[FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions

[Hallry]

Posted on the FRC Blog, 10/12/15: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ns-Definitions

Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions

Blog Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 - 16:45

Hello Teams,

The most prestigious team award in FIRST is, and I believe always will be, the Chairman’s Award. For a team to earn this award, they must be able to describe, among other accomplishments, their initiatives in supporting other teams. In doing so, teams often use phrases like “we started x FLL teams” or “we mentored y FRC teams”. As teams may have different definitions of what terms like ‘started’ or ‘mentored’ mean in this context, it can be difficult for Chairman’s Award Judges to compare accomplishments between teams.

To help solve this problem, the Hall of Fame teams have developed a common set of team support definitions for teams applying for Chairman’s Award to use. You will find them in the ‘Chairman’s Award Submission Definitions’ PDF here. A link to this document can also be found on this page. Teams applying for Chairman’s Award for the 2016 FRC season will be required to adhere to these definitions when describing their support for other teams. This will help Judges know, for example, that one team’s ‘started’ will be comparable to another team’s ‘started’.

Please recognize that FIRST and the FIRST community value all your efforts in supporting other teams, regardless of what form that support comes in, or what particular Chairman’s Award definition of support your action meets. By implementing these defined terms, we’re not attempting in any way to minimize the work you are doing, but to give our Chairman’s Award Judges a common vocabulary to use in their very difficult task of determining the most deserving teams for this incredibly important award.

I want to thank the Hall of Fame teams for developing these definitions, it’s a wonderful service to the FIRST community!

Frank

[Caleb Sykes]

I really like this. Providing a standard vocabulary should make Chairman's applications easier for teams, since they won't have to worry about misrepresenting themselves. Furthermore, it will, along with the published winning Chairman's submissions, provide greater accountability in the FRC community. I'm glad these definitions are provided to us during our first year of creating a Chairman's submission.

Thank you Frank and the HoF teams!

[wilsonmw04]

The definitions are straight forward. What I love is the requirement that the team being helped has to agree to the relationship or that the help took place. Would this mean that teams will have to submit the team numbers or substantiating documentation to put these claims in the chairman's essay?

[PayneTrain]

Not to descend into my standard winter/spring behavior too early, but why does this matter if there isn't really a lot of teeth to this? I think it's a step forward but how is this actually supposed to be enforced significantly better than what we had before?

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Not to descend into my standard winter/spring behavior too early, but why does this matter if there isn't really a lot of teeth to this? I think it's a step forward but how is this actually supposed to be enforced significantly better than what we had before?

Does it need to be enforced? Or does the FIRST ethos of Gracious Professionalism ensure that there's no need to enforce it, so long as everyone is aware of a consistent set of definitions?

Part of the problem we've had in the past, I think, is teams taking credit for "starting" or "mentoring" a team that existed in their school system, even if they didn't have much interaction with them - after all, if they held a kickoff event the team attended, or talked with them once or twice during the season, that's interaction enough, right? Some people/teams may have said so honestly while others did not. Now the new definitions give teams a benchmark to measure themselves against, something they have never had before.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Does it need to be enforced? Or does the FIRST ethos of Gracious Professionalism ensure that there's no need to enforce it, so long as everyone is aware of a consistent set of definitions?

Part of the problem we've had in the past, I think, is teams taking credit for "starting" or "mentoring" a team that existed in their school system, even if they didn't have much interaction with them - after all, if they held a kickoff event the team attended, or talked with them once or twice during the season, that's interaction enough, right? Some people/teams may have said so honestly while others did not. Now the new definitions give teams a benchmark to measure themselves against, something they have never had before.

I would like to think this is the way it works but I am a bitter cynic with only occasional trust in the "system" to work. It's probably just me and not the environment but w/e.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Not to descend into my standard winter/spring behavior too early, but why does this matter if there isn't really a lot of teeth to this? I think it's a step forward but how is this actually supposed to be enforced significantly better than what we had before?

At least it's more obvious to these teams what these definitions are. Before there wasn't even a clear line as to what is really "mentoring" or "started" was. At least people's moral compasses are the enforcer here and the line is clear, which is more than we had before.

Great work FIRST.

[Christopher149]

By "event", do they mean JFLL Expo / FLL, FTC tournament / FRC district competition or just a generic "event"?

[JB987]

If teams actually do adhere to these definitions, I would expect to see a dramatic reduction in the number of teams claimed as being started, mentored or events previously claimed as being run by teams... The big question is whether or not judges are going to attempt to verify said claims. Hopefully CA judges won't continue to be swayed so much by the number claims that apparently led to this point...and focus more on the quality and effects of outreach efforts.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JB987

If teams actually do adhere to these definitions, I would expect to see a dramatic reduction in the number of teams claimed as being started, mentored or events previously claimed as being run by teams... The big question is whether or not judges are going to attempt to verify said claims. Hopefully CA judges won't continue to be swayed so much by the number claims that apparently led to this point...and focus more on the quality and effects of outreach efforts.

They won't. It's a logistics issue really; The type of people you want as a judge are the type of people who don't have a lot of free time. Families, jobs, hobbies... they all get in the way. At best the judge will read your essay a week prior your event, maybe mark it up with some things to ask about, then watch your presentation, interact with your students, keep notes, and then after all teams are done, make a decision. I know I've had Chairman's judges who spent the week prior to the event traveling and they had no ability to read the essays in advance. The Chairman's judges (and all judges) are stretched thin as is without the onus of verifying claims.



Of course, this also assumes that the teams actually READ this and take it into account. Not that they have much incentive to do so since ignorance actually benefits them. (but I'm a cynic)

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

They won't. It's a logistics issue really; The type of people you want as a judge are the type of people who don't have a lot of free time. Families, jobs, hobbies... they all get in the way. At best the judge will read your essay a week prior your event, maybe mark it up with some things to ask about, then watch your presentation, interact with your students, keep notes, and then after all teams are done, make a decision. I know I've had Chairman's judges who spent the week prior to the event traveling and they had no ability to read the essays in advance. The Chairman's judges (and all judges) are stretched thin as is without the onus of verifying claims.



Of course, this also assumes that the teams actually READ this and take it into account. Not that they have much incentive to do so since ignorance actually benefits them. (but I'm a cynic)

A friend once told me that the crux in judging for FRC is that those with the most "power" at an event typically have the lowest vested interest in utilizing that power in a way that teams would like.

EDIT: While that is a harsh way to generalize it, there may be a nugget of truth there.

I'll try to word the way I view the problem properly without sounding like a total jerk or a hopelessly ignorant fool but there's a good chance I will continue to fail.

Another cynical way I approach this move is that this is the minimum level of transparency of criteria HQ wanted to allow. Maybe FIRST thinks that a pursuit of their own doing concerning enforcing accurate representation of facts and statistics for teams would evolve into a pursuit by teams of calling for accurate representation of facts and statistics that FIRST does or does not publish.

[Monochron]

Best thing since sliced bread. Hope team's honor the requirement.

[jajabinx124]

Awesome changes! Our team discussed a lot about this last season/this off-season and we are happy to see these changes to the definitions.

[dag0620]

Big fan, great idea, happy this is a thing. Props to all that made it happen.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I love the motivation behind this change, and I think the definitions are reasonable and will help judges figure out which teams are most deserving of the Chairman's Award. That being said, I agree with Andrew's point above that a team's ignorance regarding these definitions could end up giving them an advantage, and while I'm not sure what could be done about that, it's unfortunate.