"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[Dan Petrovic]

That's like saying that defeating the other alliance is disrespectful and not GP.

I don't see a problem with it being played. I don't think it's not GP at all.

Shouldn't you be bummed more about the fact that you were simply beaten than the fact that the song is being played? Or shouldn't you be happy with how far you went?

Let the people who worked hard to win enjoy their experience. By complaining about the song being played, I see it as being selfish (we all are selfish at times, however). People should be more worried about how the finalist teams feel than how the champion teams feel?

I complain simply because I don't like the song (I find it unexciting and simply annoying) not because I am considered a "loser" and that the DJs are being disrespectful to me and all of the other non-champion teams.

Yeah, that's my stand.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Here I'm just going to say "They're Just Dots" cause I'm sure someone will give me some neg rep for speaking my mind.

This is a thread asking for opinions regarding a song.
If opinions are expressed respectfully, there is no reason for negative repping anyone. Healthy discussions are a wonderful thing, especially when they involve the celebration of FIRST competitions and the efforts the teams put forth.

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

That's like saying that defeating the other alliance is disrespectful and not GP.

I'm not sure I see the connection here. We're not talking about the fact that one team wins, and others lose. It's more of the fact that the song speaks of losers in a negative and dismissing manner.

[sidenote] And no one should neg rep you for speaking your mind, because having many honest opinions is an incredibly valuable asset to any debate or discussion [/sidenote]

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Karthik,

You seem to have missed the fact that other significant parts of North American sports (and, well, almost everywhere else) include: the idea that winning is everything and acting in an unsportsmanlike manner towards your opponents and getting away with it/applauded for it. I would like to think, cheesy as it may sound, that we're all winners at first, and if we all recognized this song as applying to all the teams who built a robot, then really my entire argument collapses. But we all know that that's not the meaning of the song.

I'm glad that you feel recognized when this song plays. However, it's frankly unreasonable for the recognition of winning teams to be more important then (broken record sound) our most important ideals. If recognition has to take a back seat to respecting the entire idea of FIRST, then that's the way it needs to be.

You seemed to miss the fact that it's still a competition. If you take the competition out of FIRST, you are left with very little, and we've suddenly lost the source of inspiration, and the medium to achieving the goals of FIRST.

Perhaps we should stop giving out trophies and medals to the winning teams as well. Everyone should be satisfied with their bronze participation medals. After all, we're all winners.

If we come to a point where the celebration of the winners demeans the losing teams, then yes, we need to cut back. But in FIRST, we're not even close to being at that point. Frankly, I don't think we do enough to celebrate the teams that perform the best on the field. In my opinion this is one of the bigger problems in FIRST. It's almost as if people are ashamed to be competitive in this program. That we're so focussed on keeping everyone happy, that we've lost site of the competition.

Yes, there's much more to FIRST than winning. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with celebrating the winners.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Karthik

You seemed to miss the fact that it's still a competition. If you take the competition out of FIRST, you are left with very little, and we've suddenly lost the source of inspiration, and the medium to achieving the goals of FIRST.

Perhaps we should stop giving out trophies and medals to the winning teams as well. Everyone should be satisfied with their bronze participation medals. After all, we're all winners.

If we come to a point where the celebration of the winners demeans the losing teams, then yes, we need to cut back.

You've missed my essential point here: it's not that the celebration of the winners demeans the losing teams; it's that the celebration of the winners in this way demeans FIRST itself. Another poster (Josh Murphy) mentioned that he saw a contradiction between the lyrics and GP. While he didn't think this warranted a song change (if I may speak for you, Josh), he still considered these things to be in contradiction.

I'm thinking at the moment that if you don't see the contradiction, then, no disrespect to you, but between us (and this goes for everyone), we don't have common grounds for further discussion. It's not my aim to convince you that the song is in conflict with the idea of GP. To me it seems obvious; to others, not so much.

[Bharat Nain]

While I did not read all the posts thoroughly, I think I really need to mention this. When the song says, "you are the losers" or mentions anything about "losers", what they are really saying is "the team that won deserves it because they have worked hard as anything and smarter than anything and winning is the most important thing to them and that is why they won". I have been fortunate to be on a team where we value winning and I am also fortunate to be associated with people in other organizations who value winning. This is why I understand that to be a winner in the real rough world out there, you need to have many things in your life in place. Or in the case of FIRST, you need to have many things in your team in place to win consistently. So that is why, if my team is a finalist, we're still a winner. We fought our way hard up there and we deserve it very well. If this song had a negative meaning towards the finalist or second place, then I do not think the world of sports would embrace it so much.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

If this song had a negative meaning towards the finalist or second place, then I do not think the world of sports would embrace it so much.

