Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
They won't. It's a logistics issue really; The type of people you want as a judge are the type of people who don't have a lot of free time. Families, jobs, hobbies... they all get in the way. At best the judge will read your essay a week prior your event, maybe mark it up with some things to ask about, then watch your presentation, interact with your students, keep notes, and then after all teams are done, make a decision. I know I've had Chairman's judges who spent the week prior to the event traveling and they had no ability to read the essays in advance. The Chairman's judges (and all judges) are stretched thin as is without the onus of verifying claims.
Of course, this also assumes that the teams actually READ this and take it into account. Not that they have much incentive to do so since ignorance actually benefits them. (but I'm a cynic)
|
A friend once told me that the crux in judging for FRC is that those with the most "power" at an event typically have the lowest vested interest in utilizing that power in a way that teams would like.
EDIT: While that is a harsh way to generalize it, there may be a nugget of truth there.
I'll try to word the way I view the problem properly without sounding like a total jerk or a hopelessly ignorant fool but there's a good chance I will continue to fail.
Another cynical way I approach this move is that this is the minimum level of transparency of criteria HQ wanted to allow. Maybe FIRST thinks that a pursuit of their own doing concerning enforcing accurate representation of facts and statistics for teams would evolve into a pursuit by teams of calling for accurate representation of facts and statistics that FIRST does or does not publish.