Another Culture Change

[Mike Soukup]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Walking back to the pit after Saturday's award ceremony this weekend a student from a team I respect and 'gets it', said something like Wildstang should feel ashamed and didn't deserve to win because no students touched their robot.

I'll add on to what Dave said. Statements like this shouldn't bother me after being around for 11 years, but they still do. Why? Because it's completely bogus and it diminishes the work that our dedicated students put in. Too bad that student wasn't around our shop the week before ship to see 3-4 mentors and 6-7 students spend the entire evening debugging our arm's gearbox. It was binding up and we had no idea why. Our students disassembled & reassembled the gearbox no less than 4 times while we all attempted to root cause the problem. Most of the students were still working on it at 11pm when I went home. By the time I got in the next day, it was diagnosed and fixed.

[JVN]

A good friend told me:
"Great thread, it is cool to see so many people piling on... too bad it probably won't change anything because Chief Delphi is such a small part of FIRST in general."

Yep. That is the problem. We all need to do our part to pay this forward. The kind of negative behavior is unacceptable and we all need to do our part (especially as mentors within our own teams) to stop it.

The only way to make a noticeable shift in OUR culture is if there are a lot of small shifts.

148 will be sporting "Be Professional" buttons for the rest of our events this year.

-John

[Squillo]

Doesn't it all boil down to showing "Gracious Professionalism" to the 'powerhouse' teams, as well as those who struggling - and everyone in between? Maybe it's harder to be gracious to a team that kicks your butt, but no one said it would be easy. It's easy to help out a team that you "know" you're going to beat anyway, but we should all be willing to share our expertise, parts, and aloha spirit with all the other teams. How many of us (most, I would suggest - and hope) would provide a helpful suggestion or needed part to a team that we're about to be up against in a regional final match? Would you? I hope so.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mike Soukup

Statements like this shouldn't bother me after being around for 11 years, but they still do. Why? Because it's completely bogus and it diminishes the work that our dedicated students put in.

This may be a big part of the problem. Teams that brag about being 'student-lead without mentor support' may automatically discount their own value to teams when they see a 'mentor/student' relationship that drives the team to excellence. When students and mentors diss either side of that relationship is when the potential for assumptions and wrong judgments is increased. They blind themselves to the reality by their own judgment and ignorance.

Taken further, communities that don't understand FRC and see it as a type of science fair will do the same thing, discounting the value of the students and judging the value of the mentors in unfavorable and untrue ways.

Jane

[boomergeek]

Gracious professionalism does not call attention to transgressions (even attention that leaves "perpetrators" anonymous)- GP publicly calls attention to positive behavior.

Jealousy is real - it can not be invalidated just because it is judged morally wrong. Having a thread that makes moral judgements about those that feel they have less than others does not serve a great purpose. Lecturing people not to be jealous from the perspective of already having a lot generally falls on deaf ears.

Those that have more resources should be thankful and feel lucky and privileged to be part of a powerhouse. Almost all also feel greater responsibility to give to other teams, even without other teams asking for help. FIRST is foremost about generosity of spirit: competition is just a tool.

Students and mentors and families can see the disparity in resources between teams. Some resort to trying to make themselves feel better by imagining malicious or braggart behavior on the part of some members of a powerhouse. They can sometimes take tiny anecdotes out of context and let their imaginations run wild.

Gracious Professionalism is about calling yourself out, not calling out the transgressions of others. It's not about calling attention to being wronged or attention to others like you being wronged, it's about embracing life as it comes.


What is more important? Trying to stop a false rumor at a competition or trying to help a team onto a more rationale track?
(I view negative gender/racial/ethnic comments as totally unacceptable and need to be nipped in the bud with zero tolerance)
But those are not anywhere in the same space as noticing and commenting on how much students actually touch and repair a robot during a competition.
(I think the actual facts point to most powerhouse teams have many times more well-trained students than the weaker teams do).

