View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2008, 03:21 PM
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,608
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Let's Put the Professionalism back in Gracious Professionalism

I fully agree and have been correctly accused of every instance of the original post on various occasions. The cohesion necessary for the varieties of situations of FIRST FRC teams to exist in the same realm takes tremendous effort to set forth, and I believe FIRST generally has a well-rounded framework to allow for it. Some teams have everything funded; some scrape the community and KOP for all they're worth. Some teams have vast ambitions with mentoring resources; others have a couple of teachers with a few students. All of these teams have an opinion, yet I'm not so sure of the effect their voice has.

All of these teams are also affected by any nitpicky technicality in the plethora of data there is to assimilate, and it's easy for many of us to forget that as we argue here on CD. It's extremely difficult to remember every detail of every rule and every update, and every [insert random usfirst.org link here] posted on the website. Then on top of that, teams have to build a bot. It's easy to get lost in the data and confused by misinterpretations or unrealised links in the rules. Bad assumptions also play a large role in arguments and many times it's hard to see how to break the news to the arguer without losing GP in either respect. If all of that wasn't enough, the growth of FRC teams each year means there is an exponential increase in the amount of opinions and available experience for all of us to discuss.

I'm glad Katy has put this on her shoulders and I support it; though support from my stance right now is the mere conjectures and opinions within these words. The question is, how to do you point out non-GP behavior without lacking GP yourself? I've witnessed several non GP situations at competitions in the last 2 years -- some stem from frustration about a bot and its expectations while others stem from overcompetitiveness. Still others stem from interpretations and the underlying stubbornness of engineers that FIRST forgets to inform students of. In one FSU* students are expected to trust their creativeness somehow amongst [sometimes] overzealous mentors and pressure to succeed with their bot and school. Inherently, it's hard to tell where to draw the line between GP and trusting your creativity in these situations: if every suggestion is ignored, every attempt failed or every word choice incorrect it is next to impossible to believe you can take another risk at being stubborn while contributing to a discussion or argument. In person or on CD, it's easy to open your mouth without thinking twice to denounce such a situation or thought. I've done it and I'm sure 99% of the rest of us have too. Where do we go forward from here?

*FSU = FIRST Standard Unit, = 6.5 weeks of building, if you were at VCU listening to Dave
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub

Last edited by JesseK : 03-10-2008 at 03:26 PM. Reason: My diction is terrible :(
Reply With Quote