[FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

I actually did laugh out loud when I saw this.

"Team A creates and publishes a scouting database compiling statistical data from competitions, and the database is downloaded and used by other Teams"

There are only a couple of teams that publish scouting databases. There are a few more if you include scouting apps. I know my previous team did mention the scouting database as part of the Community Service Slide. I also know they never claimed the other teams that downloaded the file as being "mentored" or "assisted" in their chairman's presentation.

So it is either (a) some team did claim that or (b) somebody thinks that a team like ours had claimed that but not sure so adding this clarification will make sure it does not happen. Either way it is sad we have to come to that.

I took that more as something relatively benign-- Karthik/Simbotics have been releasing a pre-Champs scouting database since forever, so given that this was constructed in collaboration with HOF teams, I can see how they might see this as uncontroversial statement or at least one that's just coming from their experience. I certainly didn't read it as a jab at any particular team.

[Ty Tremblay]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

I actually did laugh out loud when I saw this.

"Team A creates and publishes a scouting database compiling statistical data from competitions, and the database is downloaded and used by other Teams"

There are only a couple of teams that publish scouting databases. There are a few more if you include scouting apps. I know my previous team did mention the scouting database as part of the Community Service Slide. I also know they never claimed the other teams that downloaded the file as being "mentored" or "assisted" in their chairman's presentation.

So it is either (a) some team did claim that or (b) somebody thinks that a team like ours had claimed that but not sure so adding this clarification will make sure it does not happen. Either way it is sad we have to come to that.

Or, that scenario now falls under the new category of Providing Published Resources and it doesn't actually have anything to do with previous teams.

This isn't FIRST "cracking down" on what criteria need to be met to win a Chairman's Award. The CA has always been rather up to interpretation (even more so in the recent years) and this is simply a way to find some sort of common ground for CA submissions.

[Phoenix Spud]

A massive thank you to all the HoF teams who helped with these definitions. I'm sure there was a lot of debate over what it means to "start" vs. "mentor" vs. "assist" a team. What would seem tedious to some will be a huge assistance to the entire FRC community going forward - so thank you heaps!

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I took that more as something relatively benign-- Karthik/Simbotics have been releasing a pre-Champs scouting database since forever, so given that this was constructed in collaboration with HOF teams, I can see how they might see this as uncontroversial statement or at least one that's just coming from their experience. I certainly didn't read it as a jab at any particular team.

I made that comment because of how specific it is and how few teams it can direct at. They could have made it more general like saying a team developed a software utility or tools instead.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I took that more as something relatively benign-- Karthik/Simbotics have been releasing a pre-Champs scouting database since forever, so given that this was constructed in collaboration with HOF teams, I can see how they might see this as uncontroversial statement or at least one that's just coming from their experience. I certainly didn't read it as a jab at any particular team.

You're 100% correct. It was just an example of one of the many types of beneficial resources FRC teams have created.

[JesseK]

This is a good move, and I like the concise definitions. Hopefully this will smooth out the churn in direction business teams take and reduce the gamification this season w.r.t. what and how to write & present for CA. Teams do so much but only get X number of words and Y number of minutes to show the impacts. There are so many good programs, I'd much rather hear about unique community approaches (e.g. Kell) in the CA winner announcements.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

I think this was an incredibly smart move. As we see more and more very deserving teams submitting for the CA, it’s important to standardize terminology. FIRST is a technical program, and that doesn’t apply to just the robots. When submitting for the CA, students are learning how to write in a persuasive AND technically accurate way, in the same vein that many professionals use in their day to day lives. It’s important to teach them how to follow technical guidelines and provide ethical and truthful statements.

In the same way that as an engineering consultant I have to provide accurate summaries of my firm’s capabilities in a project bid document, FIRST students need to write about their accomplishments in a professional and truthful manner. This is another side to the professional world that doesn’t always get emphasized but it’s a huge teaching opportunity for our community. It standardizes the terminology and places everybody on an even playing field. This move leaves little to the imagination and eliminates differences of interpretation that teams may or may not use to exaggerate or spin their claims.

It’s never an easy task to get students to document, document, document! They don’t like it when you comb through their numbers and claims with a fine tooth comb to ensure their accuracy. It’s a frustrating process, but I’m glad to know that FIRST is on the same page when it comes to honesty in submissions.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

There are a lot of schools and students who don't have every opportunity to be on a robotics teams, any type of competitive STEM team. It's my belief that we should all be trying to support the grow of all STEM education. I love FRC but there are tones of schools where an FRC team just doesn't make sense, maybe FTC does, or VEX, BEST, Botball, Trinity Firefighting, OCCRA, MATE, or any of the other dozens of programs that want to inspire students to learn more about STEM.

I'd be interested to know how the HOF teams felt about this since the way the blog reads these definitions were published by them.

During the creation of these definitions there was no discussion about including other types of programs in this new common set of terminology. We were working within the pre-exisiting framework and written criteria and just ran with it. There was absolutely no intent or direction to exclude other types of robotics programs. However, creating these type of specific definitions would have been much harder if we weren't applying them to specific programs.

I think my feelings are well known on this topic; inspiring students to get excited by STEM is the goal, it really doesn't matter what program they use to achieve this goal. I would hope the judges continue to award teams who are inspiring by promoting this vision via any avenue, as they did for 1114 in 2012.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Karthik

During the creation of these definitions there was no discussion about including other types of programs in this new common set of terminology. We were working within the pre-exisiting framework and written criteria and just ran with it. There was absolutely no intent or direction to exclude other types of robotics programs. However, creating these type of specific definitions would have been much harder if we weren't applying them to specific programs.

