FRC Blog - My Bad Call

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I think all people are asking for is a public acknowledgment from HQ along the lines of "We made mistakes in developing and deploying significant game management aspects of the Aerial Assist season, and we fully own them. The responsibility for correcting them is ours. We apologize for the added stress this season has brought to teams and volunteers, and we assure you that we will do everything in our power this offseason to improve our internal quality control measures such that the competitive experience will be better for all involved."

I honestly, truly, do not think that is too much to ask. It would go very far in alleviating the pressure I mentioned above.

I think, to some extent that was already done. From Frank's blog: "We’d love for every game to achieve Ultimate Ascent-like popularity, and we did not reach that level this year. Aerial Assist was a very different game for FRC, with our attempt to have a more sports-like game and strongly encourage teamwork on alliances. Some aspects of the game are working well and some, such as the burden placed on our volunteer referees, are not. Your feedback is critically important as we work to incorporate the lessons learned from this game to improve our future game design efforts."

Are you expecting a public statement after each week of competition for the major transgressions that occurred and/or 'went viral'? Consider a rookie team that is exposed to one event, doesn't follow CD, but then sees public apology statements through the blog (or an email blast) each week. Without a lot of context, they might think "what kind of organization have we gotten into?" If there is to be another public acknowledgement of troubles and intent to address them (and there very well might be), I'd expect it to come after the season is over, not before. It has already been acknowledged in a blog post that things are not as they had hoped and that they intend to work to incorporate lessons learned for future game design.

[rsisk]

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

5.5.3 Referee Interaction
The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final. The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.

T13
If a TEAM needs clarification on a ruling or score, one (1) pre-college student from that TEAM should address the Head Referee after the ARENA reset signal (i.e. PLAYER STATION LED strings turn green). A TEAM member signals their desire to speak with the Head Referee by standing in a Red or Blue Question Box, which are located on the floor near each end of the scoring table. Depending on timing, the Head Referee may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent MATCH.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by rsisk

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

I wondered the same thing, as to why frank was the one making the call. I also wondered if the head ref at svr would have been able to overrule what frank if he didnt agree with frank since the ref has ultimate authority in the arena.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by rsisk

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

I believe it is because the FTA is the one who contacts FIRST and their interface is Frank.

[Libby K]

I am so, so proud of Frank for this post.

Yes, the wrong call was made, and he apologized for it and explained how he was going to fix it. Frank's really good at this transparency thing we're all begging for.

However, it doesn't fix the issue that anyone thought it was at any point okay to penalize a team for an honest mistake, nor does it excuse the alleged statement made re: 'pulling the team out of championships'. Things need to change somewhere in the chain of command to avoid the overpowered-entitled-volunteer behavior that's become unfortunately all too common in the FIRST community.

A big step in the right direction. All in all, the right thing to do for now. Good Guy Frank strikes again!

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

What am I going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks now?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PayneTrain again

Drat!


.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by rsisk

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

The FTAs have a decision making flow chart that dictates who makes decisions and where it escalates from there. I haven't seen it myself, so I can't tell you where this falls, though I'm guessing they followed the appropriate protocol.

Additionally, although backup and timeout coupons are passed through the head ref, most decisions that impact replays, changing teams, giving teams time to work on their robots, and the general scheduling issues are a joint decision between the FTA and head ref.

To me it isn't so much an issue about interpreting and enforcing the game rules so much as a logistic and communication issue, which would fall under the FTA's purview.

[nlknauss]

Awesome decision by Frank and FRC. I'm only assuming but I bet there were a ton of factors involved with making this decision and the pressure was probably immense. This reminds me of a book for educators called "Teaching with Love and Logic". The book is on classroom management and the psychology behind working with others to create a productive environment. One of the major points in the book, is that it's difficult to create rules and procedures to cover every problem that pops up. The best you can do is deal with individual problems and come up with a solution for that problem. I'm as much into the rules as the next person but this scenario calls for an individual solution.

All in all, this is a good learning opportunity (for anyone) because it demonstrates a problem solving scenario that comes with leadership responsibility. A rough call was made, it was evaluated, a solution was presented after weighing all of the information, and now the parties involved are moving forward. Examples of this outside of FIRST are few and far between. Good for Good Guy Frank!

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

I think, to some extent that was already done. From Frank's blog: "We’d love for every game to achieve Ultimate Ascent-like popularity, and we did not reach that level this year. Aerial Assist was a very different game for FRC, with our attempt to have a more sports-like game and strongly encourage teamwork on alliances. Some aspects of the game are working well and some, such as the burden placed on our volunteer referees, are not. Your feedback is critically important as we work to incorporate the lessons learned from this game to improve our future game design efforts."

Are you expecting a public statement after each week of competition for the major transgressions that occurred and/or 'went viral'? Consider a rookie team that is exposed to one event, doesn't follow CD, but then sees public apology statements through the blog (or an email blast) each week. Without a lot of context, they might think "what kind of organization have we gotten into?" If there is to be another public acknowledgement of troubles and intent to address them (and there very well might be), I'd expect it to come after the season is over, not before. It has already been acknowledged in a blog post that things are not as they had hoped and that they intend to work to incorporate lessons learned for future game design.

I most certainly do not want multiple statements issued, even though it seems to be true that "transgressions" are still happening weekly, which underscores the severity of the overall problem this season.

I also agree that the statement you quoted can be considered something along the lines of what I had requested. However, I know I and others would have preferred a standalone statement of regret instead of one buried in an array of charts and stats based on a (very) limited dataset of responses. The overall blog post seemed intended to sway the hearts and minds of the reader toward a "it's not so bad" viewpoint - attempting to influence those who had yet to fill out surveys. You can certainly communicate the need for the community to submit more surveys without posting charts and stats based on what has already been submitted by the self-admitted less than desirable few. Shouldn't we let the West Coast vote before declaring who won the Presidency?

Would a more obvious admission of mea culpa have helped reduce much of the angst that popped up this week following SVR? Likely not. But for the larger population of folks who've been stung on a less overt level, I think it would have helped quite a bit.

Let's move past the PR aspect of dealing with this season and return to the bottom line. I think FIRST is finding out that a growing percentage of the community believes that major changes, not minor tweaks, are required to bring about meaningful, lasting improvement. FIRST has said they are amenable to making changes - they have told us the extent to which they do so hinges largely upon the feedback we provide them.

Whether you like the game or dislike it, whether your team has been directly impacted by blar or not, whether you are a student, mentor, or volunteer, SPEAK UP and let your voice be heard. Provide DETAILED accounts of both notable positive and negative experiences related to both the game and interactions with volunteers.

To this end....

Is there a better way for individuals to share more "real-time" feedback with FIRST? Short of these team surveys that team leads may or may not distribute to all team members (or may not even know about), is there a more direct method for people to share their thoughts with FIRST HQ - one that doesn't flood email inboxes, one that can be responded to quickly by FIRST personnel, and one that does not involve an orange, black, and white colored forums site?

Also, is there a working structure in place for VOLUNTEERS to provide their feedback to HQ - a standard system that FIRST requires all events to propagate?

Such a discussion could be explored in a new thread.