The GP thing to do is to be as generous as you can and be as anti-judgmental as possible whether you are a powerhouse or a fledgling team. If you notice a team with a bad attitude at a competition, what is the right GP response? Being overtly generous at the competition? Or making a series of generous overtures to the bad attitude team outside of the competition (and across many years) without ever letting them know you think they have/had a bad attitude?

Once you have befriended them, they will likely learn on their own to have a better attitude. Once you are friends then you can also more easily approach subjects that you have differing perspectives on. All without ever calling them out, and certainly not calling them out in a public forum (even anonymously).

OK, enough of my own judgementalism. Let me know where I got it wrong.

[Grim Tuesday]

Let me preface this by saying that I DO think less of teams like 1114 for not building their own robot. I will always be more proud of, and cheer more for a student built robot. However, except in the context of this thread, I would never say it. The level of dedication that teams like 1114, 217, 2056, 148 etc... is just as much as other teams. They just put it in other areas. What is ridiculous is that people would do such rude things as mentioned at Pittsburgh regional. No matter how I feel about how they built their robot, they still designed it, and deserve the award. I am utterly sickened by something like this going on in FIRST. If they were the ones behind the robot, and inspiring it, then they are deserving. On the other hand, if they sat by while other people made their robot, then I have no respect for them. I have a feeling it is not the second option.

[Mr. Van]

Pedestals.

If you consistently win, and time and time again build great robots, you are on a pedestal. Not your fault – others put you there.

Since you are on a pedestal, you are scrutinized more closely than other teams.

Part of the problem is that “haters” of “powerhouse teams” sometimes DO see these teams fail to conduct themselves with grace – or even fail to work within the rules. Powerhouse teams are on a pedestal and what people see and experience becomes multiplied both good and bad.

Everyone here has asked how we can change our FIRST culture. Perhaps this might work:

What if immediately after an incident (say after a booing during a match introduction that is reported to the “powerhouse team”) some members of that team went directly to the “haters” and began a conversation or invited the haters to come to their pit to share ideas? What if the powerhouse team members came by and asked “hater” team members about their robot and their experience? What if they really made an attempt to show the “haters” who they really are? What if they actually helped them compete?

This year it is directly possible – lend your minibot.

What if each powerhouse team adopted just one of the “haters” and worked to change their mind? What if each powerhouse team partnered with a team that was really struggling and worked to build their program?

Is it going to far to ask if powerhouse teams considered – perhaps after they’ve already won a regional or two – picking a weaker team, a “hater” team to be in an alliance and really worked together?

If you think that the “powerhouse teams” shouldn’t have to work to change the attitude of others – you are wrong. Those who are fortunate enough to be part of the teams that are really great are the ones who are MOST able to bring about change. They are on the pedestal and everyone is looking to them.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[rcmolloy]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Let me preface this by saying that I DO think less of teams like 1114 for not building their own robot. I will always be more proud of, and cheer more for a student built robot.

The problem is that the students DO build their own robot. They don't just sit there while their mentors do all the work. They collab with them and then designs are made up. Students do all the dirty work with mentors giving them the tools and help if they need it.

Just because the team has leverage to waterjets, cnc machines, lathes, and mills doesn't mean the robot isn't student built.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by rcmolloy

The problem is that the students DO build their own robot. They don't just sit there while their mentors do all the work. They collab with them and then designs are made up. Students do all the dirty work with mentors giving them the tools and help if they need it.

Just because the team has leverage to waterjets, cnc machines, lathes, and mills doesn't mean the robot isn't student built.

Exactly my point. I don't think that 1114 is a team that would do that. Therefore, I don't think poorly of them.

But if a team did do that, then I would.

[Barngirl425]

Being on an entirely student run team, the student/ mentor relationship is important and I wish my team had it but we do not. But that isnt what matters. In life there are always going to be people with more resources, money and help then you. All that matters is can you over come it? Yes you may have to have longer work hours and yes your bot might me simpler then others but can it go out and compete? And are people learning while building it? If yes then there are no issues.

