Pit work during ceremonies

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Don't make it a judgement call. Allow 3-4 members from every team to stay back and explicitly disallow power tools. Done.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Now we run into the issue of what constitutes a need to work on the robot. For some teams it is obvious- maybe their robot isn't moving. However, many teams also see other "needs." Maybe my robot is already the best robot at the regional, but I "need" to tweak the shooter arm a little bit to ensure I got from getting 95% of the shots to 100% of the shots. Is this really a need though? Should I skip the opening ceremonies to do this?

Right because we should be teaching our students that not doing your absolute best is acceptable. If I am not 100% perfect all the time and I have students that want to work on the bot to get it to that point you can bet your mediocrity loving butt I say there's a need. I'm not going to let some talking head* get in the way of inspiration just so they can feel important. I'm going to be showing my students the value of passion.


* Talking heads that will always joke about how they couldn't do half of what these kids do. Because that's the lesson we want to show our students, that technical illiteracy is acceptable. That it's something to joke about.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

* Talking heads that will always joke about how they couldn't do half of what these kids do. Because that's the lesson we want to show our students, that technical illiteracy is acceptable. That it's something to joke about.

I've never seen any VIP laugh about illiteracy or 'ha ha dumb is cool' - I guess I missed the regional Jessica Simpson judged.
What I have seen is some very powerful people who give the clear message that the students in the stands have a clear advantage on the speakers themselves - access to an innovative and exciting program that can catapult any one of the kids higher than said speakers.
And I'd hate for some of my students to miss out on this potential inspiration because they were tightening a 10-32 bolt.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Don't make it a judgement call. Allow 3-4 members from every team to stay back and explicitly disallow power tools. Done.

I'm in for this really clear ruling.

I wouldn't mind a modification that the number of mentors can never exceed the number of students in a pit. I don't really care who is doing the work as long as students are present to be inspired by it.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've never seen any VIP laugh about illiteracy or 'ha ha dumb is cool' - I guess I missed the regional Jessica Simpson judged.
What I have seen is some very powerful people who give the clear message that the students in the stands have a clear advantage on the speakers themselves - access to an innovative and exciting program that can catapult any one of the kids higher than said speakers.
And I'd hate for some of my students to miss out on this potential inspiration because they were tightening a 10-32 bolt.

Most of the time I see a politician at opening ceremonies there is a joke about "You kids are doing something I could never do" followed by some nervous laughter. But this could be a function of the majority of our political leaders have zero engineering background.


Course, I'm probably just too jaded by a decade of hearing politicians say how important education is and seeing school budgets continue to be slashed to the point of one teacher I know having to purchase furniture for their classroom out of their pocket.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

I wouldn't mind a modification that the number of mentors can never exceed the number of students in a pit. I don't really care who is doing the work as long as students are present to be inspired by it.

I agree with the intent of coming up with rules like this however I would rather we leave who is in the pits as up to the teams and leave it as their own business.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've never seen any VIP laugh about illiteracy or 'ha ha dumb is cool' - I guess I missed the regional Jessica Simpson judged.

That's a pretty unnecessary ad hominem attack on someone you clearly know very little about.

[Libby K]

Quietly working on the robot may not even be enough at a particular venue.

For example, during alliance selections at MAR champs this year (yes, I know, not a pits-closed time, but bear with me here) a team was working in their pit was right next to the field. Even just the talking and use of some tools, coupled with the mediocre acoustics in that gym, made it near impossible to hear the picking until someone asked the team to stop until the ceremonies were over.

In some events it's just not realistic to say people can work, because it creates an acoustics problem. At the other events, it just comes down to basic respect for the people helping make your event happen. (At some MAR events, people talk -in the stands!- through opening ceremonies. Don't even get me STARTED on that level of disrespect.)

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Don't make it a judgement call. Allow 3-4 members from every team to stay back and explicitly disallow power tools. Done.

I do like this. Set a hard limit on number of people to stay back, but in that same rule remind the teams that the purpose of the rule is to be respectful to the guests and to the ceremony. That way, the team can make their own call - do we NEED those 3-4 people in the pit, or can we all sit in the stands and show our respect to the event & its speakers as an entire team?

This is just like that cell-phones-during-speeches thread many years ago, and the airplanes one last year. It's down to the teams to make sure we're creating a culture for ourselves where disrespect for FIRST/speakers/the event is not tolerated.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Most of the time I see a politician at opening ceremonies there is a joke about "You kids are doing something I could never do" followed by some nervous laughter. But this could be a function of the majority of our political leaders have zero engineering background.

I've seen the same kind of statement from Rush Holt at NJ events - and he's a rocket scientist. It's more about 'Wow, you guys are insanely smart, and I wish I'd had the opportunity to learn all this when I was your age.'

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've never seen any VIP laugh about illiteracy or 'ha ha dumb is cool' - I guess I missed the regional Jessica Simpson judged.

I understand your sentiment here, but keep in mind Jessica Simpson is actually an incredibly successful businesswoman. One remark about Chicken of the Sea does not (and should not) define her.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I've seen the same kind of statement from Rush Holt at NJ events - and he's a rocket scientist. It's more about 'Wow, you guys are insanely smart, and I wish I'd had the opportunity to learn all this when I was your age.'

