Team 548 Einstein Statement

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

It's a slippery slope.

Before passing judgment on this, I had to ask myself 'Had he been listened to, would things have played out differently?'

I'm not sure of the answer, and in turn not sure how I feel.

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

I think he was trying to say that the action of telling the field personnel about the issue was theright thing to do. Or that coming forward after the matches was the right thing to do.




PS: ^ look at this Lawrence guy.

[quinxorin]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

No. That would not be okay with me. However, a brief (three second) interruption that does not influence match outcome is.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

The interruption lasted for three seconds, according to the 548 report. Furthermore, according to the report, he did not intend to alter the outcome of the match, but instead wanted to show the field personnel that field hacking was in fact possible. That's okay with me.

The intent is okay with me too, don't get me wrong. But proving it on the biggest stage possible? That's not cool with me.

Originally Posted by quinxorin

No. That would not be okay with me. However, a brief (three second) interruption that does not influence match outcome is.

Even a three second interruption interferes with the outcome of the match. For many teams, it takes them only that much time to shoot three baskets.

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

PS: ^ look at this Lawerence guy.

^ Look at this Koscielski guy, he can't even spell my name right.

Okay, before this thread crashes, lets go back to praising 548 for saying "we're sorry."

-Nick

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

I think Nick is saying what most of us are thinking.

This mentor did not tell his team the full story, in my opinion. And this statement makes him look even worse (to me) because none of the other accusations that many are thinking about are addressed. Maybe he said this was the reasoning and that it only happened on Einstein and was a method of protest to protect team 548's wins last season? Maybe he did this at other events to gain competitive advantage? Those are my beliefs, and I'd like to see this same person address those beliefs. Even if he confirms or denies this, I honestly think more than just the Einstein teams deserve an apology. Yes these are bold statements, but I am perfectly confident that I am not the only one with these beliefs.

Kudos to the rest of 548 for releasing this statement. A bit late, but that is understandable. Yes you still have the support of other teams in FIRST (at least mine).

[quinxorin]

548 shouldn't have had to apologize. Regardless of what one individual did, he acted alone and not as a member of the team; whether right or wrong, it wasn't the team's fault.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

548 shouldn't have had to apologize. Regardless of what one individual did, he acted alone and not as a member of the team; whether right or wrong, it wasn't the team's fault.

I think they had to say something, I mean a lot of people knew it was a 548 member for a long time. They had to dissociate with the mentor in question.

-Nick

[JVN]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

Because the individual did this only after attempting to interact with the field personnel, I feel his actions were entirely warranted and correct.

No. No. No.
There are any number of things which could have been done after Einstein to fix this issue. Don't fall into the trap of "he spoke up and was ignored so he had to make his point." There are plenty of ways to get "unignored" (later on) without knowingly sabotaging an event.

The existence of this vulnerability could have been made known, and fixed, after the fact. Suspecting that someone else is exploiting it, is not a valid reason for exploiting it yourself.

Kudos to 548 for coming forward, I expect nothing less from such a well regarded team.
Their team leadership stepped forward. They communicated the facts they have, without editorializing. They apologized.

-John

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

548 shouldn't have had to apologize.

What you do reflects upon your team. If someone on my team had done this, you better believe I'd be apologizing for that person's actions.

I have a very hard time believing everything in 548's statement just because of this single sentence - "The actions of the individual were not intended to harm a team or alliance, nor intended to alter the outcome of the
matches on Einstein."

That's exactly what it did. Regardless of the intention, that's what happened. Teams were harmed, match outcomes were effected and the 2012 FRC season was damaged just to prove a point. There's a time and a place for this kind of thing, but not like this. Common sense - use it.

[IndySam]

I am glad the they came out with this statement but there is way to much mitigating going on and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I am hoping that its just because some lawyers told them to how to say it (after all it is a very litigious world) and not the teams true feelings.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by thefro526

It's a slippery slope.

Before passing judgment on this, I had to ask myself 'Had he been listened to, would things have played out differently?'

I'm not sure of the answer, and in turn not sure how I feel.

Had he been listened to, I'm not sure the finals would actually take place, after they test his theory and likely at the time not know how to fix it. I mean, it probably took a lot of smart people A LOT of time to trace the actual cause of the FCA attacks to the field AP firmware.

-Nick

[RobotsVsKittens]

This is poorly written and a less than ideal admission of guilt.

Unfortunately, to further demonstrate the issue, and making a poor decision, they created a 3 second field
interruption in match 2.

Who is 'they'?

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

548 shouldn't have had to apologize. Regardless of what one individual did, he acted alone and not as a member of the team; whether right or wrong, it wasn't the team's fault.

548's apology was exactly the correct thing to do.

This is the same "rule" that most organizations and companies have. If I were to talk onto a plane wearing a company shirt and start talking about something bad for the company, it reflects on the company. If I happen to encounter one of our customers and start having a discussion about our products, I'm required to file a report about the encounter.

In this case, an individual who could be identified as belonging to their team performed actions of which the community disproves. Whether or not the team made a public statement, enough people witnessed the incident to ensure that something would be said and spread via rumor. In such a situation, it would go directly against the team and many people would blame the team. By stepping forward as a team, publicly apologizing, and clearly stating that the individuals actions were not representative of the team, this team is performing the necessary PR to move past the incident.

All that said, I personally believe this was the act of an individual, and not something that was sanctioned by the team. I think it really helps to highlight the fact that poor choices can be made by anyone, even a 7-year veteran mentor of a well respected team. I hope this doesn't tarnish the team's reputation in years to come, and I really hope the immediate community they interact with at off season events, districts, and such maintains respect for this team through these difficult times.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by RobotsVsKittens

This is poorly written and a less than ideal admission of guilt.

Who is 'they'?

While I don't like it either, the usually plural "they" is commonly accepted as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun.
I'm like you - I personally don't use it on principle, and I cringe when I see it, but it's not incorrect per se.
I don't know that it's poorly written - like SAM said, it reeks of lawyerspeak - and understandably so. This team has strong ties to its sponsors, as many do, and when people's livelihoods are at stake, you bet the lawyers are called in.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RobotsVsKittens

Who is 'they'?

In this case, "they" refers to the individual who caused the interference. I could go into all the grammar, but in this case it's the best word if you want to keep anonymity for the person in question.