Having worked with 1114 at Brunswick Eruption last year what I saw of them was all positive. They were professional and so organized it made everything easier. I saw students working on the bot and mentors over seeing and directing them the way it should be. Congratulations team 1114 and Good Luck to you in the future!

[Zflash]

Many teams are competing at bag and tag events this year and in the past and probably even more in the future. These bag and tag teams are guided under Gracious Professionalism to bag there robot by the rules and not open it until the rules permit. Everyone in the community allows GP to be the determining factor as to whether teams are abiding by the rules.

When a team says that they are student/mentor built no matter the percentage, GP seems to be thrown out the window for some people in FRC. They look at a well engineered good looking robot and say that a group og high school students could not have done that. And they are right it was done by a collaboration of students and Adult mentors doing what they should be doing mentoring and learning.

We experienced some discrimination this year at Pittsburgh as well. We were called "rebels" by one of the Safety judges behind our backs when he found out our team was from South Carolina. Unknown to him he told a fellow volunteer from South Carolina this. (Which is how we found out)

Although our incident was not as public it hurts. I hope that this does not happen again to teams like 1114. And certainly hope it was not due to them being Canadian as one of our largest sponsors headquarters is located there.

And on a personal note...sorry to Karthik for not having spare banebot motors we definitely should have brought are unused KOPs however it did not seem to effect you guys in the long run. Congrats on another win.

[sNeff]

**This represents my personal experience and opinions, not those of GRT 192**

Originally Posted by Cory

~

To risk an unproductive foray down a well-traveled path...

In my past experiences as a student on 192, I have noticed that the students directly involved in designing and building the robot or modeling the animation or otherwise contributing to team success in a very direct way [includes sponsorships etc] are an order of magnitude more interested and inspired by their time on the team than students who rarely contribute. One of my pet projects in leadership was finding the students on the 'outskirts' of the team and getting them involved throughout the year.

Of course being a student on GRT wouldn't be nearly as much fun or nearly as inspirational without the wide mentor and parent support we enjoy. GRT's robots are 100% student built. Our high-quality workmanship is a point of pride, and our team-members have put in the hours of practice to achieve it. We also have a machine shop better than most college shops, the culmination of 15 years of unwavering dedication from our lead mentor, and a number of mentors who make sure we don't hurt ourselves and break tools while we work.

This informs my opinion that a truly 100%-mentor-funded-built-and-troubleshot robot (that I doubt exists in modern FRC) is a disservice to the students on that team. As a team is more and more mentor driven I find it harder and harder to support them unconditionally. It's appropriate to have a happy medium, and I suspect many teams are closer to 'medium' than they would like to believe.


On-topic:


Pittsburgh's incidents are embarrassing and a darn shame. Some of my friends on a certain local team have experienced the same kind of ostracism, at last year's Nationals no less. ("How could a bunch of high school girls put together a bot that successful?" when I would love to recruit some of them for my old team.) I was shocked when I heard about it--I had no idea that kind of thing was going on, and if I see it in the future I'll try to step in.


I disagree with OP's emphasis on 'professionalism', primarily for the same reason I disagree with an emphasis on 'tolerance'--tolerating something still implies that the tolerated thing is bad. Taking the 'gracious' out of 'professionalism' would solve very little, after all.
Unfortunately I don't have a better replacement in mind yet, making this criticism pointless (don't criticize until you have a solution, right?); I will continue to think about it (probably after Finals are over this quarter) and try to post something more constructive later.

[BandChick]

I want to restate that this negativity is NOT in FIRST just about who built the robot (student, mentor, student/mentor). It exists in many other aspects of FIRST. This discussion has become about the disparity of resources between "powerhouse" and "other" teams, but that isn't what John's point is about. It's about correcting the behavior, and 1114 is just his example.

If it helps, I'll provide another example.
This year in NJ, 1089 was fortunate enough to finish in the Top 8. We had been scouted by several teams, and many more stopped by our pit both to lobby for us to pick them, and some to discuss picking us. When it came time for alliance selections, we knew the higher-seeded 2180 had intentions to pick us. BUT (while we have a great relationship with them) we also knew that the best alliance for our team did not include them. Politely, my alliance captain on the field declined the offer - and got booed for it.

