[Tristan Lall]

I was actually having a conversation about something like this today (though not about any specific team's truthfulness).

It struck me that because teams give their presentations behind closed doors, to a set of judges who are very often not in a position to check facts (much less check facts within the limited timeframe of an event), there's great potential for inaccuracies (intentional or unintentional) to affect the process.

So what about making video of the interviews available after the award is given? (You can't simulcast them, because teams will draw cues from the ones ahead of them. You probably don't want to reveal them before the award, because the suspense is useful.) That holds the teams strictly accountable for what they say, because large chunks of the FIRST community will (effectively) crowd-source the fact-checking. If it is evident that some team exaggerated their accomplishments, maybe the judges at the Championship will have reason to overlook them this year. At the very least, the team will have to do some sort of damage control to protect their reputation.

There is some bad that could come of this openness. For example, what if a team member tells a falsehood, but says it confidently? Will we know if they were lying, or just mistaken? Was it a team decision, or an individual one? Will we jump to conclusions and undeservedly ruin a reputation?

Nevertheless, it's probably fair to say that, despite the faults of some journalists and the news-consuming public, more than any other thing, it's journalism that keeps politicians in check. Could the same be said of FRC?