[BB] What did you do with your weekend?

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Carol

And teams losing awards because of one student's behavior is unfortunately not rare. It's an open secret that judges have always asked field personnel if any teams have stood out in their minds, negatively or positively. And not just for incidents on the field either.

And often ask the same question to the volunteers doing queuing, inspections, and staffing pit admin and the safety glass stations.

*There was a team removed from winning a technical award because of some disgraceful behavior reported at the venue that had nothing to do with their amazing robot.

*Edit & Update: The behavior involved the venue and house security having to be called. The judges did investigate. Team reps apologized. Then there was a second incident, similar to the first.

And I've heard it also work the other way. Accolades showered on a team by something they quietly did and this reported back to the judging room.

[Madison]

I wonder how often sports teams are penalized for the behavior of fans wearing team jerseys. Probably not often.

When we're at competition -- especially those closest to home -- about half of the people walking around the venue in 488 shirts are folks I've never seen before.

What do we do? We could deny our supporters the chance to wear our uniform, but that doesn't really seem to jive with the notion of celebrating what we're all doing there. We could make them all go sit through some ridiculous "gracious professionalism" lecture, but since these are people I've never seen before, I'd rather be happy that they've showed up at all.

The short version, I guess, is that I think penalizing an entire group of people for the actions of a small number of people -- especially without any notion of the role those people play on the team -- is completely ridiculous.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Madison

The short version, I guess, is that I think penalizing an entire group of people for the actions of a small number of people -- especially without any notion of the role those people play on the team -- is completely ridiculous.

Yes - the message FIRST is sending here is crystal-clear. It looks like they're telling you that if you have any kids on your team that you can't trust to not make a dumb comment, ever, then you better kick them off the team and/or not bring them to any events. You know, those types of kids that FIRST probably needs to reach the most - the misguided ones who maybe haven't always had the best influences in their lives. FIRST apparently doesn't want any of that type of riff-raff at their events.

Oh, and you probably better not invite any parents or other adults either. You never know what some unmonitored adult could say that might be tied back to your team. Best just to not have them there, right?

Good grief.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Madison

I wonder how often sports teams are penalized for the behavior of fans wearing team jerseys. Probably not often.

When we're at competition -- especially those closest to home -- about half of the people walking around the venue in 488 shirts are folks I've never seen before.

What do we do? We could deny our supporters the chance to wear our uniform, but that doesn't really seem to jive with the notion of celebrating what we're all doing there. We could make them all go sit through some ridiculous "gracious professionalism" lecture, but since these are people I've never seen before, I'd rather be happy that they've showed up at all.

The short version, I guess, is that I think penalizing an entire group of people for the actions of a small number of people -- especially without any notion of the role those people play on the team -- is completely ridiculous.

Group punishment is ridiculous under most circumstances, but I think that that's not the root of the problem.

In a sports context, there's usually a separation between the fans (even those wearing jerseys) and the players. If a fan ran onto the field wearing team colours, there wouldn't usually be any question about who was responsible.

In a FIRST context, teams often just mass-produce a shirt and hand it out to anyone with a pulse and a tenuous connection to the team. Since a FIRST team member could be anybody, it's hard for a judge to guess who's just a related spectator, and who's actually on the team (and partially responsible for the team's conduct).

One solution might be to print two sets of shirts—one for the team, and one for the team's supporters (labelled as such). Of course, the judges would still have to know how to make the distinction, and it's not so easy to raise that point with the judges (to make sure they know what to look for) without throwing up red flags.

Either way, the team needs to be cautious about how they're being perceived.

[Kimmeh]

Originally Posted by lineskier

I found that in high stress situations such as interviewing, when the interviewer swore, it helped me to relax making the interview less intimidating. Based on many of the presentations I've seen I find that swearing can help to relax unnecessary tension. I don't believe any interview or presentation should really be stressful. We should have fun with life and take it less seriously. The occasional curse helps to lighten the mood and minimize the pretentious nature of a many stressful activities.

I understand what the poster is saying here. To use the spilled cup of coffee as an example: You're in an interview with someone. The interviewer has various papers on his desk, as well as a Styrofoam cup of coffee. He goes to reach for something and accidentally knocks the cup, which spills on the paper. First thing out of his mouth is a muttered "Sh**!" Turns out the coffee just ruined some important document. (Or consider the same situation for someone giving a presentation.)

Now, I don't think many of us would begrudge the interviewer for that. Personally, curse words have their place. Used right, they can convey a large amount of emotion and/or feeling. Much more than "Darn/Drat/Shucks/Uh-oh".

Now, I'm not saying that it's right to direct them towards anyone. However, the tone of most people's comments are coming across as being rather condescending. I'm just trying to point out that there are situations where a curse word could be considered appropriate.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Kimmeh

Now, I don't think many of us would begrudge the interviewer for that. Personally, curse words have their place. Used right, they can convey a large amount of emotion and/or feeling. Much more than "Darn/Drat/Shucks/Uh-oh".

