2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

This thread is a bit late, but what exactly happened to the 2007 Chairmans Honorable Mention award? And does anybody know why it was removed this year? I remember that it the past it was a big part of FIRST and it also helps recognize teams that are doing good in their community... Is this a hint that FIRST is becoming more competitive and changing how FRC works from outreach to great robots?

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I would've liked to hear the honorable mentions, and am curious as to why they were removed, but I don't think that FIRST is necessarily moving away from the outreach aspect. After all, the YouTube contest is about recruitment, and it wasn't the World Champions that got to visit the White House, but the Chairman's et. al winners. (Rightly so, they represent the best aspects of FIRST)

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I don't know why they removed it... but all the three Judges Award seemed to be given to good works in Chairman's... just take a look at this:

Judge's Award #1 ("Going above and beyond the call of duty"): 922
Judge's Award #2: 71
Judge's Award #3("Paying FIRST forward"): 1382

these are the three judges award given with the phrase used by woodie to introduce the teams... And seeing what he talks about each team... i can only believe that the judges award in CMP were given to teams who had a good "chairman's work"... just like the Honorable Mentions from past years with the difference that the judges awards won't take you to the next year Championship...

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I'm all up for recognizing outreach through a judges award, but the Honorable Mention was great because it actually recognized the team for being one of the elite teams rather than patting them on the back and saying, "good job, keep up the good work." The Honorable mention was (if I am not mistaken) judged by the Chairman's judges which makes them more "qualified" (for a lack of a better term) to judge who did a great job of helping their community etc.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I certainly lament the lack of honorable mentions.

If i could change one thing about the championship this year, it would be to have the honorable mentions remain an integral part of the competition.

I think that first is sending a message that only one team can be awarded for outreach and chairman's qualifications, but at least 12 teams were recognized with gold medals that corresponded to field success. thats not good IMO.

Let's communicate to FIRST that we would like the Honorable Mentions to remain a part of the Championship Event!

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I was kinda disappointed not to have the Honorable Mentions this year. I was looking forward to it, as these are the teams we can look up to, and the fact that these teams embodies the message of FIRST in true fashion.
Hopefully, the'll have it back next year. But I would love to see what FIRST has to say about this.

Imad

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

My opinion is on the other side. I'd much rather see an actual award (e.g. Judge's Award) than a mere mention.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

But the honorable mention was an award. A "runner-up" award, but an award nonetheless.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

And you do get a physical award, its really nice to.

I liked having the Honorable Mention it was nice to know that you were on the right track and to get recognized for your work.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I agree. It is positive feedback at a level just above Regional Chairmans. With so much variation in how the CA is judged on the local level it is difficult to make it through to the Championship or to know how you compare with teams at the Championship once you get there. Winning the Honorable Mention Award twice has given us the confidence of knowing that we are on the right track, as long as we keep improving on what we do.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I totally agree with that... and I have to say that, even though we have worked hard to help the community, I find it pretentious to say that the Judges Awards substituted the honorable mentions. Just because we didn't have CHM this year it doesn't mean that the JA were in lieu of them. For me, they are different awards which recognize different things.

I don't intend to say that had there been honorable mentions this year ,my team as well as the other ones, would have or not be mentioned. Let's face it, they are different awards and it's not up to us judge the meaning of the them. We should not compare them either.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

As I was leaving the Georgia Dome following the close of the ceremonies, I was approached by two students who had accepted one of the Judge's Awards. They asked what had happened to the Honorable Mentions and what the Judge's Awards meant. They were happy but not sure how to celebrate. I suggested they speak with their mentors and have them ask FIRST for clarification if the mentors could not answer their questions.
Jane

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

The other problem with not giving CHM Awards is that judges will naturally want to encourage strong Regional CA teams, if there is no other way to recognize them.
This could possibly create a situation in which the awards at the Championship go mostly to Regional CA Teams and Rookies.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I heard it was done to prevent hard feelings and not have people discouraged (every year they are on HM...), and the Judges award is for a team that stands out in a way that a current award doesn't apply to.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

ouch... it seems that i choosed wrong words to say what i'd like and so i was misunderstood

I didn't mean that the Judges Award represents the same thing that the honorable mentions... i never thought to make a comparison between them...
I was just trying to say that the organization seems to made a swap... don't know why... but they removed the Honorable Mentions and gave the Judges to teams with good work for CA... I'm also not saying that they are right or wrong because of that

And just to reinforce: i'n not comparing the two "awards" and the recognition of them...

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

Mateus,
Don't worry about 'choosing the wrong words' in your post, I understood what you said very well. It made sense to me.

What we may be looking at is a confusing situation and that can be confusing.

Not to worry,
Jane

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I agree that the honorable mentions does give you good feed back that you are on the right track to Chariman's, and to give you encouragement to keep trying. however, I did not like how they have been presented in the past. Right before the CA was announced, they would say "and these teams have received honorable mentions for the Chairman's Award - team number ....etc."

Translation - " and these teams did NOT receive the CA this year...".

I thought it lessened the anticipation quite a bit.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I agree with you here, however I still believe that they should be announced and recognized for their efforts. I'm not really sure where to put them, since the CA fits as the ultimate award presented (in both senses of the word). It would probably detract from the award to list them afterwards. I can't really think of a good solution.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

Speaking for a team that won the CHM twice, I can say that it is filled with mixed emotions. I don't think you can avoid the temporary letdown. Afterall you just found out that you did not win the Championship CA. Its the nature of the award, runnerups are always mentioned first.

But it is still a positive award. Its one of those things that takes a while to sink in. You certainly feel proud about it later on, as you consider the incredible teams that were regional CA winners.

As a side note this award has never had a consistent plan. It was not in the FIRST manual when we won in 2004. We didn't even know that there was a trophy. It arrived in the mail in July. In 2005 it was delivered to our pit by our Senior Mentor. Now this year they removed the award in same way it was created, without announcement or discussion. Its history is a little confusing.

I personally would like to see its return. For the small price of a few trophies, FIRST can provide some pretty important feedback. This is not only feedback for the teams that win CHM. Its also feedback for the teams that don't receive it.

I think its important to have these discussions. Thanks for starting this thread. :)

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

Perhaps it should be changed to "Chairman's finalist" or "Chairman's nominee". Before the award, 3 or 4 finalists/nominees are announced, then the winner is announced from those 3 or 4 teams. Nobody is upset when they hear that they are a finalist/nominee, as they know that they are still in the running for the clock. The downside is that the other 37 teams know that they are already out, and they will be bummed.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I like this idea. Isn't it the same way FIRST used to handle this area a few years ago? During our team's rookie year at the "Nationals" (at that time) at Epcot, this is how it was done. It makes sense and avoids most of the concerns of doing it. Also, it should be very clearly communicated in the Awards Section of the documentation.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

Great Idea... and yes, from back in the day, I do remember it was done like this in the past (before their were regional CA winners). Honestly, I dont think the other teams would be bummed... We were one of the teams, and walked in knowing we were up against teams like MOE and teams that had a lot of history in it and some truly amazing programs, and were just incredibly excited that we had the chance to be able to present.

I think it would be helpful if FIRST brought back the HM award, or at the very least gave feedback sheets like they do at regionals.

Re: 2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.
 

I did think of this idea, and discarded it because of the downsides you mention, though in retrospect, I probably should have posted just to throw it out there (thankfully, you did).

Eventually, all other teams besides the winner are going to be let down in some way, shape or form. I still haven't decided if I like the old HM way better, or if I like the idea of Nominee's/Finalists, but it's a starting point.