[FRC Blog] Software Downloads and Administrative Manual Release

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

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.

I understand not wanting Chairman's to fell like a checklist. I've definitely had discussions with my team about how we know we are bad at some things on the checklist but that's not what the award is about and that there are plenty of important part of embodying the ideal of FIRST that aren't covered in those check boxes so it's okay if you aren't masters of all of them.

With that being said, teams need individual feedback. I've seen a bunch of published Chairman's presentations and my team and I have read dozens of Chairman's Award essays and watched more videos than I want to count. With all of that we still were in desperate need for direct feedback last year, which we got from the judges at the Dallas Regional. On the field you know pretty quickly how your robot stacks up against everyone else but without feedback it's really hard to tell what parts of your presentation you aren't doing well. It's not about starting one more FLL team it's about learning to better communicate what your team is doing.

Every team does a ton of great work and it's often not their work they need to improve but how they present it and what parts of their work they highlight for the judges. This is to me is the most crucial part of the judge feedback, the boxes are useful but for the most part a team knows about where they fall. The feedback about specific points the judges found interesting or different are also useful. Something you think every team does could be very unique and you don't know until a judge tells you.

Also a major new thing in the Chairman's process that I didn't see any one highlight.

■ Enter in a link through YouTube for your official Chairman’s Video (you will still be required to bring a copy to each event you are eligible at).

This means Chairman's videos must be completed at the same time as the essay now. Where before you had until your interview to complete the process.

[snoman]

Originally Posted by AustinShalit

Something notable not in the blog post is section 4.9.2:


Is this a step in the right direction?

Yes, I believe it is

[scca229]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

I see nothing against that rule in the book for a Region to say no one in the pits during ceremonies. Zero is no more than 5.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by scca229

I see nothing against that rule in the book for a Region to say no one in the pits during ceremonies. Zero is no more than 5.

Can you please show us where FIRST states that Regional Competitions have the authority to create their own rules?

[BJC]

Regarding the loss of feedback forms and the change from "winning" the Chairman's Award to "earning" the Chairman's Award:


The Chairman’s Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST. It remains FIRST’s most prestigious award.


When you really think about it, it is sort of backwards for a team to nominate themselves as the "best" team for others to emulate. If I had my way a team would have to be nominated by other teams in order to be eligible for this award. Then it would truly be something you earn* rather than win**.

I think that these changes are FIRST trying to de-emphasize the competition aspect that has slowly surrounded this award over time. When looked at from this paradigm, these changes are positive. There shouldn't be a feedback form telling teams what they should do to "earn" an award - that turns it right back into "winning".


*earn
- to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve.
- to acquire through merit.

**win
- to finish first in a race, contest, or the like.
- to gain the victory; overcome an adversary.

dictionary.com

Cheers, Bryan

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Can you please show us where FIRST states that Regional Competitions have the authority to create their own rules?

There is no such rule. However, most of the rules are written such that volunteers in certain key roles have power over how they are executed. For example, the game section typically specifically states that the final decision on all game rules falls with the head ref, and the robot section states that the final decision on all robot rules falls with the LRI.

Similarly, note the following from the section on people being in the pit during ceremonies (emphasis mine):

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.

What is not clear here is the same as in previous years- who determines whether or not a team needs to remain in the pit? At some regionals, the team gets to opt in or out freely. At the regionals I have been at, it is typically a decision made by key volunteers discussing the matter with specific teams.

Finally, I encourage everyone to consider section 4.9.1:

4.9.1 All Teams Should Attend

We encourage all team members to attend the ceremonies, on time, to show appreciation for the event and those people involved who are volunteering their time and efforts.

FIRST now has clearly stated that if a team needs to continue working in their pit (presumably to have a robot that is operable) they can have no more than 5 people in their pit. However, they have very explicitly stated that "all teams should attend" and clearly want everyone to be there.

Out of respect for those who coordinate the ceremonies, those presenting in the ceremonies, your mentors and parents, the volunteers at the event, and FIRST's wishes, I hope that every team member makes an effort to attend the ceremonies.

[Steven Smith]

RE: Chairman's Feedback

One thing I feel Frank has done well is embrace the idea of the FRC community solving FRC problems.

I can't imagine the intent of this move is to forever remove direct feedback for teams, but perhaps to shock the system into generating a better method. I do feel like a better measuring stick (via more examples of teams that win Chairman's) is a key element.

Perhaps an eventual solution to this could be to utilize the FRC community as a body of judges. Teams post their videos and chairman's presentations, and an aggregating site allows volunteers to view them and provide feedback. In theory, it should be as simple as a form a team could submit with an attached document and link to a Youtube video, and a form survey volunteers can give input through. I hate to throw out an idea I don't have the time or skills to implement at this point, but I feel a system like this would provide more exposure for the teams that submit to it as well as a greater volume of feedback.

I know I'm the type of late night forum lurker that would have no problem looking at a couple presentations a week and spending 10-15 minutes typing out the most honest feedback I can.

-Steven

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Steven Smith

RE: Chairman's Feedback

One thing I feel Frank has done well is embrace the idea of the FRC community solving FRC problems.

I can't imagine the intent of this move is to forever remove direct feedback for teams, but perhaps to shock the system into generating a better method. I do feel like a better measuring stick (via more examples of teams that win Chairman's) is a key element.

Perhaps an eventual solution to this could be to utilize the FRC community as a body of judges. Teams post their videos and chairman's presentations, and an aggregating site allows volunteers to view them and provide feedback. In theory, it should be as simple as a form a team could submit with an attached document and link to a Youtube video, and a form survey volunteers can give input through. I hate to throw out an idea I don't have the time or skills to implement at this point, but I feel a system like this would provide more exposure for the teams that submit to it as well as a greater volume of feedback.

