, and we walked away more confused and frustrated by the new interpretations introduced during that meeting. To make matters worse, the calls were no more consistent after the meeting. The problem wasn't the absence of communication, the problem was too many penalties with too much room for judgment.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Perhaps some of the younger teams have not yet recognized the importance of applauding others achievements. It's called GP. It's called, not being a sore loser. It's called, being proud of other teams when they succeed. With your role titled "Leadership", you might consider instilling this type of behavior within your team. Personally, I was appauled at the lack of applause from the balcony section, let alone standing O's. It borders on showing disrespect for others accomplishments. It shows that they don't care others do well. If you were concerned about not seeing the 2 representatives receiving their awards, perhaps you could stand up and cheer for them, as we only stood for maybe 20-30s each award. Team 45 has the utmost respect and consideration for other teams and I don't see how this could even be turned into something negative.

The TechnoKats are not going to refrain from applauding others when they do well, or standing up to do it. The teams that win these awards deserve a standing O. How would you feel if nobody stood up or applauded when you received an award? I have noticed that if the veteran teams don't do this, the arena will be silent. There are some younger teams that do it, but I see many younger teams sitting in their chairs with their hands at their sides. That's sad. There were 3-5 teams from the whole balcony we saw stand up to applaud - the rest only stood up for the wave.

If you think that repetitive standing O's and applause become devoid of meaning, you are sorely mistaken. Sure, maybe there are some people even on the TechnoKats that haven't figured out why we do it.... but they will. They are not "required" to stand up. We encourage it. We do it because we are truly proud of those successful teams and try to encourage other teams to show their support also.

If anything, the Lessons Learned Negative here is that many teams don't show their support for others successes, and that is the negative.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Having discussed this with her, let me try to clarify Ally's post: She is not opposed to teams showing their appreciation for other's success. What she, and I, think is inappropriate is for team members to be required to give a standing ovation for every award.

A student on team 45 told Ally precisely this at the competition when she asked why they keep standing ("we get yelled at for being rude"). Now two members of 45 have disputed this claim in this thread, and that's all anyone needed to say about this.

If someone would like to argue that it is appropriate for teams to be required to show some insincere appreciation, that is another matter.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Thats not always the case. I remember one finals match where one team got a 30 pointer and still won by 10...

The only thing I didn't like this year was the lack of calls on ramming/pinning. Not once did I see a 10 pointer thrown for ramming, nor did I ever see an acurate count on pinning. Those are my 2 major driver pet-peeves...

Other than that, I love this years compitition!

btw, Sir Charles rules! :D

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I think it's completely wrong of you to make an assumption that because a referee is under a certain age they lack the competency to understand the rules and officiate. How does someone "Look like a veteran"? I've been in FIRST 5 years and I'm almost 19. I can pickup some random 50 year old dude off the streets, who's never seen FIRST, and because he's 50, and I'm 19, you assume he understands the rules better, and is more competent?

Please think before you speak.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I agree that it was very difficult to scout when teams in front of you were standing up and blocking the view of the field. At times my scouts and I would have to skip entire matches because of this.

But instead of having teams stop standing up and cheering, how about they move to an area where they know no scouts are? Or going further back in the stands to cheer. Or having sections designated for scouts only? I think that's the best idea.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

that was not the point of my argument. read it again.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Possibly coming soon to a regional near you. If you live near Houston, anyways. We're looking at options to make something like this happen at LSR next year.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I did indeed read your post. You complained that you could not see because the team in front of you was standing and cheering.

What am I missing? :confused:

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Several people politely asked them to sit down but they replied that they would "get yelled out for being rude". I agree that applauding another team's achievements is polite and courteous, however, a repetitive and forced standing ovation becomes increasingly meaningless the more frequently it occurs. Soon it becomes a mere mechanical motion, completely devoid of meaning.