Now, I'm not saying that it's right to direct them towards anyone. However, the tone of most people's comments are coming across as being rather condescending. I'm just trying to point out that there are situations where a curse word could be considered appropriate.

This may be showing both age and cultural differences between those posting in this thread.

As an illustration - at about midnight with a group in St. Louis at the CMP, I had someone say to me "You are the s**t."
My face must have looked as shocked as I felt. I was really tired so at first I thought I heard her wrong. This is someone I like, and I thought liked me. However, she is half my age.
I said "What???!"
And she and two others piped in "No, that is good. We all like you."

I dunno. Sometimes it feels hard to keep up.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

"No, that is good. We all like you."

I swear I like you too , but being your age I also wouldn't use those words in polite company.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Carol

It's an open secret that judges have always asked field personnel if any teams have stood out in their minds, negatively or positively.

Shouldn't judged awards be basded on direct evidence rather than hearsay?

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Shouldn't judged awards be basded on direct evidence rather than hearsay?

I doubt that feedback from field personnel would be the only input used to base an award on, its just one bit of the data used.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Yes - the message FIRST is sending here is crystal-clear. It looks like they're telling you that if you have any kids on your team that you can't trust to not make a dumb comment, ever, then you better kick them off the team and/or not bring them to any events. You know, those types of kids that FIRST probably needs to reach the most - the misguided ones who maybe haven't always had the best influences in their lives. FIRST apparently doesn't want any of that type of riff-raff at their events.

Oh, and you probably better not invite any parents or other adults either. You never know what some unmonitored adult could say that might be tied back to your team. Best just to not have them there, right?

Good grief.

So you are saying that a team whose members scream swears at the FTAs are Gracious and professional (the criterion for a GP award)?

As you said ... Good grief.

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So you are saying that a team whose members scream swears at the FTAs are Gracious and professional (the criterion for a GP award)?

The team as a whole may be very gracious and professional. What if the person in question was not even a member of aforementioned team? I know lots of people not on our team have Cheesy Poof shirts either through shirt trading, launching them out of the t-shirt cannon or other means. Do we need to require a class on gracious professionalism before someone is allowed to own our shirt?

Furthermore, did the judge go up and talk to the student after it was witnessed? What if the person had Tourette syndrome and was exhibiting coprolalia or something similar? FIRST needs to be careful about using potentially out of context incidents like this as the basis for judged awards (and if they choose to publish them like this, they should release more context)...

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So you are saying that a team whose members scream swears at the FTAs are Gracious and professional (the criterion for a GP award)?

As you said ... Good grief.

I said no such thing, thanks.

FIRST is stating plainly that a team was discarded from awards consideration due to the actions of 1 single person (which is quite a bit different from "a team whose members" which implies many/most of the team). I'd venture a guess that the poorly-behaved student in question was identified as a "team member" based only on the shirt they were wearing too.

My contention is that calling this event out will have the wrong impact: it's not possible to police all of a teams' members 100% of the time. Even with extensive "GP training", some kids won't believe in it and/or simply won't get it. So, knowing that, the only way as a team leader that I could avoid being called out in a Bill's Blog post would be to expunge all the "loose cannon" students and adults from my team. To me, it's a logical conclusion. However, as I said in my earlier post, the types of kids who are more likely to say something inappropriate from time to time are the same kids who could probably benefit most from FIRST. So, if you make a big stink of "we're watching you" on a blog and tell a story about how 1 student ruined a team's chance at an award, maybe you're inadvertently taking away the opportunity of a program like FIRST from the kids who need it most. I also contend that there's plenty of students who would never, ever utter the words "you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing" to an adult under any circumstances, but for the most part these are the types of kids that already "get it" and are probably less in need of FIRST showing them the way.

Of course such behavior out of any person, student or adult, should not be condoned. I guess I just hope that the evaluation in Seattle wasn't as black-and-white as Bill presented it. If a team spends a whole regional helping out every other team there, and a bunch of rookies play on the field who otherwise would have had a pit area full of parts but no robot, and 1 student is caught saying something dumb, should that team be eliminated from consideration for all awards? I sure hope not. I also sincerely hope that the team in question in Seattle was notified of this at the event, because there's nothing worse than a problem you can't solve because you don't even know about it.

Something else for thought: I'm sure there are kids in FIRST who are competitive and don't mind crossing the line from time to time. An unscrupulous student might look at Bill's Blog and figure out he has a sure-fire way to help his team out at his next event. His team is up for consideration for the Chairman's Award and he really, really wants to win, but there's another team in the running that is strong. Luckily he traded shirts with that team last year, now all he has to do is put on that shirt and go swear at a judge a little, and boom - competition eliminated. Think that's impossible? I'll bet there's some who would have thought no student would say "you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing" to an FTA too.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

First off, answering a question with a question isn't an answer .

Originally Posted by NickE

The team as a whole may be very gracious and professional.

Teams are based on all sorts of criterion, and observing them during stressful times is most likely one of those critera.

