UNgracious UNprofessionalism

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

If you can't find a way to "inspire" your kids other than denigrating others' good work, I am sad for your team. Why isn't it inspiring to see what the students on those other teams were able to do by partnering with their mentors? Why don't you encourage your kids to go talk with those other teams to get an idea of what really makes them great, instead of feeding them the fiction that they're only great because the robots were built by professionals?
...
You don't have to be ashamed about "smashing" another robot, but it is definitely not something to be proud of.

Alan, I would argue that you SHOULD be ashamed of "smashing" another robot. Senseless destruction of material is not something we should tolerate. You can play effective defense without damaging the other robots. (Arguably, you can play MORE effective defense without damaging them). As someone who has had our robot banged around a fair bit this year I can say that teams that make dirty hits with the intent of doing damage just irk me.


Regarding the other part I quoted. I'm going to channel my inner IKE for a bit and recommend that the poster read a book called Tribal Leadership. There's an interesting bit in it about about the language used by groups in various stages. Sounds like the person you quoted is in the "I'm great (and you're not)" stage. I suggest they observe other teams and how they operate. Emulate them and see if we can realize that we can all be great.

[jee7s]

You know, I had written a long reply to this with all sorts of pointed comments about the flawed logic here. But, when I tried to preview it, I lost it. This was probably for the best.

I'll say that it sure seems like flargen507 sees FIRST as a zero sum game. That one team's success is due to another team's failure. And, that justifies teaching high school kids that there's no reason to improve because those better "mentor bots" are somehow illegitimate.

I've been there. I've been with the team when their robot didn't move AT ALL for a regional. I've been there with the team that poured their heart and soul into their robot and didn't get to play on Saturday afternoon. But, as they have reminded me, I told them that they did hard work, they learned, and they made progress to being a better team. That's what really counts.

And, for the remainder of my comments, I refer you to JVN:

http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/02/open-...to-haters.html
http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/03/anoth...re-change.html

[PayneTrain]

I have been involved with teams that can trace their greatest successes by learning from glaring failures that resulted in ineffective robots. Let's try working on self-evaluation and suggesting a positive, constant pursuit of the impossible goal of perfection and not fighting over the same pound of flesh that has been picked at by the hivemind for years.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I have been involved with teams that can trace their greatest successes by learning from glaring failures that resulted in ineffective robots. Let's try working on self-evaluation and suggesting a positive, constant pursuit of the impossible goal of perfection and not fighting over the same pound of flesh that has been picked at by the hivemind for years.

Same here. 3929's robots so far have been comparative failures to what the team has been trying to achieve. The same can be said for 2495's past robots. 3929's students, since the team's inception, have always been taught to look up to those better than them and to achieve greatness from within, not bring others down. They had what I could call a 90% student designed robot that did not perform well at their first event this season. However, these kids aren't taught to give up and point fingers to other teams for having better machines, they're taught to correct issues and improve for the next event. At their second event they did comparatively well and were even semifinalists. 2495's students in the past have had some sort of attitude about "better" teams, but all it takes is someone to show them that it is better to fix things in your own team than to pick out what you think are flaws in another.

I think that if you are sheltering students with the notion that teams around them have unfair advantages, you are underestimating the resolve of a truly competitive student. Don't babysit students and tell them there's nothing wrong with how things went down, mentors and students all need criticism to learn. In a few years, 3929's students and mentors will have learned from mistakes and will look to other teams to grab positive ideals from others to make themselves better. In the end, I don't mind too much who has what amount of involvement in the production of a machine, it is just a machine, I do care that the mentors are teaching their students about the desire to be better by correcting flaws within the team.

[flargen507]

I should probably reply to this outpouring of apparent anger at my previous post. I want you all to understand something. I don't like hurting other teams. I do not try to say that all the other teams who are better than us are evil mentor bots who cheat their way through the competition. And I do not condone the unerring right to destroy others' hard work. That being said, I still think that what I said was accurate and not unFIRST-like. Coming off a tough loss, I try to console people by saying that we did do a good job, and they worked hard, and we should strive to beat that team next year. That can lead to some villianization. It's not intentional, but that's what can come up. I would also like to say that I in no way represent the rest of 159, who may disagree with my opinions. I simply think that teams who are in the situation the original poster described should try to be understanding of the hardships other teams undergo. The situation is usually a lot more complicated than it appears. I do regret the amount of anger that came out in that last post, as I said it was probably a bad time to pick up this thread. But I still think that some of those principles are sound and that I do the best I can to motivate and inspire the kids on my team. For those of you who are angry about the way I handled the situation, please let me know how you think I should handle it, and I will take it under serious consideration. I am by no means the greatest individual, but I do try to improve myself. That being said, I encourage all of you to try and understand the situation I am coming from, and at least give my point some thought, even if you don't agree with it.

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by flargen507

I do regret the amount of anger that came out in that last post, as I said it was probably a bad time to pick up this thread.

There's that great count-to-ten rule that works here. And, by the way, I think we all feel frustration or disappointment at situations you describe. It's a matter of how you handle those emotions that defines your attitude.

Originally Posted by flargen507

For those of you who are angry about the way I handled the situation, please let me know how you think I should handle it, and I will take it under serious consideration.