My point is that enthusiastic appreciation for other teams is wonderful but insincere expression is not. (hence the thing about repetition, forced, meaningless mechanical motion) I under the impression that members of one team was required to give every other team a standing ovation. I hope when other teams applaud for my team, they do it because we have earned it and not because someone else is telling them to do it.
You can also read MaxLobovsky post for further clarification.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I'm merely pointing out the fact that a predominantly large portion of ref's at GTAR and the majority of Canadian events are Woburn 188 Alumni (established in FIRST in 1998 and Canada FIRST 3 years prior) and as such they are all incredibly well versed in how exacting a toll penalties can take on every team, indeed, we have been the victim of a few bad calls and benefited from a few bad calls ourselves. Age shouldnt really and doesnt really determine how people call games. That being said however, I agree with Slimbo's point (not just because he is on my team ;)) that perhaps a committee of ref's could be established per region of competition that would travel to each respective competition and serve as a referee adivsor, or something of that nature.

Other than that, this has been a fantastic final season.

For all of you guys complaining about turnaround in Championships, ask anyone who attended the Waterloo regional. We had maybe 40-50 minutes at most between matches, usually it was closer to 20-30.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Fighting with other teams over cheering for other teams during an awards ceremony is a sad precedence. This has been a rough year for GP in FIRST.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

there was no fighting but merely a discussion that emerged from the inability to see the field. Just because i choose to address an issue that was bothering me does not mean i was not being a gracious professional. I chose to confront the issue politely and sensitively instead of throwing around hurtful words. Please don't assume. If I have unintentionally offended anyone with my choice of words, i apologize.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

It's not just you and your team. There's been alot of anger on these pages this year (and I'm just as guilty as the next guy). I don't know what it is but I have never seen Cheifdelphi have so many arguements and confrontations. The fact that this thread is five times the size of the positive thread proves that. Hopefully cooler heads will ease up the tension in the offseason.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

This is only the second half of your post. But either way, if one of our students told you they were required to stand, then they have it wrong and obviously don't understand yet why we cheer others on. I'm not convinced it would have made much difference at the time if those few had remained seated, because the other 95% of us were standing on our own free will. The most we do to "require" them to stand is make a hand motion implying "come on, stand up and cheer", but have never yelled at, or punished someone for not doing so.. That would be silly.

Either way, it shows support from a team, regardless if they were less than willing to show it. People don't always do things because they like it, but they do it anyways...for whatever reason. And while I can honestly understand your point of view, I'd personally rather have my teammate standing and applauding less willingly (not forced), than sitting on their hands and ignoring the awards looking like a bored, unhappy, sore loser, even if they are. Negativity clearly shows more in one situation over the other and we don't want a less than positive team. We try to teach them GP, and standing to applaud is one small way we do it.
That is all on this... I think we can put it to rest now that everyone is understood.

Maybe it's because negative things are easier to argue than positive things.. :) Now that we've been able to explain our thoughts, I promise I will post no more in this thread, as I don't have any negative things left to say regarding this thread. I apologize for the space the discussion has taken already but hopefully others can learn something from it :D

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I only attended one regional and the nationals, but at both I experienced the same problem; Teams standing up during their matches.

It really doesn't seem like that big of deal, but when those teams are sitting in the closest (or near closest) seats to the field, it's rather vexing when you're trying to scout or just sit back, relax, and watch the matches.

When asked to sit down, they ignored the request. Maybe they didn't hear us? Doubtful. At least one or two members would turn around and see us motioning the request, but denied it. Not just students, either, but the adults as well.

Perhaps this issue could be addressed amongst the teams. If you insist on standing up during the match, then maybe you could sit nearer to the back? Or just stand up while they're announcing your team/alliance? It'd be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

From reading all these posts I feel that there was a lack of GP this year. I have personally felt this. There could be many reasons for this, maybe FIRST is getting too big or maybe some people don't understand what it is. I am proposing that everybody get reacquainted with gracious professionalism. It would help things greatly.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Might i say something here?

