Judge Consistency Between Events

[Xavbro]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

In addition to this, you need to know that the judges take the process very seriously. There are many checks and balances in place to ensure a fair event.

I know the judges take the process very seriously. We don't know what happened the judges room. We assume that they compared notes and made the best decision based off of the information they received at the event.

Originally Posted by JeffB

This is a fair question to ask only if everything is the same from event to event.

Bayou: http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016lake
Lone Star: http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016txho

We can look at a variety of stats here to see the two events were a bit different. The highest OPR at Bayou would have been valid only for 4th at Lone Star. 233, one of the winning teams at Bayou, increased their OPR by 10% between these two events. This helps to show the teams you're competing against have also improved during this time. There were 10 more teams at Lone Star. They were different. Even "consistent" judging will appear different when the thing being judged changes. What you're asking for isn't consistent. "We received X award at this event and didn't win at the following event" doesn't show a lack of consistency. You need to step back and evaluate the rest of the events to see if the decisions were really all that different.

As Phil stated above, we knew the competition was going to be a lot tougher at Lone Star. We researched the rookies we were competing against with and seeing how we were the only rookie that had been to a previous competition that had won Rookie Inspiration, we thought we had a real shot to win RAS. We stepped up our game, both RAS-wise and robot-wise, and feel we made some really good improvements from Bayou to Lone Star. Once again, nothing against 6133 and 5892, they definitely deserved the awards they won and we congratulate them.

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Especially with a rookie award how hard is it to go down a list of all of the rookies in attendance. There's never too many of them. That way stuff like "you weren't mentioned" doesn't happen.

One thing I recommend is to specifically try not to be forgotten. Say something that's wows them and leaves them thinking of you.

I knew we needed more LEDs.

I agree and with there being 11 rookies at Lone Star, we accounted for that and thought we would be able to stand out. The rookies in attendance also did their best to stand out too so I'm sure the judges didn't have an easy job either.

Originally Posted by angelah

That is one of four requirements:
■ This team seems like a “Chairman’s Award team in the making.” (Community activities,
leadership, vision, spirit, etc.)
■ The team is a true partnership between school or organization and sponsors.
■ The team understands what FIRST is really trying to accomplish – realizes that technical stuff is
fun, challenging, and offers a future.
■ This team has built a robot appropriate to the game’s challenges.

What you are describing, to me, is the Highest Rookie Seed Award, which I assume they won if they were the highest ranked rookie. The Rookie All-Star, from my understanding (and the Awards section of the manual), is more of a rookie version of the Chairman's Award.

(I wasn't at the event, obviously; I just looked this up to find out whether Rookie All-Star was that different at a regional than at our district events.)

Highest Rookie Seed - 6133 (#8)
Rookie Inspiration - 6133
Rookie All-Star - 5892

[Bob Steele]

First congratulations to you as a team. You are an up and coming star and with the enthusiasm that you are displaying you should be very successful.

After 10 years I have come to one conclusion.

If you base the success of your team on winning awards, you will have a tough time. If you base the success of your team on meeting your team goals (as long as the goals are not we want to win award "x") you will be far better off. Those goals should include inspiring your students and giving them pride in what they accomplish.

Our team has a 10 year history and I can honestly say that having inspired students and active and committed mentors lead to the best rewards. That is what being in FIRST is about. Blue banners and trophies are pretty cold, teamwork, camaraderie, loyalty, gracious professionalism are the marks of success and those lessons last forever.

I know this may sound corny but that is what it is really about.

We love to compete... we love to do our best... we love to celebrate each other's accomplishments.... that is why students keep coming back and that is why this endeavor will change lives.


Keep at it... you guys are already an All Star.... you don't need a trophy or anyone else's opinion when you know who you are.

Woodie Flowers once said: "I'm not going to tell you all that you all are winners. At this point you are smart enough to know whether you are or you aren't." Woodie is smart, listen to him....:0)

Good luck and we hope to see you on the field sometime.

[philso]

Originally Posted by angelah

That is one of four requirements:
■ This team seems like a “Chairman’s Award team in the making.” (Community activities,
leadership, vision, spirit, etc.)
■ The team is a true partnership between school or organization and sponsors.
■ The team understands what FIRST is really trying to accomplish – realizes that technical stuff is
fun, challenging, and offers a future.
■ This team has built a robot appropriate to the game’s challenges.

