A plead to FIRST, anyone else agree?

[Seathan93]

As a senior who has spent 4 years on a FIRST team, I was a bit disappointed with FIRST this year. I realize I may not have been a part of the program as long as some mentors, but that doesn't mean I haven't seen FIRST evolve at all.

Here are some of the issues I'm having with FIRST, and I'd like to know who agrees with me, and who doesn't:

FIRST, (ahh...the standard pun) In my opinion, FIRST has become extremely heavy handed with the "real meaning of FIRST." I completely understand, "it's not about the robots," but that doesn't mean you need to state that every five minutes. 4 years ago when I joined the team, everything was about Gracious Professionalism, being professional, competitive, but gracious to others and cooperative. That felt enough for me. The competition was fun, my team was extremely competitive, but after an entire build season preparing for the competition, why shouldn't they be? Yes, the gracious part lacked here and there, nothing major, but in the heat of the competition, the competitive side took over a bit. But that was ok! After the competition, life returned to normal, whether we moved on to the championship, or returned home exhausted after a long season.

Then...there was coopertition. As if Gracious Professionalism weren't enough, FIRST brought out Coopertition (competition and cooperation). Basically everything Gracious Professionalisms embodied, but much more explicit. On top of that, the games were changed to make it such that the robots who scored the highest, did not necessarily rank the highest. I understood the concept, help other teams out, get games where the score is more even, and then everyone wins. But, in the middle of a competition, there are times where even helping another team out, will not change how they play on the field. The rules of the games have even become more strict, since coopertition has come out. I won't get into that now, that's another point, but FIRST has killed some of the innovation by restricting how you can play a game to such an extreme, and red carding anything slightly competitive.

My main point here, is that it's killing the competition. After build season, the competition should be fun, it should be the place where all 6 weeks of hard work can be vented in the competitive spirit. Yes, it should be done in a gracious way, but the competitive side of FIRST shouldn't be removed, that's half of what makes it fun.

I think FIRST needs to back off a bit on the speeches about how it's not about the robots. That's a good way to start off the season, but afterwards, especially at the competetion, after the 8th time they mention how it's not about the robots I'm thinking "I THINK WE GOT IT, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE ROBOTS, LET'S GET ON TO THE COMPETITION!"

I think FIRST needs to bring back some of the competitive aspects of previous competitions. They need to accept, 4, 5 weeks, even further, into the build season, that some teams may have found ways to play the game they hadn't thought of. I agree, if it's a cheap way to win (such as winning by red carding the opponent...which could be removed if the red cards were toned down), then yes that needs to be addressed, but if it's just an alternate way, it's an innovation, that's part of the competition. Teams will formulate ways to defend against it.

SECOND.

Robotics is nerdy. We all know it. Yes, not every person on robotics is your stereotypical nerd, and to be honest, it's a silly stereotype, but you're not attracting anyone to FIRST by claiming you're not nerdy. Everyone knows robotics is nerdy. It's just part of life. Yes, I get the "change the culture," but you're not going to change it by being in denial.

For the first time in my 4 years on FIRST, during the first week of build season, I was almost ashamed to be associated with the program. I think we all know what I'm talking about, and if you don't, then thankfully you probably didn't see the video. The splash page on usfirst, with a video of robotics footage overlay-ed by Will.I.Am's 2 sentence quote from kick off played over and over again.

Now, I appreciate what FIRST was trying to accomplish, but to be honest, that was by far the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen. I think I died a bit inside when I saw that video.

If you want to change the culture, great, but you're going about it wrong. Stop trying to deny that robotics is nerdy. We all know it is, and, presumably, we're all fine with it, I know I really couldn't care less. It really does not spell self confidence, something that FIRST needs if you want to attract people to FIRST, to deny that it's nerdy. Hell, even mentioning that it's nerdy, even if you say you're not, comes across as nerdy.

