Quote:
Originally Posted by cadandcookies
Normally I'd post this in the Chairman's Award section, and I completely understand if it gets moved there, but I feel like there's a very important discussion that needs to be had now that winning Chairman's submissions are public, and that question is this:
How do you proceed if you read through a Chairman's essay and notice things that are inconsistent or obviously false?
This question came to me as I was finishing up reading through all the winning regional Chairman's submissions. I'm not saying that I noticed any particular team that had this issue, but to my knowledge, there are no FIRST-provided guidelines for dealing with this sticky situation, which means it's up to us as a community to figure it out until such a time as FIRST gives us guidelines.
How would you react? Who would you contact-- the team, or FIRST, or both??
|
I have witnessed this multiple times before, unfortunately. But I choose to leave things alone. Pardon me if this seems too political, but any time any of us calls someone else out on something like that, it only looks bad on us, especially if it cannot be proven. Not to mention that any attempt to do so will be considered "Un-GP" by many.
I do think, though, that we should have some kind of guideline in place. More extensive "background checks" on the teams might help, but you're cutting into more volunteer hours and it may just not be worth it. But like I said, I've seen things this multiple times, and ultimately the best thing to do on our end is just be adults about it and move on.
It's really unfortunate that this happens.