Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy
I don't know about teams making 'stretched' or 'inflated' or 'misleading' or 'not-totally-true' claims in their Chairman's bid, but what I DO see, frequently, is teams reusing the same wonderful things they did years ago over and over again in their Chairman's videos, effectively using the same accomplishments to win the award multiple times.
I'm not really sure how to reconcile this, because those things are clearly a part of the team's history, and clearly a part of how they do things, and even clearly a part of what makes the team deserve Chairman's. On the other hand, it seems to me like the very best teams should have enough material from the current year that makes them awesome, that the older stuff, especially content from a previous Chairman's bid that resulted in an RCA, warrants little more than a cursory mention.
|
I don't think there is any mystery here as the award is about a long-term (more than one year) sustained effort. Quoting the 2012 manual,
"6.4.3 Submission Information
The criteria for the 2012 Chairman's Award are essentially identical to those in the past, with special emphasis on recent accomplishments in both the 2011/2012 year and the preceding two (2) years. The judges focus on teams’ activities over a sustained period, as distinguished from just the six (6) week design and build time frame."
So in other words the judges want to know about all of your efforts, no matter how "old", with special focus/emphasis on the most recent three years.
In addition to that, a team may have begun an outreach activity six years ago, but they still continue to participate/organize/execute it today - making it a recent activity with a long and rich history (which, coincidentally, are things that judges love - and they should)
-my .02, namaste.