Best Robot Ever(again)

[Jason Morrella]

Originally Posted by indieFan

I keep reading these lists (Best Ever.. Top Ten.. etc.) and getting annoyed with them. To me, the best robots are not the ones such as Team 254's this year because it seemed to "dominate" the game. Instead, the best robots are the ones that allowed the students to learn something. After all, that is what FIRST is about.

indieFan

since this seems to happen on occasion in here, and it's an insult to all teams and the entire FIRST community every time it happens - let's again revisit the definition of IGNORANCE:

1. lacking knowledge or experience 2. caused by or showing lack of knowledge 3. unaware.

If anyone wants to be so childish or ignorant as to discredit all the students on a particular team, keep it to yourself unless you have some facts or knowledge to back up such comments.

Indiefan - YOU HAVE NO IDEA what students on ANY team listed in this thread learn in building their robots. You have NO IDEA how involved those students are in building, testing, fixing, and maintaining their robots.

If you want to ASSUME students on certain teams aren't involved or don't learn, that's your right to make assumptions without any actual knowledge to base such a conclusion on.

On the other hand, you might be impressed if you try to get to know students on the teams you "assume" don't involve students. You might learn something you didn't know and be better for it.

IMPORTANT: The question was "best robots ever". To pick any team number out and imply their students didn't learn as much or more than students on other teams, or that their students weren't involved and critical to the success of their robot, just because they had an impressive robot that year is just sad - especially when you know NOTHING about that team.

As an example, out in California the past couple years STUDENTS (not mentors, but students) from teams like 254, 22, 599, 294, 481, 330, 192, and others have fixed robots of OTHER teams, have taught OTHER teams how to program their robots, have manned machine shops to repair other robots at events, have taught workshops to other teams and mentors, and so on. These students learned these skills because they are so involved in the building and maintenance of the robots on THEIR teams. If you make the assumption that just because a particular team might "dominate" as you put it, that the students weren't involved or very integral to that success, that is a disservice to you and to the students on those teams. I was at IRI last month, and personally met students on historically "dominant" teams who impressed me so much with how much they knew and have learned in FIRST. It's a pity when people assume that just because they had a beautifully built robot, or a dominant performing robot, that the students on those teams weren't involved or didn't "learn" as much as students on other teams.

Understand one thing - I would have reacted this way regardless of what team number you listed in your post. If you made that assumption about 33, 45, 47, 60, 67, 71, 111, 330, 469 or ANY other team whose robot people have praised in this thread or any other - I would have made the same post.

No hard feelings, and I know the previous post wasn't out and out attacking any team. It seems every year we have to go through the exercise of helping people see when they are assuming things or just trying to discredit teams and students for whatever reason when they really have no knowledge or facts to base such comments on. It gets old, but I'm just not willing to let the hard work of any students on any team be questioned or discredited - it's not right, it's not fair, and it wouldn't be right to be silent and let people make such public comments which in many cases are based in ignorance.

Rant over. Hope everyone is having a great summer.

JM