What you are describing, to me, is the Highest Rookie Seed Award, which I assume they won if they were the highest ranked rookie. The Rookie All-Star, from my understanding (and the Awards section of the manual), is more of a rookie version of the Chairman's Award.

(I wasn't at the event, obviously; I just looked this up to find out whether Rookie All-Star was that different at a regional than at our district events.)

Section 6.2 of the Admin Manual gives a list of all the awards.

Highest Rookie Seed is described as "Celebrates the highest-seeded rookie
team at the conclusion of the qualifying rounds" and is selected by "Robot Performance", not the Judges. This is a non-subjective award and the OP's team could not have won this award at Lone Star since they were ranked below the rookie team that did win that award. Probably, the only thing the Judges have to do with this award is high-fiving the winners and possibly helping to write the script for introducing them.


What you have quoted is from Section 6.14.4 which is specifically for the Rookie All-Star Award.

I noticed that the section of the Admin Manual on Non-Submitted Judged Awards (6.11) does not really say how the Judges are supposed to collect the information on the teams. It also does not say that the Judges have to collect information on all the teams. I would hope that this is in the training material that the Judges are given since there is no schedule for the teams to meet with the Judges that I am aware of. If it isn't clear how and when teams are supposed to communicate their efforts and accomplishments to the Judges, it will lead to a lot of frustration.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

...

Deliberations [2]

...

I'll work on seeing if I can get a more detailed walk through of the process added to the manual for next year[3]. I don't want the process or what Judges are looking for to be a mystery.


Here's another fun piece of info for you, that deliberations stage is the single hardest part of judging. Know why? Because there's only a handful of awards and number of teams >>> num of awards. Spoiler - we want to give every team an award. Heck [4] worked with a judge who had only heard stories of how awesome FIRST was from Jess [5], she came in and judged at Dartmouth. Well, guess what? her company NOW sponsors a team. Just from talking to students.


Look, I wanna make judging as transparent as possible. I want teams to feel they understand what went into an award decision. But I've been on the other side of someone leaking info from a Judge room. I argued for team B to win over team A. Team A found out... only they only heard "he was arguing against giving you the award". Long story short - it was a crappy experience, I stopped volunteering for a while, nearly quit FIRST it was so crappy. It HAS to be a protected space so that judges can argue without fear of repercussions. I'm not trying to keep the process a secret, only the details.

...

[2] This is the part I refer to as "chair throwing time"

I totally understand your concern about the need for the Judging Room to stay private and that there should be no leaks. The fact of the matter is that there was a leak and the content of the leak appears to indicate there are flaws in the judging process. Considering the time, effort and resources that teams commit to this competition, it is unacceptable to be forgotten, just like it would be unacceptable for your professor to tell you that you cannot get a grade because he lost your exam papers.

Once the judging process appears to be unfair, the awards associated with that process cease to be incentives. That undermines the objectives of an otherwise great program and the efforts of people in this community such as the OP, you and I. Rightly or wrongly, there have been whole teams that have left FLL in our area because of awards that were not given out in a rational and transparent way.

Having worked as an FLL Judge quite a few times, I know what you mean about throwing chairs. Sometimes, the Judges get about as passionate advocating for the teams they saw as the teams themselves (I think this is a good thing)

It would be greatly appreciated if you can help improve the manuals and other materials used to train the Judges. Not being a mystery to the competitors would also mean it would be easier for the Judges to be consistent from one event to another and within an event.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by philso

I would like to propose that FIRST add "The Judges are active advocates for the teams, not passive observers" in a prominent place to guarantee that the Judge Trainees are sure to see it.

Again, can't comment to FRC, but as a FLL and FTC Judge Advisor, I use training time to clarify this. Deliberations are one of the toughest things and I make sure to tell my judges to "Speak up if there's anything to say".

but only had two sentences about the deliberation process and some boxes that say "Determine Top Teams Seen by Each Pair" and "Review and Discuss Top Teams" that only imply that the Judges should advocate for the teams that they saw.

Technically, these are the teams that they should be advocating primarily for because they have the most familiarity with them. Also the second "Review and Discuss Top Teams" doesn't limit them to the ones they saw. To me the two phrases sound like give top teams you saw, and discuss top teams in general.

Perhaps a short video might be appropriate since the document I received was already 34 pages long.

Again...all FLL/FTC based.
I vaguely recall a webinar floating around perhaps it was IL specific. This is the crappy part, is that judging has significant effort involved. There's a document, video and webinar that you have to go through. Then the day of the event, you show up early and have a few extra hours of training. Then you rush through the judging in one day. As someone who's brand new to FIRST...this is a tough position to fill in.