Everyone take a step back, There is alot of PERSONAL discussion going on here, Lets direct the negative at FIRST and not each other :D

I'm kidding, really, First is doing a great job!

Here is my view of all this negative:

Negative vs. Positive is a bad comparison, Think of this: You have a good day, not exceptional, but good overall. Now say some random guy walks up and kicks you in the shin. What are you more likely to tell people about? The good overall day, or the guy kicking you in the shin?

Now lets say you have a bad day, not much goes right, but there is nothing exceptionally bad. A random guy walks up and hands you a $100 bill and walks away, what are you going to tell people about then?

Look at what we are discussing here, The major reoccurring topic is the ref inconsistencies. Alot of other things brought up are mainly small things in the overall scale of FIRST, this shows me that in general 2005 was a good year for FIRST.

So again, take a step back, and really take a good look at what your about to post, Keep specific teams or people OUT of your post to avoid discussions like the whole Technokats fiasco.

Then again, what do i know, I'm only a rookie :D

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

With regard to cheering, requiring teammates to stand and cheer, and being bothered by teams in front of you who are cheering, I would like to start a new thread. This seems to be a sticky issue with a few different sides and opinions. I can see what Ally (and others are saying), and I would like to take the time to address this logically by starting another thread.

This other thread is called Cheering, standing ovations, and required team actions.

Go there to debate that issue as you wish. Continue to whine about FIRST in this thread. (sorry... couldn't resist... :) )

Andy B.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

While the entire FIRST crew did an awesome job at the Championship Competition, many people have mentioned that consistency in calling penalties was a big problem. I have to agree on that one. You should really check out this match (#74 in Galileo) for one of the strangest calls I have ever seen.

http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/...eo/gal_074.wmv

Keep an eye on team 126 (the closest robot on the blue alliance.......the one capping multiple tetras at once). They stay on their side of the field for just about the whole match. With somthing like 11 or 12 seconds left in the match, a robot on the far red side of the field can be seen being tipped over. With time running out, 126 attempts to run the field and cap in a red home row goal, passing the downed robot with about 2 seconds left in the match. While there was about 6 seconds in between the robot tipping, and 126 being on even the same SIDE of the field as them, they are somehow hit with a ten point penalty and disqualified in the match for being responsible for the tipping.
What do you guys think? I understand how calls should not be arguable. But, in a case like this, should calls be able to be changed or reviewed? This year, a simple mistake like this in one match costs any team a LOT! Thanks for your input!

Congrats to all teams on another successful FIRST season! :)

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Well from what I saw on the video someone definately got tipped and it even looked like it was tipped becuase of a high push. I couldn't make out team #'s and such but that can be grounds for a dq


On another note: we all know that there were some bad calls made and this has been said in this thread many times (as well in maybe 10 other threads if not more) If you're going to post a bad call or say that the ref's were inconsistent and such please reconsider because this topic has been beaten to death then dragged outside revived and beaten again.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

[quote=abeD]Well from what I saw on the video someone definately got tipped and it even looked like it was tipped becuase of a high push. I couldn't make out team #'s and such but that can be grounds for a dq


Yes, a robot was tipped over. But, the dq was charged to the wrong team.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Maybe next year FIRST can do away with the refs altogether. It could be done with pressure pads, contact switches, and tip sensors. The onboard computers could calculate how hard and where they’d been hit and signal the master computer to disable the right bot.

Heck, while we’re at it, let’s do away with the drivers, HPs, and coaches. Run the full two minutes in autonomous mode; put bar codes on the game pieces and scanners on the goals.

That way there’d be no need for moan and groan posts. Not one person cheated. No one to disparage.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

jack jones that is a goood way of ending their quabble..

.. . see.. if we didnl;t allow for these flexibilities.. then the game would be no fun at all (jack jones method).. so .. we just need to deal with it..

but personally .. i think the refs should watch a video of the match!. . FIRST is all about technology, but .. why is their refs using flags and not videos ? .. we know in NHL when a goal is disputed.. they look at the net cam . !..

