2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative

[Koko Ed]

What could FIRST stand to improve upon?

[Hallry]

Free corn dogs. Especially now that 254 won.

[Steven Donow]

inb4thegame*


But in all seriousness, I didn't have much of a problem with "Make It Loud" until Champs. Some of the performances as part of the "make it loud" campaign just seemed awkward, even via webcast. I'd imagine it was more awkward in person.

"Make It Loud" also seems somewhat misguided at this point-I love it as a rally cry for spreading the word of FIRST, but what is the point of it? Get celebrities mentioning FIRST? Get 'non-traditional' companies involved in FIRST? Tweet #MakeItLoud? It's a great phrase, but to me it just needs some direction.


*for the record I like this game

[Oblarg]

It seemed most of the reffing issues and problems with penalties were absent from Worlds (partly due to them thankfully not calling G28 in the manner described in the driver meeting), but certainly many of the regional competitions suffered from poor reffing and large numbers of matches determined by penalties. While I think Aerial Assist was a fantastic game, future games absolutely must be easier to referee.

I don't have any real complaints other than that; everything about this year was pretty great.

[Loralyn P]

Something small that I would really like to see (and I have no idea why they didn't do it this year) is clarification on the rules of the Dean's List interview, and a better feedback sheet. Currently, there is no mention of the time limit in the Dean's List section of the Administration Manual, and the feedback sheet was the most minimal thing I've ever seen. At least put in a "you can improve on" section!

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Loralyn P

Something small that I would really like to see (and I have no idea why they didn't do it this year) is clarification on the rules of the Dean's List interview, and a better feedback sheet. Currently, there is no mention of the time limit in the Dean's List section of the Administration Manual, and the feedback sheet was the most minimal thing I've ever seen. At least put in a "you can improve on" section!

Similarly, in regards to Dean's List, I was very unhappy with the way it was handled/done in district systems/the inconsistencies between different regions in how they determined Finalists.*


*I'm unaware of what FiM or PNW did, so I'm going off the differences in DL in MAR and NEFIRST

[Alex Golec]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Similarly, in regards to Dean's List, I was very unhappy with the way it was handled/done in district systems/the inconsistencies between different regions in how they determined Finalists.

I'm speaking from the perspective of a Michigan volunteer here:

Being the first year of Dean's List interviews, we expected challenges along the way. Overall, the interview process went well and allowed us to add extra depth to how we assess nominated students. It also gave these students a moment to shine. I have a feeling that FIRST won't be getting rid of this process anytime soon.

For improvements, I'm only aware of how Michigan events operated and what we need to do better. I already know we need to improve how we communicate to teams about what to expect, and where their students will interview. That's something we didn't have established prior to March, but is on our radar for next year.

Scheduling will likely be a persistent challenge. So many of these extraordinary students are drive team members, or Chairman's presenters, or have other responsibilities at the event. Most events adopted a flexible sign-up schedule to work around these issues, but we're looking into how to make it better.

Providing feedback, as simple as it seems, is a rather challenging process. It takes time and thought to write good feedback, and we don't want to "sound generic." Time was a challenge this year, with the Dean's List interviews and the addition of multiple-event Chairman's presentations. Again, this is something that we'll be better prepared for next year.

If you have additional feedback specific to this process, please PM me and let me know. I'm working with our Michigan volunteers to provide feedback to FIRST about how to make the Dean's List process stronger for next year, and would like to hear perspectives from other members of the FIRST community.

[safiq10]

Originally Posted by Loralyn P

Something small that I would really like to see (and I have no idea why they didn't do it this year) is clarification on the rules of the Dean's List interview, and a better feedback sheet. Currently, there is no mention of the time limit in the Dean's List section of the Administration Manual, and the feedback sheet was the most minimal thing I've ever seen. At least put in a "you can improve on" section!

As a dean list nominee I can agree with you on that! The feedback form was absolutely useless. I wish they would make it more like Chairmans!

[AlecMataloni]

Overzealous seat savers aren't going away, unfortunately. If you want good seats for your team at Einstein, you'd better have at least half of your team there. It's ridiculous how some teams send their parents over to the stands with a bunch of spirit gear and lay it out on a whole section of seats. I had more than one poor interaction with some of these people pre-closing ceremonies.

[rsisk]

Chairmans feedback forms at regionals. Wish they would scan them and email to the team contact. I never remember to pick it up at pit admin

[dcarr]

In 2014, getting a quality webcast is apparently a hard thing to do.

Except it's not. Please fix this. Baseline HD stream requirements for all events. Include equipment/connectivity/staffing in budget or find a team/volunteers who can handle it.

Multi-cam setups are ideal for the big screens at the events, but for online, a single full-field view is optimal. Perhaps offer both?

[bduddy]

Not having separate scorekeepers for a game like this was a huge mistake. Whoever made the call that the same 5-6 refs could watch for fouls and keep score at the same time obviously did not actually try to do it themselves.

[Nathan Rossi]

Having one game piece per alliance.

Now, on a championship level, having one game piece was perfect, it created close and exciting matches (how about those Einstein rounds!). However, at a regional level, it created a slow and frustrating game, especially during qualification rounds, the con outweighs the pro here. There are a lot more regionals than championships.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by dcarr

In 2014, getting a quality webcast is apparently a hard thing to do.

Except it's not. Please fix this. Baseline HD stream requirements for all events. Include equipment/connectivity/staffing in budget or find a team/volunteers who can handle it.

This please.

[asid61]

No endgame. The game was basically over after the first half; there wasn't really any way to bounce back because you would have to radically modify your strategy in order to start closing a point gap.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by asid61

No endgame. The game was basically over after the first half; there wasn't really any way to bounce back because you would have to radically modify your strategy in order to start closing a point gap.

I disagree - did you watch the elimination rounds from each of the Championship fields? The finals from each of the divisions were awesome - as were the Semi and finals from Einstein. This game was designed for the elims/finals for Regionals and the Champs.