|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...d-path-forward
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
That's actually a surprisingly large amount of people filling out the survey (I've always wondered how many people fill out the surveys; I generally fill out most of the offseason ones and occasionally two or three of the weekly ones).
But srsly FIRST has made it clear since the town hall meeting that they have absolutely zero interest in listening to the community and doing anything other than two geographically split championship events, as opposed to two championship events divided in some other way* *as much as I love these proposals, I just have so much hesitance over them because of teams possibly having to 'shuffle' between championships (ie. finalist at a week 1 event, then winning a week 6) |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
What is the perceived value in the idea of one team, one vote?
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Because it makes their case look better.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
The survey providers' need for validation.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Engineers love data.
Raar. Too much data. By being exploratory, they're manipulating it! [/s] |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
The survey results were very surprisingly close to neutral, with the average response just under 5.
I was expecting a stronger bias. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Team A1 has 60 members, and all of them voted for option 1 (strongly opposed).
Teams A2-61 then each have 10 or so members, but only 1 from each team votes. All 60 of those votes would have to be for option 10 (strongly support) in order to balance the overall score. My assumption is that they are comparing the overall responses to the 1 vote-per-team responses just like we (in the US) have the House of Representatives (reps proportional to the state's (team's) population) and the Senate (2 reps per state (team)). I see a potential value in the separating it out, but not much. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Another way of looking at these results is that 55% oppose two championships, 12% are neutral, and only 33% favor two championships. To me, that’s is a much more powerful statement about how the community really feels. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
So what this data tells me is that a small number of teams really hate this idea and are very vocal about it. This seems to jive with what typically happens here on CD.
|
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
You cannot possibly come to this conclusion without knowing who the respondents were.
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
It is interesting that a lot of the analysis is team analysis; which is based off of an optional (identifying) field, e.g. team number. People in extreme camps are less likely to provide identifying information. This is likely going to skew all analysis done on data that excludes responses without the identifying information towards the perceived less dissenting answer, whatever that might be.
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I think that's reasonable: The vocal minority outweighs the silent majority in a lot of matters. This time, though, it's not exactly a minority--but it's close. I'd be thinking really carefully about my PR strategy if I was HQ--a good PR strategy can take a moderate opposition and take it to moderate advocacy given time, but a bad PR strategy can go the other way in a big hurry. I think my spin detector went off, too, at one point. What I take away from this is: 1, this is going forwards regardless of community feeling, and 2, the overall community isn't exactly happy, but isn't actively opposed. Y'all saw those committees, right? Boy do I pity those groups--I've got a feeling that more than anybody else (sorry, Frank and HQ), they're going to be the determiner of whether or not that survey result changes more towards strong approval. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
"Keeping attendance costs reasonable" being only 4th (Edit: sorry 5th)...
I think a lot of really good teams are likely larger than average and if more of them do oppose than I can see more people from each bothering to respond to voice a negative opinion rather than somewhat positive or neutral. People tend to talk about things when they are very good or bad rather than in the middle. I you notice most or at least a lot of counter arguments supporting the move are merely pointing out that the switch seems more neutral than good or bad. People usually don't spend much time on something that they don't think will matter much. Also dislike of the need to switch vs dislike of the decision. That is dislike of getting surgery vs dislike of someone taking something from you will pull the results negative though everyone in negative isn't mad at HQ. Last edited by jman4747 : 15-05-2015 at 12:57. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|