We were lucky, however, to have Dave Lavery there doing alliance selections over the mic. He quickly explained that it was completely within our rights to choose to decline for any number of reasons, hushed the teams, then announced us as the #6 seed, citing "Well, now we know why they declined." My student was already upset about having to decline 2180, and when he left the field with our alliance, he was clearly bothered by the crowd's reaction.

It wasn't the only incident we experienced in NJ this year, and we are certainly not a powerhouse team (yet). Several students on another team were accusing our team of "not deserving to be there" and "not building a good enough robot to be where we were seeded." Now, this didn't happen directly to our faces, but just a few rows behind us. The problem WAS addressed by the mentors on that team, and for that I thank them.

What I want to stress is that this can happen to ANY team in FIRST, and it shouldn't.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Every team at the regional I'm going to mention will remember this happening.

Gary Voshol concocted a April fools day prank to play on us Michigan teams - on April 1st of last year, during an event, he announced an emergency rule update. He told us FIRST had released a rule update stating that they believed it was against the spirit of the game for a robot to lock into the tower, so no one could stay there more than 5 seconds.

Of course, this was a jab at 469, who everyone in the district (and the country) knew had an incredible robot.

The number of people who cheered sickened and angered me - I actually yelled a word in anger that I wasn't too proud of at the time. A good chunk of the students at that venue were more than happy to have the dreams of a team crushed rather than play against them.

I suspect it would have met the same response anywhere in the country.

This starts with the mentors. It's up to us to stamp it out. It's up to us to make it right. It's up to us to guide our team members and remind them that if it were OUR game breaking robot, we'd be devastated. I wonder how many teams talked about that occurrence. I know we did.

You mean the same robot that they cheered when it tipped over in auton? That was... not a proud weekend for FIRST imho.

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Regarding the April Fool's joke last year, we had no idea the crowd would react that way. We thought it would cause the team to sweat for a couple of minutes, and then we'd all share a good laugh, as had happened with other pranks in prior years. Had we known the reaction would be so negative against the team we would never have done it. I immediately went to the team and apologized, and if I never apologized publicly please accept this post as that apology.

Not to harp on something negative but I did want to point out that even a joke turned out to cause a lot of bad feelings and anger. I know for a fact some people lost a lot respect for people as a result of that little gag. Be very careful what you say in jest.

Originally Posted by Karthik

The reserved nature is typical, but I wouldn't call it "stand-offish". We definitely shared details about our robot to many teams who came by to visit. There was definitely no reluctance to show off information to US teams.

I can confirm this, 1114 has never (in my experience) shied away from telling any details about their robot. My suggestion would be to talk to a student though. (I think it is significantly more inspiring to have a student explain a system rather than an engineer)

Originally Posted by JVN

148 will be sporting "Be Professional" buttons for the rest of our events this year.

If you wouldn't mind sending one or two of those over by the Kettering table in scholarship row I would appreciate it.


And now that I've replied to every post in this thread... John, I have had numerous talks with Karthik about this topic and the utter disrespect that powerhouses get from students who just don't get it. I have also come to the conclusion that it just isn't these students' fault. FIRST is such an alien concept to anyone outside of it and unless someone teaches them that you don't want to BEAT 1114 you want to BE 1114 they will never know. I don't blame students for bad attitudes, I blame mentors who don't discourage them. I will admit that I am not exactly a ray of sunshine all the time but I will say that I tried my best to remind my students that this is about inspiration and we should celebrate excellence instead of shunning it.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Let me preface this by saying that I DO think less of teams like 1114 for not building their own robot. I will always be more proud of, and cheer more for a student built robot.

How can you say that when you haven't been to their shop? A 100% student robot means that they are using their coaches and mentors to sign the paper work instead of using the to their fullest potential and learning from the experts which is the goal of FIRST.