[Amanda Morrison]

I'm with Maddy - I hesitated in answering that for our team. What do you really say without limiting the judges, even unintentionally?

What really struck a chord with me was the variety of things passed off as 'Judges' Information'. I really fail to see how many, if not most, of the questions included should matter to the judges when making their choice. A few of them even offended me, to be honest. Come on, take your pick: asking about the free/reduced lunch statistic of our schools and asking about the ethnicity and gender of our students REALLY turned my head. What could the judges possibly be using these for? What decision would be made by these criteria?

At least those are optional. Making 'team budget' a required field offended me quite a bit. Maybe I'm really off this time, but that should make no difference whatsoever for the judges. I've been on teams on both ends of the spectrum, and I don't want our finances - for whatever reason - to be a part of the process. I don't want a pity award given to my team because we struggled with our fundraising, and I don't want some judge discriminating against us because we're a little better off than another team up for the award. Like a lot of FIRST vets, I've been around the judges that are discriminatory or biased and don't want this information to factor into their decisions.

I know FIRST doesn't have it easy training the judges, and I know HQ does a pretty fantastic job considering the number of regionals and individuals involved. But it sure strikes me that someone is looking for demographic information about our team and billing it under the 'Judges' Information' headline, and that bothers me - especially if it means that the judges are seeing the results.