I wouldn't assign "angry" as the emotion associated with my response. Based on what I saw from other posters, I think it's more a matter of concern. Concern for you that this attitude is what you have taken on. Concern for your team and the message they are receiving. And, concern for FIRST and the communication of the culture that we are trying to engender.

Breaking the mold of the beat your opponent into the ground attitude that pervades many sporting environments is a daunting task. This is a good data point for situations to watch out for and intervene in, if such intervention is possible.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by flargen50

Do you want me to look at them and tell them that our robot lost because the other teams were just way better than us and all of their hard work and pain wasn't good enough? Sometimes to keep a group of kids to not just quit out of anger you have to console them. Sometimes that means telling them that those other teams were a bunch of mentor bots just to keep the peace.

Originally Posted by flargen507

For those of you who are angry about the way I handled the situation, please let me know how you think I should handle it, and I will take it under serious consideration.

Don't lie to your students. Your robot lost because the other teams WERE better than you and your team's work wasn't good enough. Full stop.

That sucks, but that's how it goes sometimes. You are doing the kids on your team a tremendous disservice by lying to them and you're minimizing the hard work of others at the same time. This is a lousy attitude.

We're a good team and we had a bad season. I had to deal with some pretty upset kids after things ended for us at our second event, but I did the best I could to explain that we still accomplished a lot of good and the only reason we didn't go further and do better was because we got some things wrong. It was our fault.

These kids are a few years away from living and working in a real world where nobody is going to lie to them to protect their feelings and, sometimes, no matter how hard they work at something, someone is going to do it better. When we lose; when we have a bad time at things on the field, we can choose to blame that on others or we can use that experience to teach our students to understand what went wrong and to use that knowledge in the future to make things for us and for others better than they are today.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by flargen507

I should probably reply to this outpouring of apparent anger at my previous post.

I'm not angry at you. I'm frustrated, mostly with myself.

In my relatively short time in the FIRST community it seems like we are stuck listening in on a broken record, constantly slinging the phrases of "mentor-built robots" and "x was un-GP to y, see how GP I am for telling you?" and then the ensuing chorus that barks at those posters. It's clear that as a community we are not adequately addressing the problem because it results in good teams with bright, talented, and driven students and mentors erecting glass ceilings for themselves while the community at large jumps on top of the ceilings and generates a lot of noise without saying anything.

However, I think this is whole FIRST thing is the kind of organization designed to make me feel like no one, myself included, is ever doing enough to help the program reach its true potential. It will never peak, we will never fix everything, we'll always try to make it perfect, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by flargen507

I encourage all of you to try and understand the situation I am coming from, and at least give my point some thought, even if you don't agree with it.

No. I will never give the side of celebrating mediocrity a thought.

That's precisely what you are doing, you are consoling yourself with the thought that, while you failed at achieving the game challenge you are still better than those punks who had their mentors build it all for them! You are celebrating failure. And that's on top of the fact that you are demonizing the very teams that get what FIRST is about.

And you know what? Your students need to hear that. They need to hear that they need to get their butts out there and fundraise and make partnerships with industry. When 79 didn't play in eliminations at CMP last year after seeding 9th I didn't console our kids. They asked why we didn't play and I told them honestly, "because we sucked, we didn't work hard enough. We felt entitled to success. This is what that kind of attitude gets". And yes, it angered some students. And I'm sure quite a few parents didn't particularly enjoy me telling their kids that. But we hit the ground running this year and most of the kids I told that to? They worked their butts off.

I guess my entire point is, I won't consider your thought process because it is dangerous. It is poisonous. I will never accept failure and you shouldn't either.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

But we hit the ground running this year and most of the kids I told that to? They worked their butts off.

Most? This is also a pretty good indicator that no two students are the same and that some may need individualized responses in situations like this. Especially because there's quite a large gap in emotional maturity from the most mature to the least mature students (or all people for that matter).

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

Most? This is also a pretty good indicator that no two students are the same and that some may need individualized responses in situations like this. Especially because there's quite a large gap in emotional maturity from the most mature to the least mature students (or all people for that matter).

I say most because a few graduated... I, of course, presented these facts in the language that was most appropriate for the particular student or group.

[E Dawg]

I sincerely apologize on behalf of 159. I hope that everybody knows that flargen507's posts do NOT reflect the overall attitude of the team. I am disappointed that this view exists at all, especially on my team. I will work hard to correct this attitude towards other teams. It is not okay to accuse a robot of being mentor-built, especially if it is out of spite because of losing. There is so much to learn from other teams (I learned a lot from 701 at the CO Regional), and these accusations do nothing to foster the relationships that should be built at competition.

701, great job at CO and good luck at St. Louis!

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

In all the threads that discuss mentor-built robots, not once have I read an explanation as to WHY this is bad. It is just generally assumed to be wrong by most, and the debate becomes whether or not the mentor-built accusations are true.

I am (personally) more concerned with a mentor-designed robot than mentor-built robot (where you look at the robot and have no idea how someone of your experience could design a machine of this high complexity, much less high school students), but this side of the coin never seems to be addressed. Is design just something that is assumed to be mentor guided?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

It is just generally assumed to be wrong by most, and the debate becomes whether or not the mentor-built accusations are true.

It is?

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

It is?

Well, if being a mentor-built robot isn't wrong, why does everyone seem to get so upset about it when someone is accused of it?

I personally could care less who build the robot, as long as the students are learning. But that's me, and I'm not the people who persistently deny said accusations.