pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by gblake

Two points

1) if people are going to copy this, let's improve the sentence at the bottom of the flyer. "Transition" is a (3-syllable) noun, not a verb.

It's both a noun and a verb. https://www.google.com/#safe=strict&...ion+definition

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Shrub

The Spanish flyer is specifically going to parents and family members that have students in FIRST, as it is hard to explain the district model without explaining the regional model - both will be covered in the flyer. This flyer was given out to teams and is supposed to be "...intended to sell folks, who don't understand the bigger picture, on the what's-in-it-for-me aspects of competing within a District" as you said.

I'm not sure If I was too subtle in my other post, so I'll be more clear.

In this context, "selling" people is not the same as educating them, and in my opinion it is a terrible, unprofessional thing to attempt.

One-sided "selling" creates a mess, not a Distrct. Do you want to create a mess?

Blake

[Shrub]

Originally Posted by gblake

snip

Hey again,
Thank you for your viewpoint - I do agree that some of the drawbacks to the transition model should be covered, as well as emphasizing the need for a nonprofit base and volunteer base to create a district system. I will take this into account when translating and explaining this flyer.
Thank you.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

It's both a noun and a verb. https://www.google.com/#safe=strict&...ion+definition

Yeah, it's a verb in the same way "ain't" is an example of good grammar.

"Transit" plus "ion" creates the noun "Transition".

That North American slang has recently grown to include "transitioning" doesn't mean that we all should follow rules in our STEM fields, but discard them in our speech and writing.

Regardless, using something with fewer syllables will probably make the sentence more effective (just ask Mr Trump . He is wise in that way).

Blake

[jessss]

Originally Posted by gblake

2) If this flyer is intended to sell folks, who don't understand the bigger picture, on the what's-in-it-for-me aspects of competing within a District, it's fine. If the flyer is supposed to deliver a complete and accurate picture of all the changes involved in a switch from Regionals to a District, it is obviously, hopelessly one-sided and incomplete - incomplete to the point of being misleading.

This flyer was not meant to sell people it was meant to educate teams.

Originally Posted by gblake

Blake
PS: I didn't do a grammar check on the entire flyer, but if the flyer is going to be reused, someone well-qualified should do one. If users can't find a well-qualified editor (then they aren't looking very hard), they can ask me to take the time for a thorough grammar review.

Listen, main point of this flyer was to inform Minnesota teams and I had no intention to send them out to other areas. I made this flyer at 1am the day of a regional in between studying for an exam. I'm sorry if small grammar mistakes are that much of an issue to you that you're trying to invalidate someone else's work because of it. If you really have an issue with it you can go and make your own, but I'm going to stand behind the work that I did.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by gblake

Yeah, it's a verb in the same way "ain't" is an example of good grammar.

"Transit" plus "ion" crates the noun "Transition".

That North American slang has recently grown to include "transitioning" doesn't mean that we all should follow rules in our STEM fields, but discard them in our speech and writing.

I think our backgrounds are affecting our opinions here. As an English major and high school English teacher, I think that using the word "transitioning" is perfectly fine. Language is fluid and over time some words become more appropriate to use, like "transitioning" (IMO). I don't see it as slang but as the adaptation of language to fit modern communication. At one point, until Shakespeare invented it, the word "dislocate" wasn't proper English either. Now it's accepted as a medical term. But, I see your point and leave it up to those using the flyer to proceed as they believe best.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by jessss

This flyer was not meant to sell people it was meant to educate teams.

Listen, main point of this flyer was to inform Minnesota teams and I had no intention to send them out to other areas. I made this flyer at 1am the day of a regional in between studying for an exam. I'm sorry if small grammar mistakes are that much of an issue to you that you're trying to invalidate someone else's work because of it. If you really have an issue with it you can go and make your own, but I'm going to stand behind the work that I did.

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing well. That includes informing them well about the total "picture"

A way someone might invalidate their own work would be accomplishing the wrong thing (or rushing it late at night, or ...). That was my point #2 about the purpose of the flyer.

The grammar suggestion hopefully improves rather than invalidates, and comes from agreeing with Churchill when he said "Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all." "Transitioning" is neither short nor old.

Churchill was a very effective communicator (So is Trump ).

Blake

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

I think our backgrounds are affecting our opinions here. As an English major and high school English teacher, I think that using the word "transitioning" is perfectly fine. Language is fluid and over time some words become more appropriate to use, like "transitioning" (IMO). I don't see it as slang but as the adaptation of language to fit modern communication. At one point, until Shakespeare invented it, the word "dislocate" wasn't proper English either. Now it's accepted as a medical term. But, I see your point and leave it up to those using the flyer to proceed as they believe best.

As a fellow lover of the English language, I am familiar with your point, and understand that languages are fluid. I also encourage individual English users to not be too much of a lemming.

Blake

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by jessss

This flyer was not meant to sell people it was meant to educate teams.

Then I believe it does a very poor job. To me, education implies acquisition of knowledge, not indoctrination with propaganda. This flyer, which presents everything as benefits and fails to mention either costs or roadblocks, qualifies as propaganda. It is a great piece of salesmanship, but it is not what I would call educational.

