Another Culture Change

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Teaching students to work hard, smart, and for very long hours (many more than most would think) to achieve a goal at the highest level is an extremely valuable lesson. Achieving a goal by merely finishing, or reaching mediocrity is not acceptable; Excellence is the only satisfactory result.

As long as excellence is not exclusively defined as a blue banner, I can get behind this...

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

As long as excellence is not exclusively defined as a blue banner, I can get behind this...

And yet, excellence should come through ***striving for*** a blue banner.

I don't care if my team wins. I care if they try their hardest to win.

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

And yet, excellence should come through ***striving for*** a blue banner.

I don't care if my team wins. I care if they try their hardest to win.

Amen to that. There needs to be a target to shoot for, but you can't be disappointed if you fall short of that blue banner or trophy.

"Aim for the Moon...That way, if you miss, you'll still be among the stars." - W. Clement Stone

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by robobandmom

During the first rounds of the eliminations, there was a human player that appeared to be attempting to damage their bot, or at least get it to drop a tube. They were awarded a red card for this, and rightfully so. I don't know if it ended there; I hope they were told that kind of stuff won't be tolerated. Maybe there needs to be a penalty that follows you to your next event...kind of like a Flagrant Foul in basketball.

I'm curious as to what this HP was doing. At the St. Louis regional I witnessed a couple of HP's intentionally throwing tubes at tubes robots were carrying. It actually worked once or twice, and no penalties were called; I do not believe doing such is against the rules, nor should it be (IMO). How could an HP damage a robot?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

And yet, excellence should come through ***striving for*** a blue banner.

I don't care if my team wins. I care if they try their hardest to win.

What you wrote in the message I quoted is a fine and worthy sentiment; but if you want to agree with Chris, then I sincerely suggest agreeing without slipping the Blue Banner back into the equation. If you disagree with him then certainly feel free to unambiguously say so.

If I may put some words in his mouth, his point is that there are so many off-the-field goals that a team can (and should) pursue, that using on-the-field performance as the "600 pound gorilla" metric for assessing an FRC team's success is something that should not occur automatically or otherwise become a habit. The blue banner is only one of many targets a team can shoot for.

On the field performance is interesting and exciting, and some teams choose to make it the foundation they derive many other good things from; but while it is a useful way too decide if a team's robot is excellent, it is not the right way to decide if a team is "excellent" (whatever that might mean).

I can imagine many hypothetical teams that would be excellent in many important senses of the word that are also pertinent in FIRST; but who would not build an excellent robot. I recommend devloping a habit of explicitly not using blue banner counts to evaluate teams.

Blake

[Chris is me]

I was trying to go for the point that on field success can be achieved without actually winning the competition, but Blake's point is also valid. Not everyone's aim is to walk away with a regional win - there are other goals and metrics for success a team can choose to go for.

[pfreivald]

I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth but my own.

I am of the opinion that if you are not striving for that most important of Blue Banners -- the Chairman's Award -- then you are not being all that you can be as a FIRST team, and that your students and mentors aren't getting everything out of the experience that they could be.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

High school sports is a great example. Every state has teams that are elite year after year in a given sport (around here Farmington Hills Harrison football is a great example). Are their students inherently superior in football every year? No - it's the coaches that are the common factor (like the mentors in FIRST).

Do we now make the leap that the coaches must be donning masks to look like teenagers and play quarterback and running back? It's pretty obvious that they aren't doing that. The job of the coaches is to have a winning SYSTEM, and a METHOD to teach and apply the system.

If adults instill consistently elite programs with high school kids playing football, why can't the same be done in robotics?

To take this a step further, once mentors or coaches have instilled a system that creates excellence, more students want to be a part of that system. I know the original point of your post was to point out that powerhouse teams do not have superior students, but I think to an extent the better teams in FIRST can have students who are more motivated and interested in pursuing the engineering challenges it presents. If you look at elite sports programs in an area, once that program has sustained success, students will choose that school over another or will try out for that sport when they wouldn't have taken an interest before just because they know of its success. A FIRST team could be similar; successful teams are more likely to attract students who are undecided about the extracurricular activities they should pursue, and a student who has a strong engineering interest and the option of choosing between two schools with FIRST teams may be inclined to go to the school with the more successful team.

Note that I don't define success in terms of winning, since FIRST has many definitions of success as has been discussed at length.


Now about my team specifically, we are a team that is both student and mentor built. While there are times when the mentors are teaching students (especially those new to the program), often students and mentors work as equals on the team. Design discussions involve suggestions from both students and mentors, and build consists of students building part of an arm while a mentor takes another part of the arm to be welded (since there are no welding facilities at the school). There have been years where certain subteams are more student or mentor built depending on resources but the average is still that they are on equal ground.

If a team were to see us at competition, it would be easy to mistake us as an entirely mentor built team, even though that's far from the truth. For example at this year's regional, we had 7 mentors, 3 teachers/chaperones, and 10 students, though the numbers varied by day. Of the students on the team only 3 were usually in the pit, since 3 were on the drive team and the other 4 were distributing buttons, watching matches, etc. If you came by our pit at the wrong time you might see 3 mentors on the robot and no students (or mistake some of our students for mentors), and think "wow, the students don't do any work on that team". In reality the drive team was off discussing strategy for the next match and the students in the pit were quickly eating lunch, but if that's the only time you see our pit the wrong impression will stick with you.

