[FRC Blog] Software Downloads and Administrative Manual Release

[Travis Schuh]

I think the yelling robot/cart noise change will be a net positive. I have seen the robot yelling mostly propagated by volunteers insisting that teams do so. This new directive should result in different training and fix that. I also think that most teams don't read the administrative manual/are lazy in general when it comes to things like this, so I doubt we will see many teams doing this.

[Laaba 80]

This is coming from someone who is not part of our chairmans/awards team, but I don't see why everyone is so upset. What feedback could possibly be better than seeing the submission from the winning team? This now allows teams to review their entire program against many of the top teams, rather than focus on a few specific points from a feedback form. I think this is a great change.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

This is coming from someone who is not part of our chairmans/awards team, but I don't see why everyone is so upset. What feedback could possibly be better than seeing the submission from the winning team? This now allows teams to review their entire program against many of the top teams, rather than focus on a few specific points from a feedback form. I think this is a great change.

Some regionals give great feed back. for Example: X outreach is really innovative!! or you need to focus in Y and Z. These are the things that teams need in order to improve. The release of videos and what not are only of limited value.

[Electronica1]

Wait, can the cart use music to make others aware? For example, could I loop the 1960's batman theme to make others aware?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Electronica1

Wait, can the cart use music to make others aware? For example, could I loop the 1960's batman theme to make others aware?

If you're interested in irritating the entire regional, sure.

[Electronica1]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

If you're interested in irritating the entire regional, sure.

Fair enough.

[Kevin Sheridan]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Some regionals give great feed back. for Example: X outreach is really innovative!! or you need to focus in Y and Z. These are the things that teams need in order to improve. The release of videos and what not are only of limited value.

I dont like the current feedback form because of exactly this reason. It implies that there is a "formula" to win Chairman's when that couldn't be farther from the truth. General presentation and essay feedback are great but I'm on the fence about judges telling teams specifics about what they need to "fix" for Chairman's. It puts an emphasis on "winning" the award which FIRST is trying to steer away from. Rather than teams leaving a regional thinking they might have won if they started just mentored a few more FLL teams or called more politicians about STEM in the classroom, FIRST probably wants teams to leave inspired by the award "winner" to do more stuff for their community.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by mman1506

The only thing that stands out for me is that Canadians don't typically stand facing the flag. It caught me way off guard when everyone did it at IRI. I'm assuming its a traditional American thing?

The United States national anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner" is all about the flag.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

This is coming from someone who is not part of our chairmans/awards team, but I don't see why everyone is so upset. What feedback could possibly be better than seeing the submission from the winning team? This now allows teams to review their entire program against many of the top teams, rather than focus on a few specific points from a feedback form. I think this is a great change.

When you watch their video you don't get to see what their presentation was, just the non-judged video that was created.

Coming from a team that has only participated in chairmans twice, we really enjoyed the feedback. We got notes about presentation ideas, information about who spoke clearly or not, who's pacing was too fast or just right, and what content was good and where they felt we could use work compared anonymously to other presenters they had viewed.

Of course at our other event we got a near blank form...

[sanddrag]

Reading this blog from Frank makes me feel like my 2014 FRC end of the year feedback survey responses were really read in detail, taken seriously, and given a lot of individual thought, and not just aggregated into a pie chart. It's nice for an individual to feel as if he or she has influenced an organization's policies and procedures on a national level.

I agree with the changes made to the Chairman's Award process for 2015, and I hope to see good things come from these changes.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Reading this blog from Frank makes me feel like my 2014 FRC end of the year feedback survey responses were really read in detail, taken seriously, and given a lot of individual thought, and not just aggregated into a pie chart. It's nice for an individual to feel as if he or she has influenced an organization's policies and procedures on a national level.

I agree with the changes made to the Chairman's Award process for 2015, and I hope to see good things come from these changes.

You are actually ok with the complete removal of feed back? I have never given or received any sort of evaluation without some sort of feedback mechanism. If the only feed back a team get is the winner's "project," I fear the a lot of innovation will be removed from the "solutions" that earned Chairman's. Without some sort of constructive criticism, all projects will begin to look alike and a RCA arms race will ensue. Team X mentored 25 FLL teams? We need to do 35 next year! Oh, Team Y (not the Y team) did X at the Uber California regional, let's do that same thing here!

How do I know this, Matt? That seems awfully cynical.

Because I do project based learning in my classroom on a regular basis. Every year I get the same thing from students: "Do you have any examples of a good project?" "What does a good project look like?" One year I caved in and I gave them a few good examples. At the end of the project the vast majority of them were copies of those "example" projects. It was really disheartening.

Without proper rubrics and feedback, teams will go with what they think works. This means more and more submissions will look more and more alike.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by AustinShalit

Something notable not in the blog post is section 4.9.2:
Is this a step in the right direction?

Apart from "No more than five members in an individual pit," it also has the following preface:

Should a team need to remain in their pit to continue work on their robot during the Opening or Closing Ceremonies, the team should follow the rules below.

As I've said before, I don't think it's out of line to keep a very limited number of people quietly working in the pit during the ceremony while the rest of the team attends the ceremony.

[safiq10]

Coming from a team who competed in the chairman's award for the first time last year, we found the information very helpful going from Dallas to OKC. We did absolutely horrible in Dallas and scored in the mid range for about everything.

With the Dallas feedback we improved and got a high score with almost everything in OKC. I greatly would appreciated the feedback forms and I am extremely upset that they are taking them away, because they worked for us as a way to see what we needed to focus on more and how to better our interview. I hope they over turn this rule before week 1.

Here is our feedback from OKC.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

More importantly, they explicitly state that more than zero people can officially be in the pit. Long overdue.

Actually it says no more than 5, does not say requires allowing more than zero. As long as the Region is allowed to override anybody bringing the rule book over to attempt to argue a Region rule, I'm good to go with it. Respect is the key.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by scca229

As long as the Region is allowed to override anybody bringing the rule book over to attempt to argue a Region rule, I'm good to go with it.

If a regional is making its own rules, that run counter to the FRC rules ("world" rules), then that is an issue, and someone bringing the rulebook over to state that "This is allowed by 'world' rules" had better be given a good explanation--for example, an unpublicized written rule from the venue saying that such and such is not allowed.

If the regional does not have a good reason, then allowing them to override "world" rules is a very bad idea. But if they do have a good reason, then that's a whole 'nother matter.