I think my feelings are well known on this topic; inspiring students to get excited by STEM is the goal, it really doesn't matter what program they use to achieve this goal. I would hope the judges continue to award teams who are inspiring by promoting this vision via any avenue, as they did for 1114 in 2012.

thank you for clearing that up

[JB987]

Additional information from Frank's Blog in response to my questions...

"Submitted by Frank Merrick on Wed, 10/14/2015 - 15:10.

Hi Joe. 1. The submission will not require the listing of specific teams supported. 2. Judges may or may not attempt to verify claims based on circumstances. If a team claims to have mentored Team 9999, and team 9999 happens to be attending the same event, the judges may ask Team 9999 to confirm the relationship. 3. The examples given are just examples, and are not intended to change the emphasis on the award. If you look in the manual for specifics on award submission, though, you will see emphasis is given to supporting FIRST teams. It has been this way for some time.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by JB987

Additional information from Frank's Blog in response to my questions...

"Submitted by Frank Merrick on Wed, 10/14/2015 - 15:10.

Hi Joe. 1. The submission will not require the listing of specific teams supported. 2. Judges may or may not attempt to verify claims based on circumstances. If a team claims to have mentored Team 9999, and team 9999 happens to be attending the same event, the judges may ask Team 9999 to confirm the relationship. 3. The examples given are just examples, and are not intended to change the emphasis on the award. If you look in the manual for specifics on award submission, though, you will see emphasis is given to supporting FIRST teams. It has been this way for some time.

What the point of these new rules then? Looks like they will just hurt the teams that follow the rules. Those who already bend them can still do it without repercussions.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

What the point of these new rules then? Looks like they will just hurt the teams that follow the rules. Those who already bend them can still do it without repercussions.

The point is to clarify a point of potential confusion, and provide somewhat of standard terminology.

That being said, the lack of enforcement is just status quo for many things. Remember, nobody's able to say--for sure--that you actually did lock the robot up in its bag when the form says you did! (Unless, of course, you are so foolish as to bag the robot in the parking lot of your event. In that case, ye be right out of luck.)

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by EricH

The point is to clarify a point of potential confusion, and provide somewhat of standard terminology.

That being said, the lack of enforcement is just status quo for many things. Remember, nobody's able to say--for sure--that you actually did lock the robot up in its bag when the form says you did! (Unless, of course, you are so foolish as to bag the robot in the parking lot of your event. In that case, ye be right out of luck.)

Look at part two of every definition. Why add that if the team in question has no idea they are being "mentored?"

[EricH]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Look at part two of every definition. Why add that if the team in question has no idea they are being "mentored?"

Let me ask you this way: You've had to provide references for work/volunteering/other stuff, correct? And being a teacher, I assume you've provided some letters of recommendation for students going off to college. How often have you actually been contacted (or, how often do you know your references have been contacted) to verify what's been stated in those letters? But... isn't the "threat" of being them being contacted enough to make you think really, really carefully about who you choose, or what you choose to say? Or, to put it another way... Some student who barely attended any preseason meetings (let alone build) puts on his college application that he was a member of the robotics team in good standing--IF the college were to call you and say, was this person in good standing, what would you say?

If a team, shall we say, does some embroidery with the truth (such as by using the wrong term, deliberately or not), this gives FRC judges a clearer picture of what they're saying should they choose to verify the team's story. For example, if a team says "we mentored team such-and-such", all a judge has to ask is, "were you talking with this team throughout build season?" (or some similar question--maybe "describe your interactions with other teams", which could go for two or three awards) and the team being checked on doesn't need to know whether they were mentored--they can answer the question, and the judge can quickly make a determination as to whether or not the team actually did mentor the other team.


What this does is it provides a technical definition that can be used both by the team claiming the help to another team and by the judges to ensure that they are on the same page. Just for grins... I believe this post would count as Assisting. (I'm not entirely sure that y'all would actually agree with that statement, but per the definition's examples it should count. Not that I'd be claiming it--way too loose for my taste, not definite enough.)

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by EricH

Let me ask you this way: You've had to provide references for work/volunteering/other stuff, correct? And being a teacher, I assume you've provided some letters of recommendation for students going off to college. How often have you actually been contacted (or, how often do you know your references have been contacted) to verify what's been stated in those letters? But... isn't the "threat" of being them being contacted enough to make you think really, really carefully about who you choose, or what you choose to say? Or, to put it another way... Some student who barely attended any preseason meetings (let alone build) puts on his college application that he was a member of the robotics team in good standing--IF the college were to call you and say, was this person in good standing, what would you say?

If a team, shall we say, does some embroidery with the truth (such as by using the wrong term, deliberately or not), this gives FRC judges a clearer picture of what they're saying should they choose to verify the team's story. For example, if a team says "we mentored team such-and-such", all a judge has to ask is, "were you talking with this team throughout build season?" (or some similar question--maybe "describe your interactions with other teams", which could go for two or three awards) and the team being checked on doesn't need to know whether they were mentored--they can answer the question, and the judge can quickly make a determination as to whether or not the team actually did mentor the other team.


What this does is it provides a technical definition that can be used both by the team claiming the help to another team and by the judges to ensure that they are on the same page. Just for grins... I believe this post would count as Assisting. (I'm not entirely sure that y'all would actually agree with that statement, but per the definition's examples it should count. Not that I'd be claiming it--way too loose for my taste, not definite enough.)

While interesting, your analogy is flawed. The situation is more like this: I apply for a job and state the degree I earned but do not tell them where I earned it. I also submit references, but do not submit contact information for those references.

This is what is happening. Teams can still say the following:

we have started, 2 FRC teams and mentored 12 others. We have started 14 FLL teams and mentored 35. We have started 8 FTC teams and mentored 10.

what is going to stop a team from doing this again? nothing.