Originally Posted by NickE

What if the person in question was not even a member of aforementioned team? I know lots of people not on our team have Cheesy Poof shirts either through shirt trading, launching them out of the t-shirt cannon or other means. Do we need to require a class on gracious professionalism before someone is allowed to own our shirt?

You might want to consider giving out shirts that are not the 'team' shirt, so as to avoid this issue.

If you give out stuff that identifies that person as part of your team (whether they are or not) then any actions they do WILL reflect back on your team, for better or worse.

Originally Posted by NickE

Furthermore, did the judge go up and talk to the student after it was witnessed?

FTAs are typically a very reliable source of information. If judges had to 'follow up' on all 'ungracious or unprofessional' outbursts before casting their vote ... well, we'd never see a GP award.

Originally Posted by NickE

What if the person had Tourette syndrome and was exhibiting coprolalia or something similar? That sounds like it could turn into a case of discrimination pretty fast. FIRST needs to be careful about using potentially out of context incidents like this as the basis for judged awards...

As I've stated in other places, teams need to understand their members and not put them in a position they cannot handle. In your above example, companies/buisinesses would be careful not to put that person in a position where they would/could cause the company embarrassment (such as spokeman). FIRST teams should do the same.

In the end you should consider this a real world experiance. When you are wearing a team shirt (even if it's not yours), you represent that team and everything you do reflects back on that team.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Sorry for the double post. We cross posted

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

I said no such thing, thanks.

FIRST is stating plainly that a team was discarded from awards consideration due to the actions of 1 single person (which is quite a bit different from "a team whose members" which implies many/most of the team). I'd venture a guess that the poorly-behaved student in question was identified as a "team member" based only on the shirt they were wearing too.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put in a plural.
And I would not venture any guess as to how they knew what team they were on as we have no information/proof. You, Of course, have already stated otherwise.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

My contention is that calling this event out will have the wrong impact: it's not possible to police all of a teams' members 100% of the time. Even with extensive "GP training", some kids won't believe in it and/or simply won't get it. So, knowing that, the only way as a team leader that I could avoid being called out in a Bill's Blog post would be to expunge all the "loose cannon" students and adults from my team. To me, it's a logical conclusion. However, as I said in my earlier post, the types of kids who are more likely to say something inappropriate from time to time are the same kids who could probably benefit most from FIRST. So, if you make a big stink of "we're watching you" on a blog and tell a story about how 1 student ruined a team's chance at an award, maybe you're inadvertently taking away the opportunity of a program like FIRST from the kids who need it most. I also contend that there's plenty of students who would never, ever utter the words "you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing" to an adult under any circumstances, but for the most part these are the types of kids that already "get it" and are probably less in need of FIRST showing them the way.

Or ... you could accept that you will not win the GP award and work to inspire those that need it most.

Also, they were 'eliminated' from only the GP award (reread bills blog), not all awards.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Of course such behavior out of any person, student or adult, should not be condoned. I guess I just hope that the evaluation in Seattle wasn't as black-and-white as Bill presented it. If a team spends a whole regional helping out every other team there, and a bunch of rookies play on the field who otherwise would have had a pit area full of parts but no robot, and 1 student is caught saying something dumb, should that team be eliminated from consideration for all awards? I sure hope not. I also sincerely hope that the team in question in Seattle was notified of this at the event, because there's nothing worse than a problem you can't solve because you don't even know about it.

Again, we have no data to go on, so I won't comment on anything else the team 'may' have done or not done.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Something else for thought: I'm sure there are kids in FIRST who are competitive and don't mind crossing the line from time to time. An unscrupulous student might look at Bill's Blog and figure out he has a sure-fire way to help his team out at his next event. His team is up for consideration for the Chairman's Award and he really, really wants to win, but there's another team in the running that is strong. Luckily he traded shirts with that team last year, now all he has to do is put on that shirt and go swear at a judge a little, and boom - competition eliminated. Think that's impossible? I'll bet there's some who would have thought no student would say "you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing" to an FTA too.

Unfortunately, here, you are correct. As in my last post, teams need to guard their image. Giving out team shirts invites this, hence my suggestion that the shirts teams give out not be the 'team uniform'.

JM(NS)HO

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Something else for thought: I'm sure there are kids in FIRST who are competitive and don't mind crossing the line from time to time. An unscrupulous student might look at Bill's Blog and figure out he has a sure-fire way to help his team out at his next event. His team is up for consideration for the Chairman's Award and he really, really wants to win, but there's another team in the running that is strong. Luckily he traded shirts with that team last year, now all he has to do is put on that shirt and go swear at a judge a little, and boom - competition eliminated. Think that's impossible? I'll bet there's some who would have thought no student would say "you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing" to an FTA too.

If this scenario occurs then the team is failing the student. The expectations regarding team behavior (students, parents, and mentors) should be instilled in the team way before a team member has an opportunity to get frustrated with an FTA. Way way before.

Do people get frustrated, mad, impatient, angry? Yes, they do. It's how they handle those strong emotions that defines their leadership on a field of competition.

Jane