Are awards given at random somewhat?

[sanddrag]

At your regional, did you feel that some of the awards were given somewhat at random? Did they not go to who truly should have won them in your opinion? Or do you think the judges always picked the right teams to win?

[Elgin Clock]

Eh, why not.. I'll go against the grain.

I voted "The awards weren't really random, but they didn't go to who I think deserved them."

This year, I was shocked to see that some teams did not get a technical, or even non-technical award at a regional. It's all a matter of perception, and this is biased on my end because I did not do an in depth study of every single robot and/or team at the regionals I attended as the judges did.

What robots I saw as the best candidate for an award, or the teams I saw best fit for an award may have been number 2 or 3 in line in the judges rulings, but they saw all the teams. I did not, so therefore, I can not accurately say if I would have chosen the teams that the judges chose over the teams I saw best fit for the awards presented. I can just say that "but they didn't go to who I think deserved them" with the information provided to me at the time.

In the end, I give credit to these judges who have a very difficult task ahead of them at every regional. I'm sure no teams will be mad that they did not win an award (less maybe regional champions where it is based on hard fights on the field and can sometimes go either way - proven many times this year alone).

w00t to the judges.

[Daniel Brim]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

At your regional, did you feel that some of the awards were given somewhat at random? Did they not go to who truly should have won them in your opinion? Or do you think the judges always picked the right teams to win?

At SoCal I don't really think that they were random. Coming from the team that won Engineering Inspiration, I truly believe that the team that won Chairmans (812) deserved to win that award. The technical awards seemed to be right on the dot. I also really hope that they are not random because one of our mentors won the Woodie Flowers Finalist Award. Saying that he won it at random takes away from his achievements.

[Pat Fairbank]

I too voted "The awards weren't really random, but they didn't go to who I think deserved them."

However, I think the only random factors here are the physical limitations of the judging system. For one thing, not every judge gets to see every team, and therefore if one team wins an award over another team, it may very well be because one judge was better able to argue the case of one team over another nominated by a different judge, though neither had seen each other's teams.

For another thing, possibly due to insufficient time or quantities of judges, not all teams are always judged to the same extent - I noticed that several teams in my row at the Championship, including my own, were never approached directly by judges, instead just being observed from a distance. In the end, some teams had more of those coloured stickers on their pole than others.

That being said, I don't think these inconsistencies can be easily fixed or that there's enough reason to do so, given the physical limitations of the people who volunteer to be judges. The judges always do a great job considering the amount of pressure put on them, and there is no question that each team selected for an award deserves that award; it's just that they may not necessarily be the MOST deserving team.

[RogerR]

another factor may be the ability of a team to "sell" themselves or their robot to the judges. i've seen many otherwise deserving teams sell themselves short, especially when it comes to robot form and function.

[Karthik]

During the awards ceremony, I like to play a game where I guess the winning team of each award. Over the years I've gotten pretty good at this game, this year I barely made any mistakes at the regional level. This level of predictability makes think the judges were doing a good job, and in my opinion shows that there was very little randomness in their procedures.

The judges at FIRST events work incredibly hard to ensure the "right" team gets recognized. Granted the system isn't perfect, but more often than not they do get it right.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I don't feel that awards are random. I rather agree with Pat Fairbank, in that the physical limitations are what limit the system.

At the regional competitions, I did not always agree with a call. It seemed like one or two were made on a basis of regional politics, this year and the last. However, it is not my place to argue, and I would rather present solutions than complain about a situation that really isn't worth fixing right now, due to limitations.

I think one solution is to perhaps do team interviews with larger groups of judges on the first day (practice day). That way, a team knows that they must create an organized and thorough presentation about themselves and their robot. Like the Chairman's interviews, except for technical. This way, all the judges get to see a basic presentation. This could also be submitted in a document, which I think would be a positive move to consider. I am not a judge, but it seems to me that any amount of "summary" information could help make determining which pits to visit later a bit easier.

This interview or written submission process wouldn't take the place of interviews, but would moreso facilitate their speed and efficiency. It would also teach students to document their progress and encourage every student to be able to present.

As a scout, I want to thank the teams that had "info sheets" about their team and their robot. My job was smaller than that of a judge, and those sheets made it much easier. Think of what they could do for those stressed out ladies and gentlemen in blue! (That rhymed ^_^)

[sanddrag]

I have one question. If a team wins an award one year, and are the most deserving of the same award the next year, are the judges inclined to give it to someone else to "spread the wealth"?

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I have one question. If a team wins an award one year, and are the most deserving of the same award the next year, are the judges inclined to give it to someone else to "spread the wealth"?

