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??
|
This is definitely a discussion I saw bubbling up publicly when FIRST said they would be posting complete wining submissions online. It will be interesting to see how teams with less-than-genuine information in a winning submission are dealt with by the community near them and abroad. Regardless of feedback changes for the 2016 submissions I am hoping for, I do hope they continue to post winning submissions. It could be difficult for a mentor to explain to a team why a submission that looks weaker by a lot of measures won over theirs, but looking at essays and videos of some Hall of Fame probables with such ease is an invaluable resource.