Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Why isn't this a good idea? Someone shoot me down, I can't wait to hear it.

I don't know that it's a bad idea, I'm just not sure the problem it solves is correctly defined. I lost track back on Friday of the number of "RotM" team members that said "this sucks". A principal argument, though certainly not the only one, isn't so much about seeing Worlds as it is qualifying for that top tier event. This isn't the position of all RotMs, certainly, or of the entirety of any group. At this point neither you nor I nor anyone knows what most RotM or most elite members think or why. It would be wise to consider and phrase proposals with this in mind, rather than attributing one's own opinions to an entire cohort of people.

Hopefully the Town Hall will help understand what more people think, but considering it's is only attended by people at Worlds, and FIRST didn't consult anyone outside HQ about this beforehand, the truth is we'll probably never really know.

[Squillo]

Originally Posted by Siri

I don't know that it's a bad idea, I'm just not sure the problem it solves is correctly defined. I lost track back on Friday of the number of "RotM" team members that said "this sucks". A principal argument, though certainly not the only one, isn't so much about seeing Worlds as it is qualifying for that top tier event. This isn't the position of all RotMs, certainly, or of the entirety of any group.

Sorry, I've never been the queen of tact, in terms of how I phrase things. I didn't mean to imply that ALL "RotM" teams feel a certain way; frankly, I was not so concerned about whether all (or even a majority) of RotM teams like or don't like the new proposal, because regardless of whether they like it or not, I think my proposal solves most of the problems that have been raised by "elite" and "RotM" teams alike - getting to either championship would be more competitive (there would be fewer waitlist positions available, since some teams would be going to both events); ALL teams at a championship (elite and RotM alike) would get to hang with and compete with (and against) more of the top teams, and see them compete against each other. I don't understand what argument you are saying my solution doesn't address - you mention "qualifying for that top tier event" but I thought I'd addressed that.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Sorry, I've never been the queen of tact, in terms of how I phrase things. I didn't mean to imply that ALL "RotM" teams feel a certain way; frankly, I was not so concerned about whether all (or even a majority) of RotM teams like or don't like the new proposal, because regardless of whether they like it or not, I think my proposal solves most of the problems that have been raised by "elite" and "RotM" teams alike - getting to either championship would be more competitive (there would be fewer waitlist positions available, since some teams would be going to both events); ALL teams at a championship (elite and RotM alike) would get to hang with and compete with (and against) more of the top teams, and see them compete against each other. I don't understand what argument you are saying my solution doesn't address - you mention "qualifying for that top tier event" but I thought I'd addressed that.

I gotcha. I think my point was more that we don't know if this addresses the actual problems behind those you reference, because we don't in fact know what those issues are yet. I got rather caught up in explaining that.

In terms of fleshing out a proposal*, how's this:
Each season there are n, say 30, "double bid" slots. Teams can opt into this program on TIMS before the season starts. All teams worldwide are ranked throughout competition season on a universal points system using the season's District Points document. This is tracked on the Leaderboard website. The top 30 teams on this list that did (and continue to) opt in get an invitation and free registration to both Half-Worlds. This is an alternative to FIRST covering travel costs, which could also be proposed by might be trickier.

Separately, if we're looking to enforce an "equal swap" rule for the lottery, District points may be the closest way to assess equality short of a by-name qualitative decision.


*A proposal that may or may not address real issues and may or may not conflict with non-negotiables within HQ, and overall cannot be weighed cost/benefit due to lack of information. (This isn't meant as a bad thing. At least not for the proposal; for HQ's methods I lack my own tact.)