Obviously FIRST participants should be aware of the fact that their actions represent themselves, their teams, their schools, and their sponsors. But are our teams judged based on the actions of the few? And should they be?
This discussion arose in another thred. Team numbers have been edited out. Not that everyone hasn't already read the thread these quotes have been pulled from, but let's make this a hypothetical discussion, please.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Katie Reynolds
Does tattling on team [***] make you, somehow, better than they are? The person on your team, no matter how much you may dislike them still represents your whole team. Yes, their actions, words, thought, ideas, etc. may be their own, but when they are walking around with a big [***] stamped on their shirt everything they do represents your team.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yan Wang
Hm... I have to disagree with you on that. The actions of one person is not representative of all the other people associated with that person.
We had a team member who misbehaved last year at Annapolis. So he didn't go to Canada. He got back on this year, but screwed up again so he was kicked out for good. I'm sure the mentors on [***] and other members were disgraced and shamed by the actions of a FEW. They probably don't approve of what happened too. No one should generalize that the whole team should be associated with such actions when individual action is ... individual.
|
While Yan Wang has a point, both the team and its members must act responsibly. The member should keep in mind that he is representing his team, and the team should keep in mind that it is being represented. If the member behaves inappropriately, the team should reprimand that member. If the inappropriate action was directed towards another team, the member should be responsible to apologize. But if the member committed the infraction in the first place, they may not do so. At this point it is the responsibility of the team to approach the offended team and offer an apology and/or explanation. I don't know if this is what occurred in the censored example, but that is how (in my humble opinion) the situation should have been handled.
FIRST people are cool people. I think they'd accept apologies.