No. While FIRST is trying to spread FIRST, its not the "big idea". After all, FIRST isn't about the robots, its about the culture change, and the building of tomorrow's leaders. While FIRST's programs are an excellent way to spread FIRST ideal's they certainly aren't the only way. For example, WPI runs Savage Soccer, a non-FIRST robotics competition, and they included in their 2007 write up, which netted them a regional Chairman's award. I can't speak for sure, but I'd imagine that some FRC teams are involved in BEST and similar competitions (which are more FTC scale), but I can't speak for absolute certainty.
What should be certain however, is that if involvement in any activity which furthers FIRST's message (and Vex is certainly does) is looked down upon, then the Chairman's Award message isn't what I've been led to believe. Are we here for the message? Or just for FIRST? As much as I love FIRST, I think the message is more important.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2008 FRC Manual 5.4.1
The Chairman’s Award was created to keep the central focus of the FIRST Robotics Competition as our ultimate goal for transforming the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology, as well as encourage more of today’s youth to become scientists, engineers, and technologists.
|
The overview of the Chairman's award specifically says the award is given to teams who go above and beyond in spreading FIRST's message, and says nothing about spreading FIRST itself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2008 FRC Manual 5.4.3.1
The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to have created the best partnership effort among team participants and which best exemplified the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on its participants, school, and community at large. There is no single “best way” for a team to win the Chairman’s Award. Many factors come into play. The primary factors the judges will evaluate are:
1) How strongly does the submission document the impact FIRST has on the learning experience of the students, school curriculum, engineers, and/or community during the 2007/2008 team year as well as in prior years?
2) Has the team explained/demonstrated why/how it should be a role model for other FIRST teams to emulate?
3) How well has the team communicated its excitement and impact within the entire school, community, and beyond (state/nation) through participation in FIRST during the 2007/2008 team year as well as in prior years?
4) Has the team documented an innovative way to spread the FIRST message?
5) How strong of a year-round team partnership effort is reflected during the 2007/2008-team year as well as in prior years? (You can define partnership in many ways, including: the partnership among the team’s students/corporate sponsor/engineers; school/university sponsor/engineers; students/adults; community/team)
6) As a whole, does the content of the documentation exemplify the true meaning of FIRST?
|
The above lists the bullets Chairman's award judges want you to hit. A few of them seem harder to hit, but really, I don't believe they are. I could see how you might think the first section would be against you, but I don't believe it is. You're spreading the message however you can, and FIRST should realize you're making a worthy endevour.
If FIRST takes offense to teams being as involved with Vex as they were with FTC, then they need to take a good long look at their own message.
But, I can't possibly see why they would look down on Vex involvement. If we're for the message, then it shouldn't matter, to us or FIRST, whose competition it is, as long as it pushes the message effectively.