I can accept that you think you are informing teams. However, from the point of view of the organizers, and as seen by someone who knows how the sausage is made, you are selling people on the idea of Districts in a way that misrepresents the situation and makes it sound like a simple choice is all that is necessary in order to proceed with the change.

Originally Posted by jessss

We were trying to educate teams about what districts would do for teams.

If that's the goal, then the flyer should start by saying "How do districts benefit teams?" instead of "What are districts?" It is not "A simple district system guide". It completely glosses over what I consider the biggest fact of implementing districts: a greatly increased number of competition events. It ignores the need for a larger base of volunteers. It barely mentions the idea of qualifying for the District Championship, and completely misses one of the best benefits that I can think of: the criteria make it likely that a consistently good team will qualify to attend the World Championship, even if it is consistently outmatched by a few outstandingly good teams.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It completely glosses over what I consider the biggest fact of implementing districts: a greatly increased number of competition events. It ignores the need for a larger base of volunteers. It barely mentions the idea of qualifying for the District Championship, and completely misses one of the best benefits that I can think of: the criteria make it likely that a consistently good team will qualify to attend the World Championship, even if it is consistently outmatched by a few outstandingly good teams.

All of which I personally explained to each of the 120 teams I talked to as I handed them the flyer. You can only fit so much information on one page. The main intent of this flyer was not to be the sole piece of information given to the teams, but a supplement to the discussion. Posting them around the regional is what we did with the extras after I spoke with every team I could find. Do you want a general transcript of what I told each team as well?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Knufire

All of which I personally explained to each of the 120 teams I talked to as I handed them the flyer. You can only fit so much information on one page. The main intent of this flyer was not to be the sole piece of information given to the teams, but a supplement to the discussion. Posting them around the regional is what we did with the extras after I spoke with every team I could find. Do you want a general transcript of what I told each team as well?

Let's get real.

Why didn't you reverse what you did?

The stuff you told teams could have been put onto the flyers that were handed out, and were posted; and the info on the flyer could have been what you told them.

I think that Alan and I made valid points.

Blake

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by gblake

Let's get real.

Why didn't you reverse what you did?

The stuff you told teams could have been put onto the flyers that were handed out, and were posted; and the info on the flyer could have been what you told them.

I think that Alan and I made valid points.

Blake

Because then people would be arguing about him doing it that way.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Because then people would be arguing about him doing it that way.

I wouldn't; and I doubt Alan would.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

This flyer, which presents everything as benefits and fails to mention either costs or roadblocks, qualifies as propaganda.

What costs or roadblocks do the average team, who is not involved in their local FIRST community outside attending their regional event(s), face when an area transitions to districts?

I can name a few...

• Potential volunteering requirements
• Increased travel costs for rural teams who won't feasibly have an event within driving distance
• Less "flashy" venue options
• Lack of out-of-state teams

...and I agree these could have been better addressed in the flyer. However, since they were already printed, I resorted to communicating this information verbally.

Originally Posted by gblake

Let's get real.

Why didn't you reverse what you did?

The stuff you told teams could have been put onto the flyers that were handed out, and were posted; and the info on the flyer could have been what you told them.

I think that Alan and I made valid points.

Blake

I'm not going to argue that the flyer doesn't have a positive bias. However, the accusation that we were spreading "propaganda" or attempting to hide information is insulting.

Frankly, most teams don't really care for things like the required number of events or which organization is taking financial risk for events. For teams that only attend one event and struggle to field functional robots, I believe their primary concern is how much they're benefiting their students for the amount of resources (time, money, materials) they're putting in, so that's what the flyer focuses on. Even to these teams, I did mention the increased number of events in an attempt to plant some thoughts of volunteering in them. I also made sure to express several times that everything I was saying was of my own opinion and experiences.

To more established teams, I did speak at length about some of the behind the scene changes that they might not have been aware about, such as the need for a 501c3, and the big shift of responsibility from HQ to the local organization. Frankly, the flyer was not meant for these teams; most of them already knew about the district system.

Also, several people reviewed this flyer prior to print, including a member of GOFIRST and a member of the RPC. If any of them saw this as propaganda, I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Two points

1) if people are going to copy this, let's improve the sentence at the bottom of the flyer. "Transition" is a (3-syllable) noun, not a verb. In English, you don't change nouns into gerunds by appending "ing"; instead nouns simply stay nouns. I suggest picking a nice simple verb like "switch", "change", or "move" to use in the sentence at the bottom of the flyer.

In a tweet, I said that this was, and I quote (without the emojis) "grade A bull crap". While this might seem slightly extreme, I stand by this, for a number of reasons:

1. The word 'transition' has been used as a verb since at least 1946.
2. 'Transition' is commonly used as a verb. While it isn't the clearest word in this situation, it also isn't a word that inherently obfuscates meaning.
3. Your point can be made (and is valid) without bringing in your personal grudge against a particular word (or rather, one of the large set of words you have in your signature).
4. Indirect phrasing is something that's part of how people in Minnesota communicate. Yes, it's frustrating (and something I've complained about more times than I can count), but it's part of effective communication here.
5. Finally (and primarily), this is such a minor thing that has taken up far too much screen space. I'm actually annoyed that I'm even taking the time to write this when there are much more pressing issues to address.