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Because the NHL doesn't have to get through 400+ matches in 2 days @ 6 minuets each. Also if the refs were to review video, then theres a delay in matches or a much lower number of matches and another point for everyone to complain about. Guys I'm not trying to be mean but the refs are only human, they make mistakes. Why doesn't everyone take a step back from their computer, close Chiefdelphi.com and go outside, i hear the weather is nice.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I know that's hyperbole, but I also think there's a bit of a good idea in there.

Suppose next year's game were designed such that the only penalties/disablements/DQs given out were for ramming, tipping, unsafe operation, and the obligatory humans touching the robot. Penalties don't always be the answer--there is always creating the game's scoring options such that a strategy based on interference (such as blocking both opposing ball chutes in FIRST Frenzy, a ten-point penalty) aren't necessarily illegal, but either fall under the heading of "not GP" or "just plain stupid" instead.

I know what you're thinking now: "But Billfred, what about the human players?! We've got to protect them!" Once again, a game design to that effect can solve that. Using the example of balls, suppose the ball chutes were more along the lines of 2000 (a picture of which can be seen here), modified such that humans can't reach out onto the field. An example to that effect is attached to this post. edit: now it actually is attached. (If you're still worried, put a requirement that any ball-delivering devices can't be designed to interface with the chute. Then they have to build it that way, lest they don't compete.)

Put simply, the whole reason I see that we have penalties is to make a certain event (such as hitting your opponent while in the loading zone) undesirable. There is, however, more than one way to skin a cat; making certain events impossible or stupid to do through other aspects of game design does the same thing.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

So what you are saying is that if your team wins an award or somethign you want everyone to shut up and just sit there having no emotions what so ever for you guys? why? FIRST is about being happy and being gracious and all about good things and everything. it just crosses my mind on how people can just say that its "obnoxious" for teams to cheer for other teams? this is the time where i put on my "hm" face.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I would have to say, the biggest problem for our team watching our matched would be other teams saving seats

we would come into the stands to cheer as a team (all 21 members) during practice matches and day 1 matches and these spaces would be 'marked off' with jackets and banners. we sat anyway because 6 rows worth of seats would be blocked off for all hours of the day with no one actually in them and we'd just want to watch one match at the alotted time. We incountered several robot mommies and daddies who would tell us to move. After our match we'd get up and resume our work.

I mean i greatly appreciate the caring of these parent volunteers, but seats should be in rotation for all the teams to use.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

It may not have been team 126 but it was still a team on the blue alliance that tipped that robot, unless my eyes were playing tricks on me. So they should have got the DQ for the alliance but not because of team 126.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Look closely at the bottom where the two bots come into contact. The Blue Alliance bot tipped the bot by turning left and touched it at the BASE. This sure doesn't look like a High CG tip. I'd call it legal.

Anyway...I can say that our team also had a match with a ref error.
It happened in the Human Player loading zone. We were clearly on the Pad and the other side backed right into us as they moved away from our goal. It looked like a 30pointer to me (I our favour)...but no penalty was awarded. Go figure!

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

This isn't a thread to tell everyone that you got penalties you didn't deserve.
Please keep on topic.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Well I would've put it in a more polite manner than that.
He's a newbie. Go easy on him.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Definitly the penalties, if you got one of the wopping 30 point penalties then you PROBABLY had a good chance of losing.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I found that you need to find a balance with the team. This was the first year we brought back our team and it was unspeakablily hard to do school, X-C and run a full time "Circus" the hardest thing was trying to find what everyone was good at. everyone wanted to be on the computers, and in return we finished as the truck was pulling up. Our team offically had 30 people on it but there we really only 5 people who decided to do the work.
If anyone has suggestions about organizing the team so that it will function on its own, without mentor or a single person handling it. I am will ing to listen.

Chris