That's a VERY different statement and not at all like the statements I'm referring to. These aren't "I wish I had this chance when I was your age" they are literally "You guys are so smart, I could NEVER do this". To me it's the same as saying, "I'm bad at math". The statement, "I can't read" would be ridiculed. But somehow it's acceptable to be unable to do math? They are both VITAL life skills. And it bothers me to hear folks who seem to think it's acceptable wave it about like some sort of badge of honor.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

That's a VERY different statement and not at all like the statements I'm referring to. These aren't "I wish I had this chance when I was your age" they are literally "You guys are so smart, I could NEVER do this". To me it's the same as saying, "I'm bad at math". The statement, "I can't read" would be ridiculed. But somehow it's acceptable to be unable to do math? They are both VITAL life skills. And it bothers me to hear folks who seem to think it's acceptable wave it about like some sort of badge of honor.

Oh, totally agree there!

All I meant was, sometimes the intent vs what they actually end up saying gets crossed. I've heard Rush Holt get up at a regional and say "I could never do this", but he (obviously) could with his background.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Right because we should be teaching our students that not doing your absolute best is acceptable. If I am not 100% perfect all the time and I have students that want to work on the bot to get it to that point you can bet your mediocrity loving butt I say there's a need. I'm not going to let some talking head* get in the way of inspiration just so they can feel important. I'm going to be showing my students the value of passion.

This is more or less my point- every team has something they can be doing to make their robot better, and I am all in favor of making robots better. What I take issue with is saying that only teams with a real need can stay back and leaving that "need" decision up to the team.

That being said, I also don't think that the ever present room for improvement is a valid argument for letting everyone stay in the pits during opening ceremonies. That half hour shouldn't make a huge difference in how inspired or accomplished the students are. I also hope that one day the opening ceremonies can be just as inspiring as a half hour in the pits (and some of the championship ceremonies already are).

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Right because we should be teaching our students that not doing your absolute best is acceptable.

In some contexts, this is absolutely true and it is a lesson we need to teach our students (and sometimes ourselves).

"Perfection at any cost" is not a good universal plan. Unfortunately, in the real world we function under real constraints and real opportunity-cost. Everything is a cost-benefit analysis. There is a cost to staying in the pits during opening ceremonies. There is also a benefit. The question is not one of wonky heuristic high-order principles like whether or not you "need" to improve your robot, it is purely a utility calculus based on the facts of the situation.

I think you do your students a disservice if you neglect this. Hell, it's not only the students - mentor burnout is a real problem in FRC, and one of the big driving factors is that people feel the need to put absolutely everything into it with no mind for the costs. You should always mind the costs.

Moreover, however you feel on the matter, I don't think it's fair or productive to dismiss the speakers FRC provides at competition as "talking heads promoting technical illiteracy." That's not at all the vibe I get from most of the speakers I've heard. Additionally, it seems clear to me that not everyone is good at math, and not everyone can be good at math. We gain nothing as a society by ostracizing the people who do not have mathematical talent - we should certainly strive to increase mathematical literacy, but it is a fiction to imagine that everyone can flourish in a technical field. FIRST is about inspiration and recognition. One does not have to be an engineer to be inspired by and to recognize the value of engineering, and I do not believe that the purpose of FIRST is to turn everyone into an engineer. The joke you mention, to my ears, is not glorifying those who lack ability, it's appreciating those who have it. That is what we should strive for, and it is a perfectly fine message.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Karthik

That's a pretty unnecessary ad hominem attack on someone you clearly know very little about.

While I agree that the comment was a bit out of line, I'd take anything on Jezebel with a grain of salt. Also the linked article didn't seem like much of a rebuttal other than "well, she makes 750 million (which is certainly not a billion) a year on fashion so clearly she isn't THAT dumb."

Back to the main of the thread, I think Tom's suggestion is pretty solid-- with an accompanying warning that, hey, there are probably some pretty important people that want to talk to and congratulate you and it would be nice to show them some respect.

On related note, it would be really nice if politicians didn't send the exact same video to multiple regionals. Especially multiple years in a row.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

On related note, it would be really nice if politicians didn't send the exact same video to multiple regionals. Especially multiple years in a row.

I probably know the politician you're referring to, and can probably quote along with the video by now, having seen it twice a year for a number of years... lets just say that regardless of party she wouldn't be getting my vote

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Now we run into the issue of what constitutes a need to work on the robot. For some teams it is obvious- maybe their robot isn't moving. However, many teams also see other "needs." Maybe my robot is already the best robot at the regional, but I "need" to tweak the shooter arm a little bit to ensure I got from getting 95% of the shots to 100% of the shots. Is this really a need though? Should I skip the opening ceremonies to do this?

Making a subjective judgement like this cannot work, as it is not at all fair. Regardless of comparative performance, why is it acceptable that one robot is virtually forced to run at 95% while other robots get to run at 100%?

Originally Posted by Taylor

And I'd hate for some of my students to miss out on this potential inspiration because they were tightening a 10-32 bolt.

I would argue that the kids who feel the need to spend every last second getting their robot tweaked that last little bit are already pretty inspired. When you are as passionate as a lot of students in this organization are, there is little that anybody could say to make you more passionate than you are.