Chairman's Submission Inconsistencies

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I agree with Oz above. I believe that teams that are attempting Chairman's have a different way of assessing the actions of their team. They make decisions based on what Chairman's team are expected to do. (of course we we will help, that is what a Chairman's team does. No, we would not do that, a Chairman's team doesn't do those things.)
I cannot tell you how often someone has come to me and told me they know a Team X is doing something or lying about this or that. When I investigate, 100% of the time, the individual has been wrong. They either heard it second hand, out of context or the misunderstood what was being said. Often individuals will hear something one way that was not close to the intent of the person delivering the information. For instance, a student walking by a pit hears "I use a 50 amp charger" and assumes the team is using that for robot batteries. I go and investigate to find that mentor was talking about his boat.
A Chairman's team is truthful, sometimes to a fault. We once turned down a Qaulity Award because the judge's description was for another team. So my default standard for a Chairman's team is to believe what they are saying. If it sounds far fetched, I would ask them to explain. If starting 20 teams with only 10 students sounds like a lot, maybe they are totaling the number of teams they have started since their first season, 15 years ago. That sounds a lot more doable doesn't it. I guess what I am saying is don't listen with a closed mind. What you hear is not always what was said.