|
Re: Chairman's Submission Inconsistencies
My proposal would be that you ask the team how they accomplished X task that seems improbable. And if there's a reasonable explanation or crossed wires somewhere, that allows them to explain or uncross. I would say that 99 times out of 100, that's the whole problem.
But if there's something really, really, impossible to explain/ignore (I've heard rumors of teams barely doing something and winning, while the team that set that thing up didn't win and was told they "copied" the other team!), then I suspect that FIRST needs to have one minor note added to the Manual. You'll notice that the Judge Advisor can be called on to answer process questions. My proposal on that "minor note" would be this: A team noticing major inconsistencies (I don't mean spelling/grammar, I mean very large exaggeration or situations like the above rumor, particularly if the team is unable to get a reasonable explanation from the team in question) in the "culture change" awards (RCA, EI) may leave a message for the JA at Pit Admin with a description of the inconsistencies, the team with the inconsistencies, and the team reporting. The JA would then presumably have the judges in question look into the report, and take appropriate action--which may go against the reporting team.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons
"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

|