Frequently, they are first-time Judges...have no real interest in what is going on...are naturally shy and quiet individuals and are overwhelmed when a (group of) loud, enthusiastic and outgoing Judge talks up

These are interesting issues we can try to tackle.

First-time Judges:
There's unfortunately no way around some percentage of first-time Judges. The solution, specifically for Illinois FTC, is two-fold

1. have enough veteran judges to pair up
2. give as many opportunities for training as possible (Judging Manual, Webinar/Call 1wk b4, Morning Training)

No Real Interest:
The only way around this is to up our volunteer coordination game. The goal with this is to try and recruit judges at the right time. For Illinois FTC, this just means ensuring our Event Coordinators know this, and it has been getting better. For FRC as far as I can tell, the JA for Midwest Regional seemed really prepared a few months out.

Shy Judges:
Illinois FTC's way of solving this, is to have well trained Judge Advisors. Ensuring equitable deliberation time and moderating the conversation is the role of the JA. They should bring out as much information as they can. BUT they also need to do it quickly and efficiently (a really hard thing). So we have state-trained JAs (just like FRC has HQ-trained JAs) to make sure we get them communicating about their experiences.

The hope of winning the awards given out at these events are the carrots that lead the people doing the work to continue doing the work.

I think we've raised in this thread whether it should be the sole carrot. Personally as a mentor, it is not the carrot that leads me to do the work. I would consider not submitting for Chairman's but would not (unless students had really good reasons) stop continuing to host FTC events, mentor FLL teams, and plant tulips at our school. These activities allow me to teach students how to be organized, how to be a leader/mentor, and how we affect our environment/how "it's-not-easy-to-just-plant-tulips".

If there is something broken in the Judge Room, it will never be fixed if it is not discussed openly and honestly.

The number one issue is that a lot of our first-time judges stay as first-time judges. There's tons of MN threads going on, and a lot of people discussing how volunteer shortage is a big issue. FIRST, as an organization, is like 90% (I want to even say 99%) volunteer-driven and FUNDAMENTALLY relies on its volunteer pool for operation. While I understand that perceived inconsistency is an issue, my point is this we need to determine what is the root and which is more important, more necessary to solve. 1) Bringing greater consistency into judging or 2) ensuring that we continue to have judges, good judges.

For 1) we only have anecdotal evidence, with very many unknowns and a lack of perspectives. In addition, winning awards should not be the end-all for teams. There are probably other team issues that need fixing too. Frankly, what is broken in the Judge Room (at many events) is 2), there's a constant strain on volunteer pool (in some regions), a lack of volunteers, and a lot of last-minute judges.

It's why I'm imploring OP to become a judge. Not only will we get closer to solving 2), but we'll also get more perspectives for 1).

I honestly see no resolution to this particular case. In my view, OP is probably a tired mentor (long season...) and got bummed out his students got bummed out. It sounds like his team worked really hard and was a great rookie contender, and got beat out. It also sounds like his team is going to be striving to kick even more butt in the second year. This is the best resolution I can foresee. His team got beat out by great teams, and he's going to motivate his students to work hard.

Since I still advocate for solving 2), I also hope he takes my advice and tries to judge or convinces others to judge.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by philso

I totally understand your concern about the need for the Judging Room to stay private and that there should be no leaks. The fact of the matter is that there was a leak and the content of the leak appears to indicate there are flaws in the judging process. Considering the time, effort and resources that teams commit to this competition, it is unacceptable to be forgotten, just like it would be unacceptable for your professor to tell you that you cannot get a grade because he lost your exam papers.

Once the judging process appears to be unfair, the awards associated with that process cease to be incentives. That undermines the objectives of an otherwise great program and the efforts of people in this community such as the OP, you and I. Rightly or wrongly, there have been whole teams that have left FLL in our area because of awards that were not given out in a rational and transparent way.

Having worked as an FLL Judge quite a few times, I know what you mean about throwing chairs. Sometimes, the Judges get about as passionate advocating for the teams they saw as the teams themselves (I think this is a good thing)

It would be greatly appreciated if you can help improve the manuals and other materials used to train the Judges. Not being a mystery to the competitors would also mean it would be easier for the Judges to be consistent from one event to another and within an event.