Combining parts one and two for a moment I'd like to say, the "true message of FIRST" is great. It is fantastic, and it's good to know it's there. That being said, it's a great message for sponsors, mentors, and parents. You're not going to get students interested in robotics (especially if you want it to be taken as seriously as a sport) by constantly saying the message of FIRST and by making the competitions less competitive.

THIRD.

The games. I loved breakaway. Not so much the game, I would give my favorite game of my 4 years to Overdrive, but because of the philosophy behind it. It was getting robotics to be more spectator friendly. I agree that LOGOMOTION was somewhat spectator friendly, the more logos, and the more lights on the minibot towers, the more points, but it was seriously lacking.

I felt there was something seriously wrong with FIRST this year when I learned we were being awarded points to put up shameless advertising for FIRST, and the more we advertised the more we were awarded. Something about that just felt wrong from the very outset. Mix in with that the politics about FTC (by the way, the minibot aspect of the game was the only bit I got excited about at kick off) and all that, led to a very wrong gut feeling. In fact, going back to the rules bit, they did everything in their power to make the advertising as streamlined as possible, putting in a 30pt penalty for pinning, and making defense hard to accomplish without a red card.


In summation, in case you didn't want to read that block of text, or my ideas were a bit too spread out.

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.

Those are my opinions, feel free to disagree with me, or agree. I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed these aspects.

-Ian

[Grim Tuesday]

I agree with your points in many areas. I should take some time to write a lengthy response later, but for now, I just want to say, you hit the nail right on the head.

[gblake]

Smithers - Release the hounds....

This should be an interesting thread to watch.

Blake
PS: I think my opinions about most of this have been liberally spread across other threads over the last few years. So I look forward to reading some new thoughts and won't inflict my retreads on you.

I completely agree with #3! Though this year's game wasn't bad, Breakaway was my favorite! Not only is it a fun game to watch, but it was more organized, easier to observe, and most importantly, relatable to people not in the competition! When we played Breakaway, the FIRST thing that we saw, and liked, were the bumps separating the field into three separate areas. It was a lot easier to see your robot, and your opponent's robot, since most of the time there were just 2 or 3 robots per section. This year, we'd waste whole seconds (A long time in an FRC match), figuring out where our robot was in the huge heap of robots from both alliances. Also, Breakaway was robot soccer! Tell me one person in the world who doesn't know what soccer is! From the spectator's point of view, as soon as you saw the field, and the way the robots played, you knew it was robot soccer! There were soccer balls, goals, and if you looked at the right time, robots playing defense! It was easy to understand, so naturally anybody non-robotics related understood, and liked the game! This year, everyone I brought to watch had no idea what was going on! They didn't know what the game was about, they had no idea where our robot was in the moshpit of madness, and were totally confused about the way the game was played, the scoring, and the penalties. Just a note to FIRST (If you're reading this), while all of your games are exciting and innovating for the people playing in them, you have to remember the spectators who know nothing about what we are doing.

[synth3tk]

I agree with your first two points, every character and word.

The third, not-so-much. I don't see anything wrong with incorporating some branding into the game. My problem with the game is pretty much summed up by SuperNerd's post immediately above mine.

[PayneTrain]

I was just annoyed to find out FIRST in 2010 was apparently shocked that an inherently-defensive game was low scoring, so now rules deducting points need to be made so teams can score more points.

It's mindboggling to look at old robots my team had, where there were no bumpers: just unbendable, lock-tight, well-crafted, high quality machine robustness keeping the bot together. In fact, while the 07 and 08 robots are dead and gone, the 01, and drive trains of 00, 02, 03-2, and 04-6 are still intact. The endgames required ridiculous challenges.

2010 was a flashback to the true engineering challenges that FIRST required. the 07, 09, and 11 competitions don't require teams to do anything relatively astonishing. I will admit Lunacy was my favorite, but in the end, it was basketball-tag on the "moon." It wasn't tough to figure out like navigating through a short tunnel or over a hill, or possessing a ball without truly "holding it." 07 required teams to use a rather stereotypical gripper to achieve the main goal, as we do in 2011.