I think it really depends on the award. I saw that in some cases, where I felt that a certain team deserved a certain award, but didn't get it.

However, you have to keep in mind that from year to year, judges change, and/or perceptions change. I have a feeling that the conception may be that one team is truly deserving of the award, but the bigger question is, are they unique?

I guess I have to answer your question with a question:
Who is more deserving?
* A team who consistently does a similar level of competition and construction and has a cool feature 1 year

or
*A team who isn't as shabby, so one major achievement for them is a stick-out and really shines?

The point of awards, in my opinion, is positive reinforcement (I believe Karthik coined that sometime in a different thread) and if the team that maybe isn't always so great but earned that award one year did something really good to get it, by all means, reinforce it!

- Genia

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I have one question. If a team wins an award one year, and are the most deserving of the same award the next year, are the judges inclined to give it to someone else to "spread the wealth"?

Not in the past. My old team, The Sea Dawgs, won the Leadership in Control Award in 2002 and 2003 at the Silicon Valley Regional. I don't think judges are opposed to teams trying to "repeat" or "defend" an award. Moreover, I don't think judges take what a team has won in the past into consideration for their decisions. Maybe someone like Dr. Joe or Jess Boucher can shed a little light on this particular question?

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov

I think one solution is to perhaps do team interviews with larger groups of judges on the first day (practice day). That way, a team knows that they must create an organized and thorough presentation about themselves and their robot. Like the Chairman's interviews, except for technical. This way, all the judges get to see a basic presentation. This could also be submitted in a document, which I think would be a positive move to consider. I am not a judge, but it seems to me that any amount of "summary" information could help make determining which pits to visit later a bit easier.

This interview or written submission process wouldn't take the place of interviews, but would moreso facilitate their speed and efficiency. It would also teach students to document their progress and encourage every student to be able to present.

As a scout, I want to thank the teams that had "info sheets" about their team and their robot. My job was smaller than that of a judge, and those sheets made it much easier. Think of what they could do for those stressed out ladies and gentlemen in blue! (That rhymed ^_^)

I thought about these ideas as I read this thread, but the more I thought, I think there is some meathod to the madness behind pit interviews. I dont know this for a fact, but part of me thinks that because presentations and documentation can say everything it wants, demos can be rehearsed, and smoke and mirrors can always be used. I see it ALL the time in industry... heck I have done it! Usually it is with good intention, like you think in a month you will be able to make it work the right way, but right now you can demo something that "looks" like it works that way. Whereas the pit interviews have the element of suprise and reality that makes it much more difficult to fake. If the judges walk in and you are crazily fixing your drivetrain, you arent very well going to be able to tell them its reliable. I think in general, the judges get what they need to know out of the pit interviews. Teams can still give the judges material to summarize (we gave them our scouting summary, our patron book, our newsletters, etc), and often times they take that with them. We even had one judge demand we give him our only copy! Who were we to argue when he was the RAS judge?? lol. Anyways, I stick to the "meathod behind the madness" theory. I think in general teams deserve the awards for one reason or another, and the judges do a great job with a very very difficult task.

[dez250]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I have one question. If a team wins an award one year, and are the most deserving of the same award the next year, are the judges inclined to give it to someone else to "spread the wealth"?

At many regionals judges are not the same from one year to the next. Judges are invited guests, VIPs, employees for Regional sponsors and other "important" people. Normally the Judge Adviser or sometimes one or two judges are the same for the regional year after year, as they are part of the planning committee or close to the regional. Thus at most regionals the team of judges will not know what teams won what awards the year before or the week before.

[Beth Sweet]

Here's the way that I see it. The teams that want the awards tend to get them. Some teams make up judges packets that they distribute to judges for the sole purpose of basically submitting themselves for the award. Obviously, teams that in essence do the judges work for them from the start then give the judges something to remember them by after leaving are going to have a heads up in the award section.

The other thing that gives a team heads up in award winning is the difference between the kids that have to be prodded for award info and the ones who jump up to tell the judges the second the judges are spotted. Just like in anything, those that show the initiative are typically the ones that succeed. This applies to the awards as well the way I see it.

[sanddrag]

Yeah. I would agree that's a little bit how it works. However, I have always liked to see people get recognized for what they do, not people doing something to get recognized.

[the_short1]

"Thus at most regionals the team of judges will not know what teams won what awards the year before or the week before."
..so your saying that judges dont know other awards at other regionals..
cuz i was wondering,
if you won rookie all star at one regional.. could you win it again at another?? at toronto we were prepared , that if we won we would thankfully decline and give to another team, so another rookie cold go to atlanta..