I know I'm the type of late night forum lurker that would have no problem looking at a couple presentations a week and spending 10-15 minutes typing out the most honest feedback I can.

-Steven

Would this body of FRC team "judges" providing feedback also actively vote for their favorites and actually help select the CA based only on the video? Or would they just provide feedback to that team? If actively selecting the CA is based on video only then isn't there a danger that team's with access to professional media to produce their video would have an advantage over other teams? At least with an essay and live interaction between presenters and judges a team that is "video-graphically challenged" can compensate somewhat for their lack of professional input on their final video product.

[Steven Smith]

Originally Posted by JB987

Would this body of FRC team "judges" providing feedback also actively vote for their favorites and actually help select the CA based only on the video? Or would they just provide feedback to that team? If actively selecting the CA is based on video only then isn't there a danger that team's with access to professional media to produce their video would have an advantage over other teams? At least with an essay and live interaction between presenters and judges a team that is "video-graphically challenged" can compensate somewhat for their lack of professional input on their final video product.

The intent behind the idea is that it would be an elective process teams could use for feedback removed from the selection of the CA, simply to provide input to the team. Possibly having the roll-up tool bring to the top submissions that have had less feedback to date, and pushing down those with more feedback.

I think the community as a whole is pretty good about reading/commenting on various teams that submit designs, questions, programs, etc... and I would imagine they would equally support giving teams feedback on things like CA. I also think (but unfortunately don't have numbers to back) that the CA judges are often folks that are fairly close to the mentoring community (if not the same people). The feedback from a cross section of Chief Delphi readers would probably be reasonably consistent with what a CA judge would provide.

Just an idle thought on a Sunday afternoon, it could also just be an inherently flawed idea and should be scrapped for something better. I could just see a situation in the next couple years where my team is ready to start submitting for the CA, and that the feedback from 10 random CD readers would probably be greater in value to me than a single set of judges at a regional.

[Justin Montois]

They should have said the only sound maker allowed on a robot cart is a bicycle bell. Ring ring ring ring.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I tend to agree. I'm also going to say something here that's perhaps a bit controversial. It's about time that teams are required to release their Chairman's information when they win. There have been a couple times where I've been privy to team chairman information that you immediately know isn't true - things like teams suggesting they started teams that they really didn't, organized events that they merely participated in, etc. Public scrutiny of winning chairman entries will hopefully help naturally moderate some of the 'inflation' that goes on when entries are 'secret'. That's long overdue. It's also a great stepping stone so other teams know just how much more they can do in their community, and you never know when it might spur someone to inspiration and a great idea.

I fully agree with you here. While I haven't seen anything quite on the level of what you're describing here, I've seen essays that perhaps stretch the truth a little. As someone who does most of the writing for my team, it's often hard to tell where the line lies between making something sound good and embellishing it to the point where it's not true, so hopefully this will encourage teams to really think about what they're writing before submitting it.

I'm not assuming malicious intent on the part of any Chairman's-submitting teams. I'm saying that it's often difficult to see where the line between 'sounds awesome' and 'exaggerated beyond the truth' lies when you want to sound as good as possible to the judges.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

Ring ring ring ring.

Banana phone?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I thought my 'robot' yelling days were over, but then I realized I can just make a speaker that plays a recording of someone yelling 'Robot' at the press of a button.

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

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.

I could not agree more this this sentiment.

(1) I agree that poor or inconsistent feedback is better than no feedback at all. It seems like working to improve the feedback would be a better goal than eliminating the feedback entirely. In particular it allows you to see what you are effectively communicating and what is getting lost in translation. You might be doing a great job as a team but not communicating that to the judges. In fact when we won RCA a few years ago we were told that some of the judges knew we had been doing a lot for a few years, but they had been waiting for us to communicate it to them. That's when we won. How can you determine that kind of feedback from watching the presentations of other teams??

(2) I agree that taking winning examples of presentations will simply generate more nearly identical presentations both in content and scope. The Chairman's Award needs to be about how an individual team brings Science and FIRST to their community in their own way... it is not how you re-interpreted team X's way to working with their community. FIRST is about innovation. No feedback = formulaic outreach.

Even though the feedback we received from our presentations last year was uneven between the events and on some level confusing, it still helped us to improve our communication.

Please bring back the feedback. It is how we learn.
And add the posting of the winners essays, videos, and presentations. It is how we are inspired.

[sanddrag]

I'll present the counter argument. By having a specific scoring metric, teams are encouraged to do things to fit that mold for the purposes of winning the award, rather than doing things on their own accord because they want to and it is truly meaningful to them.

Additionally, teams that do great work become discouraged that they will never win the award because they are missing one small piece that judges consider to be essential to a Chairman's award winning team, and the teams are not willing to change their ways just for the purposes of winning an award.

I am not willing to mentor n+1 teams just because last year's winners mentored n teams. Quantity of outreach and mentoring efforts is not a priority for our team as much as quality is, and for that reason I've felt that in the past system, we would have never stood a chance. We are not able to travel internationally to start a team, cure cancer, or save babies and elderly folks from collapsed buildings. I'm not saying the teams that have done those things and won the award are not deserving, but those are things we likely will never do, nor have any intention of ever "competing" for doing. However, our lack of participation in those activities should not disqualify us from the running.

I think a more open interpretation of what a Chairman's award team looks like is a good thing for the community overall. And I think removing the feedback for at least a year will help the effort in getting teams to do good work because they want to, rather than because they want to be recognized for it.