[BB] What did you do with your weekend?

[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)...

[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.

[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]

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

[Tristan Lall]

Seeing as it's coming up again, I just wanted to clarify where I think the onus lies, with respect to judges trying to interpret the significance of their observations with respect to an entire team.

As a matter of good practice, teams should strive to avoid situations where their insignia could lead a person to believe that something disreputable was happening with the team's approval. But shirts are memorabilia too, and naturally, the most authentic pieces are the most valuable, and indeed the best ones to give your friends. So there needs to be some balance. Teams should probably only be handing out their actual uniforms to people they trust...and non-team members wearing those uniforms should probably be aware of what they appear to be to an uninformed observer. (In other words, if you're wearing another team's shirt, be nice.) For random people receiving gifts or souvenirs, maybe they should be provided with something different to at least minimize the possibility of confusion.

But more importantly, judges need to be aware that the opinion of one person doesn't necessarily reflect the mindset of a team. (The same goes for inspectors for that matter, since they're often in similar situations where they might have to evaluate a team's intentions based on the conduct of individuals.) The judges need to be keenly aware of the nature of the contact they're making, and the inferences they draw. If an objectionable remark was overheard while they interviewing a team in a formal setting, did the other team members react positively/negatively? Or was this overheard in a queueing line (e.g. reacting to a call from a past match in private conversation) or a hallway (e.g. a person wearing a shirt with a team's number on it, saying something offensive)? And is the person making the remark in a position of leadership or influence?

And incidentally, the judges are going to have to figure out whether the gracious professionalism award is for the team that is most professional in aggregate, most professional per capita, most consistently professional, or something else. (Owing to the inherent subjectivity and the short amount of time judges spend directly interacting with a team, maybe it's always going to be "something else" by default.)

[rsisk]

The Gracious Professionalism is definitely a team award so the team has to be considered as a whole, which means that one person on the team could undermine the chances of the whole team earning the award.

The individual's behavior will most likely influence the decision of the judges, especially if it is a close contest between three teams as mentioned in Bill's Blog. The behavior weighed against the team and lowered their standing in the considerations.

[Taylor]

What strikes me about this exchange is that the comment wasn't directed at a fellow team member, an alliance partner, a parent, a sponsor - it was directed at AN FTA. The single most critical position at any event. Without an FTA, an event just plain won't run (assuming the use of official FRC equipment). The manuals give the FTA complete and final authority. This individual should be treated with utmost respect in any situation, reagardless of situation or circumstance.
I can't speak on behalf of other teams, but in our team, I don't tell the students they have to be respectful. I DON'T HAVE TO.

If I have a student that, after a fall semester and entire build season, I have reservations about that student representing our school and team well while at an event, I have no problem un-inviting that student to the event. Competitions are a reward for months of hard work; if a student cannot behave during those three days, that student should not be there.

I can't count the number of times I've seen the reprimand on CD of "no matter what the disclaimer, you're always representing your team." Doesn't this extend beyond the interwebs and into competition?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Taylor

it was directed at AN FTA. The single most critical position at any event.

Why should I treat an FTA any better than anyone else? They are a person and if your reaction to any other person is a series of profanities then so be it.*



*It is still wrong but at least you are treating everyone fairly.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Why should I treat an FTA any better than anyone else? They are a person and if your reaction to any other person is a series of profanities then so be it.*



*It is still wrong but at least you are treating everyone fairly.

So, in a dispute, you'd use the same language with your sibling or college roommate as you would the Governor of Michigan?
If that's acceptable behavior, then we as culture-changers have a lot of work to do.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Taylor

So, in a dispute, you'd use the same language with your sibling or college roommate as you would the Governor of Michigan?
If that's acceptable behavior, then we as culture-changers have a lot of work to do.

And you would treat the guy who cleans toilets after hours differently than you would your Governor? They are both humans who deserve the same amount of respect as you would hope they would give you.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

And you would treat the guy who cleans toilets after hours differently than you would your Governor? They are both humans who deserve the same amount of respect as you would hope they would give you.

Anyone you don't know personally deserves the same amount of respect regardless of who they are or what they do. What Taylor brought up is the differentiation between someone you know well, i.e. sibling or roommate, and a complete stranger.

I'm sure most of us communicate with our families and friends in a much more informal or casual way than we do with people we don't regularly speak with.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

Anyone you don't know personally deserves the same amount of respect regardless of who they are or what they do. What Taylor brought up is the differentiation between someone you know well, i.e. sibling or roommate, and a complete stranger.

I'm sure most of us communicate with our families and friends in a much more informal or casual way than we do with people we don't regularly speak with.

I will concede the point that treating a stranger the same way you would treat your brother may result in problems. I stand by my claim that if we respected everyone no matter their station the world would be better.

This student was in the wrong because he was disrespecting a fellow person. Had he said those exact words to the safety glasses attendant I would hope we would be having this exact conversation because who they were disrespecting shouldn't matter. It is still disrespect.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Taylor

The manuals give the FTA complete and final authority. This individual should be treated with utmost respect in any situation, reagardless of situation or circumstance.

The documentation given to the teams doesn't even mention the FTA. They don't know what he/she is.

Although observing the FTA's role might soon convince them otherwise, at first glance, they don't know that the FTA is any different from the person badgering them about sweeping out their pit. It's understandable that some teams therefore don't take the FTA seriously, because they don't understand the position.

(This is a longstanding oversight: the teams need to know what's expected of them in order to adjust their behaviour appropriately. The "At the Event" section should summarize the decision authority matrix.)

As for authority, that needs to be qualified a bit: they can make decisions that nobody else would be in a position to make (acting in FIRST HQ's stead when circumstances dictate it), but that power should be thought of as a reserve power. You only use it because it's the last option available, and you only use it to the extent absolutely necessary. In particular, teams should not expect them to overrule a terrible call made on the field or a bad decision made at inspection, though they may note the incident in their report. Those issues are properly addressed to the head/lead officials, with whom ultimate authority rests. Similarly, volunteers shouldn't expect the FTA to overrule the volunteer co-ordinator on personnel matters, or the event manager on logistics.

[Carol]

If that student was close enough to the FTA to engage him in conversation, and berate them in the manner reported, I'm betting that he/she was part of the drive team. If they didn't know already, the drive team very quickly learns the importance of the FTA and their role.

As said before, a good FTA will make or break a competition and is the final authority on field and game management issues.

(All this applies to the FTAA as well. The job is big enough you need two people).