[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Two points

1) if people are going to copy this, let's improve the sentence at the bottom of the flyer. "Transition" is a (3-syllable) noun, not a verb. In English, you don't change nouns into gerunds by appending "ing"; instead nouns simply stay nouns. I suggest picking a nice simple verb like "switch", "change", or "move" to use in the sentence at the bottom of the flyer.

In a tweet, I said that this was, and I quote (without the emojis) "grade A bull crap". While this might seem slightly extreme, I stand by this, for a number of reasons:

1. The word 'transition' has been used as a verb since at least 1946.
2. 'Transition' is commonly used as a verb. While it isn't the clearest word in this situation, it also isn't a word that inherently obfuscates meaning.
3. Your point can be made (and is valid) without bringing in your personal grudge against a particular word (or rather, one of the large set of words you have in your signature).
4. Indirect phrasing is something that's part of how people in Minnesota communicate. Yes, it's frustrating (and something I've complained about more times than I can count), but it's part of effective communication here.
5. Finally (and primarily), this is such a minor thing that has taken up far too much screen space. I'm actually annoyed that I'm even taking the time to write this when there are much more pressing issues to address.

You can call me out for those reasons, but ultimately I think the entire tangent on the use of "transitioning" in a document is almost completely irrelevant. I'm not saying that because I disagree with it, I'm saying that because it's a pedantic discussion to be having in the first place.

Originally Posted by gblake

2) If this flyer is intended to sell folks who don't understand the bigger picture on the what's-in-it-for-me aspects of competing within a District, it's fine. If the flyer is supposed to deliver a complete and accurate picture of all the changes involved in a switch from Regionals to a District, it is obviously, hopelessly one-sided and incomplete - incomplete to the point of being misleading.

Are we really still arguing the intent of this when the authors have already posted that they were trying to educate teams on the potential benefits of a switch to the districts system?

Most of the teams who saw this flyer either had no idea that districts were a thing or had only heard the other side of the argument (that districts would be difficult if not impossible to do in Minnesota). What you're missing when you see this document is the years of avoiding and suppressing discussion about the district system in Minnesota.

One of the things I found interesting was this statement:

Originally Posted by gblake

One-sided "selling" creates a mess, not a Distrct. Do you want to create a mess?

I don't really see where you're coming from with this. In order to create a district, some amount of people in that area have to be sold on the idea of moving to a district. An area can't move to districts without wanting to move to districts. Is your objection that convincing some people that transitioning to districts is a good goal for Minnesota will create argument between people who do and people who don't want to go to districts? If you believe that argument (unlikely) or discussion (much more likely, since we're all passive aggressive Minnesotans up here) shouldn't happen, how do you propose we figure out what direction the state should ultimately be going? I'm not really interested in a quip here-- in my mind making progress on this issue means actually sitting down and talking to people. If you take away that tool we're back at square one, which is a few people shouldering most of the burden for organizing FRC in Minnesota (and the future of FRC in Minnesota). I think one of the parts of Rahul's post (in the other MN districts thread) is very relevant here:

Originally Posted by Knufire

I was told that “mentors in Minnesota are not asking for districts*.”

There is a group of people (which, yes, I'm a part of) that theorizes that if people actually know what districts are, they might be more willing to support them. They might be wrong, or they might be right. If they're wrong, things stay pretty much as they are, and no real action needs to be taken to prevent people from talking about districts and, yes, trying to "sell" people on districts. If they're right, then we have more people willing to contribute by volunteering and organizing events that support FRC in Minnesota. I don't really see how either of those situations are detrimental to FIRST in Minnesota. Really the only way I see this turning into a mess is if people try to suppress discussion of districts, or if people get so entrenched in the ideas that the only two valid view points are "it's impossible for Minnesota to go to districts" or "Minnesota needs to go to districts immediately, regardless of whether we've actually planned to."

Remember that the people posting on here are still exactly that: people. Almost everyone here has a view point on this issue that is never going to be fully articulated through text.


(not directed at gblake)

Here is what I believe, when it comes to Districts in Minnesota (and surrounding states):

A properly planned, properly staffed, properly run transition to the districts system would be of benefit to the majority of teams in the state of Minnesota (and potentially surrounding areas)

Since inevitably someone will complain about volunteers, that is not what I'm getting at. My point is exactly what I said-- that Minnesota (and surrounding areas) would benefit from a properly run district system. I'm willing to concede that we aren't at a point where we can properly run a district system, but is it a common ground that we should at least be thinking in that direction? Personally I'm not sure if the arguments against districts in Minnesota are "we can't do this right now, but ultimately that's where we should go" or "I just don't think districts in Minnesota are a good idea." I see people articulate all the time the issues that need to be resolved to go to the district system (often with either the subtle or not-so-subtle implication that it's not even worth considering), but I very rarely see people arguing that it isn't where Minnesota should go. There's so much talking around the issue here.

Side note: I don't really see Chief Delphi as the correct place for Minnesota to talk about moving to districts. I'm working on moving that discussion offline, but in the mean time maybe we can all back off the rhetoric and have a more honest conversation about why districts may or may not ultimately be a good fit for Minnesota.


A final thing about this document (specifically directed at Blake and Alan): I think it's somewhat odd to be complaining that Rahul and Jess put a positive light on districts. Do you really expect them not to? Do you think it's misrepresentation to say that a well-run district system is a bad thing for teams? Do you really think it isn't educational to say "hey, you might not know it, but the district system does have some benefits for teams?" Yes, there's an inherent persuasive component to this, but I for one commend them on trying to make what they (and yes, I) see as a positive impact on the MN FRC community. I even commend them for not putting the many things that need to happen for MN to move to districts because they don't necessarily know what those things are. The correct way to help is to tell people to contact the people that actually know what needs to be done, not to take guesses and create split efforts.

I don't know if this is your intent, but you seem to be saying that trying to tell people that districts might be a good thing is problematic or has a negative impact on the area. I'm curious why you might think that.