Team 548 Einstein Statement

[Renee Becker-Blau]

I think that 548's Steering Committee did a good job at responding to and handling the situation. Any mentor or student on a team is a representative of that team and officially associated with the team. This isn't just because you're wearing a team's t-shirt or branding, it's also because students and mentors officially register with a team through FIRST. If an individual on a team is involved in a negative situation, the leadership of the team is brought into the situation as well (ex-Football and Basketball players acting inappropriately).

Jon made a good point:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

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.

I'm glad that FRC 548 has come forward and publicly apologized for the actions of the individual. I hope this will help to diffuse any potential negativity that could occur at future events towards students and mentors on the team.

As for the individual, Jon and Andrew make great points:

Originally Posted by JVN

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.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

As it stands the person went from doing the right thing to being an attacker when they tried to "demonstrate" the vulnerability.

Renee

[Siri]

I just wanted to thank 548 for taking the courageous step of publishing this piece. Having committed no fault of their own, they've admirably given our community further impetus to move past the individual's conduct and embrace the challenges and opportunities this situation has exposed in our future. We owe it to ourselves honor just that.


I am impressed with the general tone of this thread in this point. I hope our students --and adults -- can continue to learn from the commendable behavior of 548, all the Einstein teams, and everyone involved in the invetigation. (Certainly some in their echelons may still be recovering, but hopefully this helps the process on tragically affected teams.) I know I will work to develop and retain this culture change, and while I hope we can avoid or preempt such incidents in the future, I believe we'll be better equipped as a community if we must handle one again.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Gregor

This team was hurt just as much as the 11 other Einstein teams.

No, they were the only alliance NOT hurt.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Cory

No, they were the only alliance NOT hurt.

Any team that participated on the einstein field played on a field that had become a tarnished playing ground. They may not have been interfered with directly, but being involved with Einstein must have been a heartbreaking experience. Can you imagine being on the field, not knowing if your robot was next to go down?

[DonRotolo]

The actions of a single person does indeed reflect upon a team, but in this case it is very clear that this person acted alone. Certainly an error in judgment to take that action.

Team 548 is a class act all the way. Every family has its Black Sheep, so I do not put any blame on the team. So, their coming out and issuing an apology was above and beyond the call of duty.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Gregor

They may not have been interfered with directly...

Of course they weren't. Why would the mentor use his/her own team or alliance partners as the target for making a point? He/she wouldn't. Whether they knew it at the time or not, 548 received an advantage over the other teams, just for this alone.

[Kims Robot]

People pushed & pushed for "the team" and/or "the person" to finally come forward, and I really hope that we can leave it at 548's statement. It may not be 100% what everyone dreamed of... but I don't think anything will ever make the situation right.

The team could and SHOULD only have issued their understanding of what happened, which means they are 100% reliant on what the mentor told them happened. Whether the mentor told them the entire truth or not, what are we so worried about? The person is banned, the vulnerability fixed, tons of more issues were found and tediously documented, so lets move on. People that are worried about "discrepancies" are you looking to call the team or the mentor a liar? What good does that do? Or are you legitimately interested to know if there was "a second attacker"? And if so, are we just on our next witch hunt?

I'm not sure people are fully understanding the team's statement. I pieced this together long before the team's statement, and I'm not sure people are getting it...

I'm going to stop dancing around the numbers/"vaguery"....

1. During the first match on Einstein, there was a robot failure in the alliance that included Team 548.
2. An individual mentor from Team 548 believed the failure was likely caused by an interruption.

Translating into english... When 118 went down, the individual assumed someone else was using the attack they knew to be possible. They thought THEIR alliance was being attacked...

3. Acting on their own accord, they entered the field in an attempt to notify FIRST personnel of their belief.
4. The FIRST Technical staff did not pursue the suggestion by the individual and asked for them to leave the field area in which they complied.

How frustrating would it be to think that your alliance was denied the opportunity to compete fairly because of a security hole? They thought 118 had been targeted and that they had lost a key part of their alliance to this attack. Just putting myself in the mentor's shoes I can see how heartbreaking and distraught I would feel. We have all said numerous times that the frustration with this whole thing is that so many of us feel that the Einstein teams never got a "fair shot" to see who really could have been the winner. In that exact moment, this mentor really just wanted a fair shot... perhaps an opportunity at a replay with the bug fixed, or attacker identified... but when the mentor was asked to leave and disregarded, the mentor had no idea what else to do.

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

548 acknowledges that this was a poor decision, and we can all see how it most definitely was the wrong way to go about it, but even I can acknowledge that being in the same exact situation, the thought would cross my mind. But I would hope even in the heat of the moment, I would make the right decision and let it go. But with how heated debates get here on CD, I would be willing to bet that probably 10% of the FIRST population may have done the exact same thing if they were put in the exact same circumstances and had the exact same knowledge. I'd like to say I hold us all to higher standards, but many of us crack under pressure and none of us has made the absolute right decision every single day of our lives.

I don't think this person was doing it to intentionally harm an alliance or to prove their ultimate hacking skills... I think it was a sad, last ditch effort to get the attention of FIRST and get their alliance "a fair shot" at competing.

Lets let go of the details and all move on. The issue has been fixed, the team has come out into the open & apologized, and many other good things have resulted from all of this. So lets focus on moving forward.

Kudos to 548 for coming forward and releasing this information. Don't worry, we still love you guys, and if anything, respect you even more for doing a difficult task such as this.

