[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by TheMilkman01

First of all, great job of keeping the tone of your post constructive and respectful, even while describing events that you, naturally, are a little let down about. I don't have much experience with that particular award, but I can give some insight for Judges feedback concerning Chairman's.

A couple years ago, FIRST had the judges fill out feedback sheets, essentially scoring teams on the Chairman's Award. Overall, it seemed teams found them helpful in deciding where to expand and dedicate more outreach to. A year ago or so, FIRST discontinued use of those sheets as they (to my knowledge) felt they made the Chairman's Award seemed more like an award to be won than to be earned. Essentially, they wanted it to be based on individual teams and not a checklist. This was met with a mixed response, as teams understood FIRST in their rationale behind their decision but also appreciated the insight they would receive with each feedback sheet. After that, not all teams got feedback, but some still did if they were well known or knew the right people. In this aspect, it is a little unfair to the rest of the teams who don't have these connections.

Additionally, throughout the course of time, it appears there may be some consistent inconsistency or trends. For instance, FIRST wants to award as many teams as possible, so at any given regional it is unlikely one team will win more than one award that isn't drastically different than the first one. Look at the Gracious Professionalism Award and the Chairman's Award. Both are honoring similar characteristics, so it is rare for one team to win both at the same regional. I've observed this a few times, that when talking with judges they make their decisions loosely based on previous awards won and awards they will win that regional. Overall, it's not a bad practice––more teams get more awards and the awards diversity goes up. The downside, of course, is that there will be some inconsistency and confusion in feedback.

In regards to them just not bringing up your name, that seems a bit strange. Given that not many rookie teams will attend the same regional, it appears off that they would completely overlook your team in that area. I would say better luck next year, but you won't be rookies then! It's good to see how you're congratulatory of the award winners and already looking forward, though. Who knows, it sounds like you have a good shot at qualifying for Worlds next year if the cards fall in the right place.

First - the CA feedback was actually two fold. It's BRUTAL on the CA judges to give feedback, doubly so to be consistent. It also implied there was a checklist.

Second - the practice you're talking about is known as spreading the wealth. It makes sense from a team experience perspective.

Third - you're right there is a fair bit of overlap in awards, a lot of the tech awards boil down to articulating design process and intent.

Fourth - not bringing up name can mean a lot of things in a lot of contexts. But I have some slightly bigger concerns - Rule 1 in the Judge Room is "what happens in the Judge Room stays there" There's a lot of reasons for this, but this thread is exactly one of them.