Will we get a true engineering challenge in 2012? Will we get a ranking system that makes sense? Will I do cartwheels at the Virginia Regional? All this and more next year.

[GGCO]

You, my good friend, are a hero. I've been contemplating writing a thread very similar to this one myself, but you nailed it. Absolutely nailed it.

I'll just add some of my thoughts.

Number one. Competitions should be viewed as a celebration. I agree with FIRST here. However, teams need to learn how to celebrate for one another. That means congratulating the best and most competitive teams - who by-the-way worked their butts off for their outstanding robot. I'm pretty sure JVN had a great thread about this "culture change" within FIRST, and I'd love to see FIRST really put a lot of effort next year into jump starting it. However, they'll also need to change their attitude towards competition and teach people how to win/celebrate.

With regards to your second point, I couldn't agree more. Robotics is nerdy and we need to embrace that. Our society needs to become more nerdy, but intelligent people don't need to become like society. Ex: will.i.am should become more like your average FRC student, not the other way around.

I also think that this desire to make science and technology fun is a symptom of a much bigger problem. First, problem solving IS fun. At least for people who are going to become the future problem solvers. We do this because we love to innovate and create. It's a blast already, and we don't need FIRST to do anything (other than make it more challenging) to make it more fun. So we have to ask, who are they pandering to?

And why is there such a big concern with getting [insert minority here] human beings to become engineers? We don't need [insert minority here] engineers - we need good engineers whether they be [insert minority here] or not. It shouldn't matter as long as they can effectively solve problems with others.

I've come to the conclusion that FIRST is confusing making problems solving experiences accessible with making it fun. There's a big difference between the two. I would love to see a FRC team in every community, but not because I want every high schooler in those communities to participate. Rather, I want every higher schooler to have the opportunity to participate. Because the reality is that there are some people who just aren't cut out for the FRC. They either lack initiative, creativity, or people skills and are unwilling to obtain them.

On to your third point. I too thought it was odd to see this kind of promotion from FIRST. Using the logo as a game piece was fine especially because of the inherent challenge of designing a manipulator that could pick up all three types of pieces, but where I thought they went overboard was with the FTC kits. (Yes, I'm still complaining about them. Don't like it? Stop reading this. Now.) There were too many silly constraints that hampered innovation and stifled creativity. Also, I thought it was FIRST shamelessly squeezing a few extra dollars out of already cash strapped teams who needed, or couldn't get, the parts need required.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by GGCO

but where I thought they went overboard was with the FTC kits. (Yes, I'm still complaining about them. Don't like it? Stop reading this. Now.) There were too many silly constraints that hampered innovation and stifled creativity. Also, I thought it was FIRST shamelessly squeezing a few extra dollars out of already cash strapped teams who needed, or couldn't get, the parts need required.

The FTC mini kit was part of the first choice so if you were only going to build 1 minibot and you managed to not burn up motors you didn't have to spend much if any cash on it. Of course the motors were far from robust so we went through a few and the fact that we wanted to win the Coopertition award we did spend a lot of money.

The constraints are what did spur innovation and creativity IHMO since the only things you had to use were the motors and battery. Sure there was some limitations on materials but that is what meant you had to get creative with how you used those items.

[ahollenbach]

I guess I don't have much knowledge as a rookie to FIRST (although I've heard Phil Szymanowski go on and on about it), but I disagree with many of your points, and in general (sorry for the massive generalization) with all people who make open letters, and pleas, etc. If you aren't having fun, you aren't doing it right. The competitions account for (assuming you compete three times in a season) a mere 9 days. Build season (and the hype leading up to kickoff) lasts nearly 2 months. Enough, though. Let me address each point.

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
It's a tiny price to pay for having the opportunity to compete with the upcoming brightest minds in the world. Four years ago, I would never have dreamed of the exposure I've received, developing a professional website, designing a 150 pound robot, and learning to create accurate CAD drawings of it. The competitions are immense, and so if they want to spend a few minutes out of the three days to mention their slogans, they can.

