FRC Blog - My Bad Call

[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.

[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!

[Citrus Dad]

An excellent response and outcome. I'm glad that FIRST put the right priority on fairness. I completely understand the problem of communicating in this situation, and I'm glad that they came to this resolution.

[brennonbrimhall]

+1 Frank. Thanks for making it right -- as well as for your example of Gracious Professionalism. You put the attributes that FIRST emphasizes into practice.

There's not really many people I look up to in this world, but you've become one of them. Thanks for taking the blame, and showing this generation of FIRSTers (including me) how a real leader should act.

[Niezrecki]

I absolutely adore Frank! What an excellent man admitting mistake/ misinterpretation and trying to appease everyone. He is quite an inspiration to all of us FIRST Students and an excellent example of the great dedication to fairness that FIRST tries to embody. Gracious Professionalism all around. Makes me happy.