That sounds nice, but you've honestly got to be kidding me. If you think the world of sports gives a darn about #2 compared to #1, get me some of what you're smoking.

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

When the song says, "you are the losers" or mentions anything about "losers", what they are really saying is "the team that won deserves it because they have worked hard as anything and smarter than anything and winning is the most important thing to them and that is why they won".

How does talking about the team that didn't win refer to the team that did win? I don't even know what to say here.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

get me some of what you're smoking.

I don't think that phrase ideally represents FIRST.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

I don't see a problem with it being played. I don't think it's not GP at all.

Shouldn't you be bummed more about the fact that you were simply beaten than the fact that the song is being played? Or shouldn't you be happy with how far you went?

Let the people who worked hard to win enjoy their experience. By complaining about the song being played, I see it as being selfish (we all are selfish at times, however). People should be more worried about how the finalist teams feel than how the champion teams feel?

I complain simply because I don't like the song (I find it unexciting and simply annoying) not because I am considered a "loser" and that the DJs are being disrespectful to me and all of the other non-champion teams.

The responses to my original posting seem to indicate that I went a little off my intended topic. My biggest concern about the song is not that it would make anyone feel bad. My biggest concern is that the song is fundamentally not in tune with the FIRST credo.

Furthermore, I really have to ask, how is it selfish to say that we shouldn't play songs that take away central meaning from an organization in which I am one participant of thousands? You've confused me.

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

That's like saying that defeating the other alliance is disrespectful and not GP.

Playing a fair match and doing your best to win is of course fully within the scope of gracious professionalism. However, imagine the following situation: someone from the defeated team walks up to the alliance captain and says "Great game" and offers to shake hands. The alliance captain on the winning team says "Oh, sorry, I don't have time for losers." Is that GP?

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

The responses to my original posting seem to indicate that I went a little off my intended topic. My biggest concern about the song is not that it would make anyone feel bad. My biggest concern is that the song is fundamentally not in tune with the FIRST credo.

It's not as if this song is the aural representation of FIRST and it is completely contradicting the ideals of FIRST. It's not as if that one line in the chorus is completely twisting the minds of FIRSTers everywhere such that they become rude people. It's just a victory song. It has been for years. It has become a tradition to play that song at the end of a tournament/competition/etc.

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Furthermore, I really have to ask, how is it selfish to say that we shouldn't play songs that take away central meaning from an organization in which I am one participant of thousands? You've confused me.

I'm sorry, I read your post and assumed you were specifically complaining about how the finalist teams must feel when they play that song.

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Playing a fair match and doing your best to win is of course fully within the scope of gracious professionalism. However, imagine the following situation: someone from the defeated team walks up to the alliance captain and says "Great game" and offers to shake hands. The alliance captain on the winning team says "Oh, sorry, I don't have time for losers." Is that GP?

No, it isn't. But do we hear about that happening? It's not as if... I won't repeat myself.

There are other songs that go against the ideals of FIRST that get played at competitions. Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2 comes to mind...

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

It's not as if this song is the aural representation of FIRST and it is completely contradicting the ideals of FIRST. It's not as if that one line in the chorus is completely twisting the minds of FIRSTers everywhere such that they become rude people. It's just a victory song. It has been for years. It has become a tradition to play that song at the end of a tournament/competition/etc.

There are other songs that go against the ideals of FIRST that get played at competitions. Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2 comes to mind...

Waitaminute.... the song is exactly that: an aural representation of FIRST. It's not an aural representation of the entirety of FIRST, but everything we do, including the songs we play at our competitions, represents FIRST in some way, however small.

You extrapolate from one to infinity in the influence any song might have on FIRSTers, and you may want to reconsider this, seeing how it's one of the most baseless arguments one can make. If the song has a negative influence that outweighs the positive benefit by any amount, it should be removed and we should find something better.

Tradition is also one of the lamest excuses for inexcusable behavior. Bad things don't get better just because you do them over and over again. In 1776, we broke tradition into teensy little pieces, because a group of people got together and realized that the tradition was no good.

What exactly is your response to the hypothetical I raised, which almost directly quotes from the song? I don't hear anything meaningful.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Waitaminute.... the song is exactly that: an aural representation of FIRST. It's not an aural representation of the entirety of FIRST, but everything we do, including the songs we play at our competitions, represents FIRST in some way, however small.

You extrapolate from one to infinity in the influence any song might have on FIRSTers, and you may want to reconsider this, seeing how it's one of the most baseless arguments one can make. If the song has a negative influence that outweighs the positive benefit by any amount, it should be removed and we should find something better.

Tradition is also one of the lamest excuses for inexcusable behavior. Bad things don't get better just because you do them over and over again. In 1776, we broke tradition into teensy little pieces, because a group of people got together and realized that the tradition was no good.