2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
I don't even know where this comes from. I see robots out there that can do incredible things, built by veteran and rookie teams alike. The competitions have me on the edge of my seat, whether in person, or seeing it all on a tiny computer screen. This year, just like many of the past years, has been highly competitive. In fact, it is one of the first years that teams are competing to hit the score barrier, which just furthers the competition. Competition hasn't gone anywhere; it's still thriving in the FIRST regionals.
In terms of cooperation, that's how the real world works. You learn to cooperate to compete against your opponents when they're at their best. And yes, people have been complaining about minibot schematic stealing, but FIRST couldn't have anticipated that. They aren't perfect.

3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
Why? FIRST has brought wonderful engineering experience to more than a quarter of a million kids from all walks of life, all around the world. They need to get their name out there, so more people see it as an interesting thing to do. You can still inspire a generation - in fact, you will be reaching a larger audience in the next generation. Also, what politics do you speak of?
On another note, the "shameless advertising"? Let's not even call it that. Instead of the circular gamepieces from Rack 'N' Roll, FIRST stepped up the challenge by bringing in different shapes, and the logo bonus keeps the driver on his game. It also creates an awesome back-and-forth nail biting when two excellent alliances go head to head. Don't believe me? Watch footage from the quarter-finals at Florida, where both alliances went past the 80 point mark in all three matches.

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
OK, I'll agree with you a little there. The Will.i.am thing was a bit overplayed, but all in all, their point was not dumb. Robotics isn't all nerdy, and FIRST is not all robotics. Half of our team also learns about finances, professional presentations, web design, and many other core skills that really have nothing to do with cRios and pneumatic cylinders. So, the not-as-nerdy kids could join that aspect of FIRST (which is equally as important). But who's to say building robots has to be nerdy? Yes, it takes smarts, and interest in robotics, but are all engineers nerdy? Is it nerdy to know how to weld or use a milling machine? Not really.

5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.
I can't speak to strongly, except that I've seen many videos from the past 4-5 years' games, and I have to say that LogoMotion is one of the most interesting games that FIRST has thought up. Not only does it address the veteran teams with a challenge - hanging the top row quickly and efficiently, but it allows rookie teams to also be competitive, using a defensive/minibot emphasis. Aside from the all around approach to game design, actually watching games are a thrill. Seeing logos being hung doesn't take away from the interest factor of the game at all.

In conclusion, this is an awesome program, an awesome game, and an awesome experience. Whatever "complaints" you might have aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, where you are getting a head start on your college and professional career.

Originally Posted by ahollenbach

If you aren't having fun, you aren't doing it right.

We never said we are not having fun! Every FIRST competition is fun! What I have been saying (and others), is that it doesn't seem as fun for the audience! WE love FIRST, because we know all about it, and the great things it has done for us! Everyone else, our spectators, don't know this! They haven't felt the greatness of FIRST, the fun in the building season, and the experience gained from being on a FIRST team! THEY don't know that what we're doing now will be saving lives, and innovating the future! All they know is there are a bunch of nerds in one building playing with robots! They don't know anything else! But that's the vision of FIRST! We are here not only to learn and educate people, but to enlighten the world of this "New Cool" that we're doing. How can we expect them to understand what FIRST is doing, when they can't understand what WE are doing? For my team, Breakaway introduced the rest of our school to robotics. We showed off our robots before, but not until the robot-soccer like game of Breakaway did our school, and the community around us, realize what great things we are doing. If we incorporate robotics into popular, well-known activities in society, then everyone else will get interested!

This is just my $00.02 on this topic.

[Mr V]

This years minibot sharing made the Coopertition award a good thing. Last year's Coopertition required you to score points for the other team in many cases, I know that is what we did to win it last year. So making it so that you can't score points for the other team and the other team has to score with your minibot was a great idea. It also lets you really prove it when you loan it to a high caliber team knowing full well it is highly likely you may face your own machine in the finals. Pretty much defines the concept of Coopertition and GP.

