[FRC Blog] Software Downloads and Administrative Manual Release

[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.