What exactly is your response to the hypothetical I raised, which almost directly quotes from the song? I don't hear anything meaningful.

My response is saying that the song wasn't written to go perfectly with the ideals of FIRST (it couldn't have been...). And what negative influence does it have? What I am saying is that we don't see people who are acting in a rude and non-GP manner because this song is played at the competitions.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear on this, but when I say "aural representation" I mean that it was written to be the song of FIRST. If someone asked what FIRST was about, you play this song for them. The songs are there for entertainment. They are there to make things a bit more fun, nothing more. Of course, they are appropriate songs because it is open to the public and families often bring their young children. Sometimes there are occasional matches without background music and they tend to seem quite boring without that music.

And I'm not saying that tradition justifies playing this song despite the so-called negative influence it can have. I'm saying tradition justifies why we play or would want to play the song.

I have a problem with what you're doing. You asked for what we thought about this "issue" and when we give our opinions you attack us for it. I tried being diplomatic but your incessant attacks have tempted me to turn the other cheek.

Edit: You are also completely overlooking the rest of the song. After reading the lyrics, the song is about the struggle these "champions" have gone through to reach that point. You can't say that designing, building, and testing a robot in a 6 week time period with weight, size, cost, and part limitations isn't a challenge or a struggle. Not to mention all the matches these champions have to go through and the tough opponents they have to defeat.

The song uses that "no time for losers" line a total of two times. There are two whole verses about how hard it was to reach the top.

So yes, this song is an appropriate song to be played after the elimination rounds.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Of course, they are appropriate songs because it is open to the public and families often bring their young children.

I would actually say that quite a few of the songs are not well chosen on this front. It seems to me that we don't give enough consideration to our songs. However, back to my main point...

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

I have a problem with what you're doing. You asked for what we thought about this "issue" and when we give our opinions you attack us for it. I tried being diplomatic but your incessant attacks have tempted me to turn the other cheek.

I read a newspaper article recently about online bullying in schoolchildren that described how bad online bullying was. At the end of the first paragraph (as I remember) it said something to the effect of: "And for kids with a computer in their room, there is no escape."

My point is this: sure, maybe I've gotten more into this than is appropriate. I admit that I'm a bit frustrated by the idea that songs that admittedly don't fit with (broken record) central FIRST ideals are not only tolerated but encouraged. I think for the most part I haven't attacked anybody - but if you feel that I have, you're welcome to stop playing. No one is forcing you to read this. I find the idea that the wide world of sports loves everyone to be pretty naive, though I may have been a little rude in conveying that. I don't think I've called anyone an idiot, a moron, a retard, or anything in that vein, which would certainly constitute the type of "attack" you're talking about. It is certainly true that I have challenged nearly everyone who has posted their opinions on their opinions, and if I've been overly aggressive in doing so, I apologize. But your #1 recourse should be to stop reading if you're no longer interested.

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

My response is saying that the song wasn't written to go perfectly with the ideals of FIRST (it couldn't have been...). And what negative influence does it have? What I am saying is that we don't see people who are acting in a rude and non-GP manner because this song is played at the competitions.

And I'm not saying that tradition justifies playing this song despite the so-called negative influence it can have. I'm saying tradition justifies why we play or would want to play the song.

I admit that overall I am surprised how this turned out. I expected to see a few people with "shut up I like this song (more diplomatically of course)." And while I didn't really see any of that, I expected more of a mix of people responding. I have not yet heard anyone fess up to thinking that a conflict between words and actions is meaningful. It's not about the results; it's about the process. The problem with President Bush's wire-tapping program is not that he's spying on people; the problem is that he's breaking the law. Of course I'm not saying that the songs we're playing are illegal. But, as quite a few people (including yourself) have admitted, it's not in tune with GP, which is as much our constitution as anything else. And no one has a problem with that?

[aaeamdar]

Alright, in deference to a) my sleep cycle and b) vivi's concern, I'm going to let sleeping threads lie for the moment.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts even if I "attacked" you

=Paul=

[Cory]

It's a song...that's all. There's no subliminal message in it telling us to look down on the losers.

If we're going to go pointing out offensive lyrics, I'd be far more concerned about various rap songs that are played at competition, than something as minor as one word in an otherwise clean song.

Let's face it. Competitions are about winners and losers. There will always be winners, and there will always be losers. We dress it up and call the losers 'finalists'. Just because they lost doesn't mean they're being demeaned or that they didn't accomplish anything.

The day that FIRST competitions become as PC as everything else is nowadays, and turn into 3 days of patting each other on the back and telling everyone what good people they are will be the day FIRST stops being special.

$0.02