[E. Wood]

I have two points I would like to bring up.

First is the idea that the driving principles of FIRST are brought up too many times during competitions. Yes competition is a part of FIRST but it is just a part. If you attend three regionals, it’s only nine days. If you include the six week build season really the competition is only 48 days long, start to finish. Now I understand that every team is run differently, but the teams that I am associated with work during the so called off-season to promote STEM education and participate in community service events. Compare 48 days to 317 and tell me that other things FIRST teams do are not as worthy of public airtime as the robots are. I have heard many times over my years as a student and now a mentor that FIRST uses the competition to achieve its goals. The competition is not the point, it is merely a tool. The ideas and goals of FIRST are brought up during competitions because it is the organization’s most public event and they want the public to know that FIRST is about more than a robotics competition. That’s why the two highest awards given have nothing to do with the robots performance but instead with a team’s ability to achieve the goals of FIRST. If you are unsure of what these goals are visit the FIRST website and read their mission statement.

Also I happen to work with some wonderful, very talented students who do not consider themselves "nerds". Some of these students do not work on the robot and are inspired and excited by the education and outreach side of our teams. Others of these students do work on the robot but do not differ from other students their age in way besides the fact that they are on a FIRST team. I too do not consider myself a "nerd". Sure, I have what you may call "nerdy" moments and be an engineer by trade but this does not automatically make me a nerd. I believe that FIRST students can be very creative, bright students but to call us all "nerds" is unfair. That is a title that must be accept and carried by each individual person. If you want to be a nerd, good for you, there is nothing wrong with that, but some of us have other titles in mind for ourselves.

[ajd]

Originally Posted by E. Wood

I too do not consider myself a "nerd". Sure, I have what you may call "nerdy" moments and be an engineer by trade but this does not automatically make me a nerd. I believe that FIRST students can be very creative, bright students but to call us all "nerds" is unfair. That is a title that must be accept and carried by each individual person. If you want to be a nerd, good for you, there is nothing wrong with that, but some of us have other titles in mind for ourselves.

The trouble with the "nerd" label is the same as the trouble with any label (think "jock," "learning disabled," "ADD," "goodie two-shoes," "communist"): they obscure the real, individual people they are applied to.

Part of FIRST's mission is encouraging kids to move away from the culture where kids inordinately look up to music/sports stars. It's trying to break the culture where the most athletic/social students are often considered the "elite" and the more intellectually-/mechanically-/technically-/whatever-inclined are lower on the totem pole. But it must be very careful to avoid encouraging the "nerds" to form cliques of their own. Society needs all types, and I feel that FIRST's rhetoric sometimes fails to acknowledge that.

[Mr V]

On the subject of "nerds" and other labels/groups of people, I was talking to another mentor at the Seattle regional. Not sure how we got around to it, but he shared what he thought was the greatest thing that has came about as a result of their program. It was that it got two groups together the "nerds" the "gear heads" and working side by side they found out that they were more alike than different and basically went along way to erasing those labels.

[Taylor]

To my eyes, FIRST has turned its focus to TOMA (Top Of Mind Awareness), and that has led to the things with which you disagree.

Regarding the message: People come and go. There are people who went to kickoff who are no longer with the team; there are people at the team who didn't go to kickoff. We've got parents, administrators, sponsors, friends at events - some just for a day, some just for a couple hours. If the message isn't repeated, it's lost.

FIRST has every right to brand itself, and it should. To reach the long-standing goal of being in every high school in America and abroad, people (a) have to know about FIRST and (b) realize FIRST isn't other robotics competitions. The more I think about Dean's comments at kickoff, the more I'm thinking it wasn't aimed at VEX/BEST as much as it was aimed at BattleBots. Most of the public associates competition robots with SawKill or HammerPound - the type of robotic competition that FIRST is most decidedly not. Creating that separation is necessary, and a key way to do that is through the branding of FIRST.