You can call me out for those reasons, but ultimately I think the entire tangent on the use of "transitioning" in a document is almost completely irrelevant. I'm not saying that because I disagree with it, I'm saying that because it's a pedantic discussion to be having in the first place.

Originally Posted by gblake

2) If this flyer is intended to sell folks who don't understand the bigger picture on the what's-in-it-for-me aspects of competing within a District, it's fine. If the flyer is supposed to deliver a complete and accurate picture of all the changes involved in a switch from Regionals to a District, it is obviously, hopelessly one-sided and incomplete - incomplete to the point of being misleading.

Are we really still arguing the intent of this when the authors have already posted that they were trying to educate teams on the potential benefits of a switch to the districts system?

Most of the teams who saw this flyer either had no idea that districts were a thing or had only heard the other side of the argument (that districts would be difficult if not impossible to do in Minnesota). What you're missing when you see this document is the years of avoiding and suppressing discussion about the district system in Minnesota.

One of the things I found interesting was this statement:

Originally Posted by gblake

One-sided "selling" creates a mess, not a Distrct. Do you want to create a mess?

I don't really see where you're coming from with this. In order to create a district, some amount of people in that area have to be sold on the idea of moving to a district. An area can't move to districts without wanting to move to districts. Is your objection that convincing some people that transitioning to districts is a good goal for Minnesota will create argument between people who do and people who don't want to go to districts? If you believe that argument (unlikely) or discussion (much more likely, since we're all passive aggressive Minnesotans up here) shouldn't happen, how do you propose we figure out what direction the state should ultimately be going? I'm not really interested in a quip here-- in my mind making progress on this issue means actually sitting down and talking to people. If you take away that tool we're back at square one, which is a few people shouldering most of the burden for organizing FRC in Minnesota (and the future of FRC in Minnesota). I think one of the parts of Rahul's post (in the other MN districts thread) is very relevant here:

Originally Posted by Knufire

I was told that “mentors in Minnesota are not asking for districts*.”

There is a group of people (which, yes, I'm a part of) that theorizes that if people actually know what districts are, they might be more willing to support them. They might be wrong, or they might be right. If they're wrong, things stay pretty much as they are, and no real action needs to be taken to prevent people from talking about districts and, yes, trying to "sell" people on districts. If they're right, then we have more people willing to contribute by volunteering and organizing events that support FRC in Minnesota. I don't really see how either of those situations are detrimental to FIRST in Minnesota. Really the only way I see this turning into a mess is if people try to suppress discussion of districts, or if people get so entrenched in the ideas that the only two valid view points are "it's impossible for Minnesota to go to districts" or "Minnesota needs to go to districts immediately, regardless of whether we've actually planned to."

Remember that the people posting on here are still exactly that: people. Almost everyone here has a view point on this issue that is never going to be fully articulated through text.


(not directed at gblake)

Here is what I believe, when it comes to Districts in Minnesota (and surrounding states):

A properly planned, properly staffed, properly run transition to the districts system would be of benefit to the majority of teams in the state of Minnesota (and potentially surrounding areas)

Since inevitably someone will complain about volunteers, that is not what I'm getting at. My point is exactly what I said-- that Minnesota (and surrounding areas) would benefit from a properly run district system. I'm willing to concede that we aren't at a point where we can properly run a district system, but is it a common ground that we should at least be thinking in that direction? Personally I'm not sure if the arguments against districts in Minnesota are "we can't do this right now, but ultimately that's where we should go" or "I just don't think districts in Minnesota are a good idea." I see people articulate all the time the issues that need to be resolved to go to the district system (often with either the subtle or not-so-subtle implication that it's not even worth considering), but I very rarely see people arguing that it isn't where Minnesota should go. There's so much talking around the issue here.

Side note: I don't really see Chief Delphi as the correct place for Minnesota to talk about moving to districts. I'm working on moving that discussion offline, but in the mean time maybe we can all back off the rhetoric and have a more honest conversation about why districts may or may not ultimately be a good fit for Minnesota.


A final thing about this document (specifically directed at Blake and Alan): I think it's somewhat odd to be complaining that Rahul and Jess put a positive light on districts. Do you really expect them not to? Do you think it's misrepresentation to say that a well-run district system is a bad thing for teams? Do you really think it isn't educational to say "hey, you might not know it, but the district system does have some benefits for teams?" Yes, there's an inherent persuasive component to this, but I for one commend them on trying to make what they (and yes, I) see as a positive impact on the MN FRC community. I even commend them for not putting the many things that need to happen for MN to move to districts because they don't necessarily know what those things are. The correct way to help is to tell people to contact the people that actually know what needs to be done, not to take guesses and create split efforts.

I don't know if this is your intent, but you seem to be saying that trying to tell people that districts might be a good thing is problematic or has a negative impact on the area. I'm curious why you might think that.