So please teams, don't assume students aren't learning because you saw "only mentors" in the pits with the robot, or somehow "know" that mentors built their robot. You likely have just seen a team at the wrong time, and it's hard to shake first impressions.

Interestingly, our team has always had close to a 1:1 ratio between mentors and students because of the low number of students we usually have and the high number of mentors who like to get involved. And while we've always fielded robots that are at least mildly competitive, we have never won a regional competition and have only been finalists once in 11 years. Heck, this year was only the third time we've finished in the top 8 at an event. So I have to question the notion that a mentor heavy team will dominate other FIRST teams, because that has never been our experience.

[Steve_Alaniz]

Originally Posted by robobandmom

During the first rounds of the eliminations, there was a human player that appeared to be attempting to damage their bot, or at least get it to drop a tube. They were awarded a red card for this, and rightfully so.

Just a point of curiosity... I am not trying to argue but please consider this.
At the Alamo regional, a tube occasionally hung on a robot where it was not intended. When that happened, there was a penalty assessed on that robot if it also held a game piece. The rules state that you may only possess one game piece at a time. So much has been made over knowing the actual facts that I have to ask about the 1114 incident... was this an intentional act by a student to damage a robot or a tactic to cause that robot delay wile trying to dislodge the game piece? I'm not sure it is against the rules to hit a robot with a game piece but I would like to know if there is a specific prohibition to doing so. In any case... did the student admit he was trying to damage the robot or is that just a perception?


Steve

[PayneTrain]

It should be that opposing alliances forcing teams into penalties receive a yellow card, while opposing alliances forcing teams into red cards receive red cards.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Donut

To take this a step further, once mentors or coaches have instilled a system that creates excellence, more students want to be a part of that system. I know the original point of your post was to point out that powerhouse teams do not have superior students, but I think to an extent the better teams in FIRST can have students who are more motivated and interested in pursuing the engineering challenges it presents.

I want to highlight what you said here because my original statement didn't say what I really wanted it to say - it was close, but I left something important out (and you added it for me).

What I meant to say about the high school students is that it is unlikely for the students at WildStang's high schools to be much better than the students of any other high school. From a probability standpoint, the inherent abilities (i.e. talents) of one population of children will not be far superior to another group. The difference is more attributable to the level of education, training, etc.

What you said is also true: success breeds success. People like to be a part of a winning team, so when the team is successful you start to attract even more students which means you can get better students (once again, probability: if you are taking 20 students on the team, your 20 will be better if 60 show up to try out than if only 30 show up.)

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It has several objectionable themes.

• The idea that it's okay to assume that other team's robots are built with no student involvement just because you are jealous.
• The idea that student built robots are "better".
• The idea that it's okay to harass and abuse other teams based on the assumptions you made about their robot design process.

Chris, I wonder if you're reading a little too much into a very simple statement. How did you get all of that out of a single line? If we look at what exactly was quoted (just the facts, ma'am), to extrapolate all of that intent out of a single line requires not only a lack of the benefit of doubt, but an assumption of ill will.

Not to sound rude, but I was asking JVN specifically, not because he could give a better answer, but I assumed there was more to that event than what he wrote. In that case, he could possibly elaborate on what was actually objectionable. As it stands, I think it's hard to see what the problem is unless you are making (less than charitable) assumptions about the mindset of those who said such a thing.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JackG

Chris, I wonder if you're reading a little too much into a very simple statement.

If "out of the way, student built robot coming through" is coupled with an aggressive action (a shove), I think it's pretty clear that all of those points are implied.

What context could the above have happened in where none of those points are true? I don't get what you're seeing at all.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by JackG

Chris, I wonder if you're reading a little too much into a very simple statement.

I gotta say, I'm with Chris on this one. There's a lot of difference between "ROBOT!" (which apparently merits its own thread) and "Student-built robot coming through!".

To specify "Student-built" would, to me, say that the in-the-way team does not belong in the competition, and should be so embarassed by their "Adult-built" robot that they should cower in shame and allow the "proper" team through - you know, the team that "deserves" to be there and has a place in the "high school competition".

I wouldn't classify this as a display of jealousy as I would contempt. Neither of those are Inspiration, and neither of them have a place in FRC - or life for that matter.

That's (how I view) the purpose of this thread - how do we as a culture-changing-entity transform that negative, contagious, contemptuous energy into positive, infectious, inspirational energy?

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I wouldn't classify this as a display of jealousy as I would contempt. Neither of those are Inspiration, and neither of them have a place in FRC - or life for that matter.

I don't know about jealousy, to a degree it does have it's place in FRC: as a motivational tool to become something greater. When I see an excellent team performing well, I'm jealous of their students, but that quickly turns into a drive to become like that team. That's not to say it can't turn into contempt, as the events at Pittsburgh show (supposedly). It's always easier to make an accusation than to change the way you view the world, and we as humans are lethargic. This isn't really an issue involved with FIRST, it's an issue with human nature. The only thing I can see FIRST doing is clearing the symptoms, but there will always be people that don't understand, because FIRST is an organization whose goal is growth and expansion. The events in Pittsburgh may be condemnable, but I'm glad there are powerhouse teams like 1114 that can take¹ attacks like this, because they're also the ones that get it and have the power to change our views on how the world should work.

¹Not to say they deserve what they get, or that it's fair