Again, I question that the wording used by the judges implied the team was forgotten. More accurately it likely meant that the other team had impressed more folks, or the folks were more adept at swaying others. Or any of a dozen things.

I can assure you that the #1 goal of every JA in FRC is to ensure that every team has a positive experience that they feel was fair. Comments like those judges made undermine that.

[philso]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

Again, can't comment to FRC, but as a FLL and FTC Judge Advisor, I use training time to clarify this. Deliberations are one of the toughest things and I make sure to tell my judges to "Speak up if there's anything to say".

...


I think we've raised in this thread whether it should be the sole carrot. Personally as a mentor, it is not the carrot that leads me to do the work. I would consider not submitting for Chairman's but would not (unless students had really good reasons) stop continuing to host FTC events, mentor FLL teams, and plant tulips at our school. These activities allow me to teach students how to be organized, how to be a leader/mentor, and how we affect our environment/how "it's-not-easy-to-just-plant-tulips".

...

Since I still advocate for solving 2), I also hope he takes my advice and tries to judge or convinces others to judge.

It is great that you have a more thorough training process for the Judges. It would be great if more of FIRST could follow your example, especially if it is a matter of saying a few more words. Perhaps you can provide your training materials to the FIRST.

Please be aware that the awards are also used to generate support, financial and otherwise, for the teams from their schools and sponsors, whether or not the team members are truly motivated by those awards.

Yes, being able to recruit more Judges (and other volunteers) and retaining them would make everyone's experience much better, including the Judges and volunteers. Being able to recruit and retain volunteers is a problem that FIRST, like many other volunteer driven organizations, must solve.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by philso

It would be great if more of FIRST could follow your example, especially if it is a matter of saying a few more words. Perhaps you can provide your training materials to the FIRST.

I feel like I'm in an experimental stage, and there are certainly flaws to my proposal. So as they get worked out they will surely be shared with FIRST, but a lot of the inspiration was from current judging processes from FIRST. Really..it's just been localized.

Please be aware that the awards are also used to generate support, financial and otherwise, for the teams from their schools and sponsors, whether or not the team members are truly motivated by those awards.

I'm well aware, and I do think there's merit to having awards be a motivation. I just want to raise the point that it shouldn't be the only or primary motivation.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Again, I question that the wording used by the judges implied the team was forgotten. More accurately it likely meant that the other team had impressed more folks, or the folks were more adept at swaying others. Or any of a dozen things.

I can assure you that the #1 goal of every JA in FRC is to ensure that every team has a positive experience that they feel was fair. Comments like those judges made undermine that.

I am not questioning the integrity of the Judges. I know it is a difficult job for them. I am now also wondering if they were "Miss Universed" because of a simple "clerical error". That would go a long way towards explaining why "their number was not mentioned". This year, the Lone Star FLL Championship Tournament had an issue with a team being disqualified erroneously (different organizers). The error was only discovered after the event had ended.

[angelah]

Originally Posted by philso

Section 6.2 of the Admin Manual gives a list of all the awards.

Highest Rookie Seed is described as "Celebrates the highest-seeded rookie
team at the conclusion of the qualifying rounds" and is selected by "Robot Performance", not the Judges. This is a non-subjective award and the OP's team could not have won this award at Lone Star since they were ranked below the rookie team that did win that award. Probably, the only thing the Judges have to do with this award is high-fiving the winners and possibly helping to write the script for introducing them.

What you have quoted is from Section 6.14.4 which is specifically for the Rookie All-Star Award.

Sorry to be unclear; yes, I was quoting the requirements from the manual for Rookie All-Star in order to clarify that robot performance is only one piece of the equation and it is more about Chairman's-type attributes. It seemed to me that you were saying they should get RAS based on just robot performance, but only Highest Rookie Seed is determined by robot performance alone. I must have misunderstood.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Again, I question that the wording used by the judges implied the team was forgotten. More accurately it likely meant that the other team had impressed more folks, or the folks were more adept at swaying others. Or any of a dozen things.

My thoughts as well. "Your team didn't come up" may mean that the judges that saw your team had another candidate that they thought was better qualified and they presented that team to the rest of the judges.

Here's an example. I've judged in FLL a couple of times. There was a team that was being considered for the Champions Award. Someone noted that the team wasn't nominated for any of the Project awards; does that indicate they were not a well-rounded team? I mentioned that they were on our short list but not at the top and so they weren't mentioned before. They were good; it's just that there were others that were better.