Also, I would like to wholeheartedly thank (even though I may get some crap for this) the individual who caused all of this. What he/she did was a good thing at the wrong time, the worst time. However, I'm going through this with an optimistic viewpoint. From what I'm reading, this individual's best interest was to show the problem to the FTA before it became a larger issue (based on the claim the individual saw some other interference). The individual also came forward to FIRST and admitted to the crime committed, as well as cooperated with FIRST to identify and ultimately come closer to solving the problem.

How the individual effected Einstein was devastating to the students who worked hard to get there, but I believe it wasn't done with a cruel heart. From what I hear, this mentor was a fun and enthusiastic person geared towards inspiring and teaching today's youth, exactly what an ideal mentor would be like. Life banishment from the place where he can help and inspire students is probably one of the worst ideas ever. Maybe a temporary banishment (a few years or so) to let them think about what they've done. And then if Team 548 wants this mentor back, I think he/she should be allowed back, to continue inspiring and teaching students.

What the individual did is completely terrible, but is it something forgivable?

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Of course they weren't. Why would the mentor use his/her own team or alliance partners as the target for making a point? He/she wouldn't. Whether they knew it at the time or not, 548 received an advantage over the other teams, just for this alone.

...but being involved with Einstein must have been heartbreaking experience. Please read the entire sentence

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

No, they were the only alliance NOT hurt.

Because there were no other issues on Einstein outside of the intention act of interference?

[IanW]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

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.

Even though you seem to be aware of the weight of your words, I think this indictment of Team 548 is too harsh. Your conjectures bring into question the integrity of their entire team, which I don't think is warranted. Especially considering that they apologized to the community as a whole in one of the most public manners they could manage. I truly hope that there are not many "with these beliefs," as it would indicate to me that the community has lost faith in the integrity of its peers, regardless of their reputation.

Otherwise, Kim's statement accurately sums up my thoughts:

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

People pushed & pushed for "the team" and/or "the person" to finally come forward, and I really hope that we can leave it at 548's statement. It may not be 100% what everyone dreamed of... but I don't think anything will ever make the situation right.

The team could and SHOULD only have issued their understanding of what happened, which means they are 100% reliant on what the mentor told them happened. Whether the mentor told them the entire truth or not, what are we so worried about? The person is banned, the vulnerability fixed, tons of more issues were found and tediously documented, so lets move on. People that are worried about "discrepancies" are you looking to call the team or the mentor a liar? What good does that do? Or are you legitimately interested to know if there was "a second attacker"? And if so, are we just on our next witch hunt?

[Ekcrbe]

Disclaimer: The following is a hopeful opinion which is not proven. This disclaimer takes the place of all references to the fact that this is only one potential version of the situation, but deserves consideration nonetheless.

I can't really get mad about the "discrepancies" because I don't think the team statement is intended to be that deceitful. The series of events before the purposeful interference as we know them sound very emotionally stressful to the individual. High emotional stress inherently leads to poor judgement, and, in the long term, poor memory and recall. Even before he/she got busted, I'm willing to bet it would have been hard for him/her to recall the whole story. After the release of the Einstein Report, and the individual's subsequent ban for life, his/her story becomes shoddy at best. This is compounded by the possibility that the individual tried to convince him/herself that he/she isn't as guilty as he/she really is, leading to a real belief that is different from reality. By the time Steering Committee was told the story, it was probably far diverged from the truth.

On the other hand, the well-documented unreliability of witnesses probably means the Einstein Report's version isn't all true, either. Like so many things, two sides of the same story are neither the truth nor lies, and the reality lies somewhere in between them.

A couple other things:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

From what I'm reading, this individual's best interest was to show the problem to the FTA before it became a larger issue (based on the claim the individual saw some other interference).

...

Life banishment from the place where he can help and inspire students is probably one of the worst ideas ever. Maybe a temporary banishment (a few years or so) to let them think about what they've done. And then if Team 548 wants this mentor back, I think he/she should be allowed back, to continue inspiring and teaching students.

What the individual did is completely terrible, but is it something forgivable?

1. There are plenty of ways to make a statement. The decision the individual made was THE WRONG WAY to do so. I'm not directing anything at you or disparaging your opinion, because you're largely correct. My comment is that voluntary manslaughter (provocation) isn't murder, but it's still not permissible. Being mad doesn't give you any and all rights you want, especially when you don't know the full story (and actually have it wrong).
I'm not comparing the magnitudes of each situation, just the framework. I'm also not calling the individual a murderer at all, I truly believe this was a good individual who made a bad choice.

2. Is it really one of the "worst ideas ever"? It's harsh, but you have to set a precedent and say "This is not acceptable in FIRST."

3. Not yet, it seems. But that doesn't mean it will never will be. After a while, everyone can look back differently.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

The team could and SHOULD only have issued their understanding of what happened, which means they are 100% reliant on what the mentor told them happened.

I'm gonna have to totally disagree with this statement. The team should have only apologized and left it at that. No other information was necessary. There was no need to add to the discussion of what happened.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

What the individual did is completely terrible, but is it something forgivable?

Yes it's forgivable if the person is honest and truly seeks forgiveness but it is not just about forgiveness. The penalty needs to be so harsh that no one ever considers doing something like this again.

Lifetime ban is not only appropriate it's necessary.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Gregor

...but being involved with Einstein must have been heartbreaking experience. Please read the entire sentence

I did read it, the first time.