"We Are the Champions" and 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...

[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.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

The alliance captain on the winning team says "Oh, sorry, I don't have time for losers." Is that GP?

It's been said before, it's been said again: GP is an internal yardstick. I can't (properly) judge whether someone else is acting in a graciously professional manner, only whether I see that action as GP or not.

The song overall is one of accomplishment. The references to "losers" can be associated with thousands of possible explanations (or so my English 102 professor drilled into my head over many a red-ink-covered paper). Same goes with the "we" that are the champions.

I agree with the Long-Named One--there is nothing wrong with celebrating the winners through this song.

[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.

[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.

[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

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

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 let's imagine this: if the song instead of saying "no time for losers" said "the losers are no-good idiots" would this be an acceptable song? Your 'argument' above would still apparently support the song, since it's just not a big deal because it only has this line two (actually three) times.

Cory, if you're looking for subliminal messages, you've missed the point entirely. "No time for losers" is not a subliminal message. It says, quite plainly, that winning is all that matters, and that losers are unimportant at best. Does this click with FIRST?

For the past two years, I've been a principle author of my team's Chairman's award submission. If my memory is correct, in at least one if not both years of our submission, we included some line to the effect of "We [try to] exemplify gracious professionalism in everything we do." Why should FIRST events be any different? Is the whole concept of gracious professionalism phony, just something we tell reporters?

Concerned,
Paul

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

I would agree that some of the songs played at FIRST events have questionable lyrics/themes, and these songs are, again, deserving of consideration. However, this doesn't mean that songs that go against basic FIRST principles are OK just because we have other inappropriate songs.

You're confusing political correctness with gracious professionalism. I'm not seeking to make anything more politically correct. In fact, if we are willing to acknowledge what the song says, that winning is all that's important, and we don't have time for losers, then the song is exactly what we should be playing at the end of competitions. However, if FIRST is about more than winning and losing, as everyone keeps telling me it is, then we should take a longer look at this song.

And, by the way, I seem to have forgotten. What's the highest honor that a team can win at a regional? Can anyone remind me? And what's the special song played when you win that?

[JaneYoung]

Because you feel so strongly about the lyrics in this song, Paul, it would seem appropriate that you contact FIRST directly, expressing your point of view as you have throughout this thread.

--

As Billfred has said, there are many ways to interpret the lyrics and as Dan has said, the song was not written for FIRST. There has not been a winners song custom written for the FIRST competitions. This one comes close.

I just spent a summer encouraging my daughter to dig deep. She had a difficult time with one of her classes. Each time she felt frustrated or lost, we would find ways to help her dig deeper. One of the phrases: There are no losers or slackers here. None. Go for it.

No time for losers means that to me. The rest of the song discusses the difficulty of the win and the journey towards the win. To me, no time for losers, means - when on the field, get thoughts of losing out of your mind, and keep your eye on the goal - the win. Everyone on that field feels that. Everyone. The teams that emerge from the competition having won by defeating worthy opponents, enjoy the moment of celebrating their journey and their win. There is no time for losers in the moment. Only a time for winners and celebration. When you look in the stands you see that moment clearly. For the champions and for everyone who participated in the season.
And I also recognize that the Chairman's Award, The WFA, the Volunteer Award, etc., are each a part of the winning circle and enjoy that moment as well. I also believe the referees, the judges, the volunteers, and the event planners who participated - share that special moment. No, it does not go against GP.

[Dan Petrovic]

The thing is, everyone knows that winning isn't everything. Regardless of what the song says, we all know that there is more to FIRST than winning and robots.

The song is 3 minutes long. And it gets played once in celebration of the champions. This is their 3 minutes, and naturally, because they won, they should have a prettier celebration. A big trophy, gold medals, and a 3 minute song.

I'll say it again. I think the the lyrics support what teams go through in building the robot more than how they would go against the ideals of FIRST. I know you're going to say that FIRST isn't all about robots. However, a great deal of FIRST is about the robots, When it comes to the field at competition, it is about the robots, but we don't let the competitive spirit get in the way of sportsmanship and Gracious Professionalism. This is why I don't see a problem with the song or with it being played.

If that line was "the losers are no-good idiots" then that would be a different story, but that's not the case.

In conclusion: My opinion says that this song does not go [strictly] against the ideals of FIRST (while those two lines might) and that it can continue being played at competitions (although I wouldn't mind seeing it go).

I keep reading cause I always love a debate.
Heh you refered to me as Vivi

[Alan Anderson]

Yeah, what JaneYoung said.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

No time for losers means that to me. The rest of the song discusses the difficulty of the win and the journey toward the win. To me, no time for losers, means - when on the field, get thoughts of losing out of your mind, and keep your eye on the goal - the win. Everyone on that field feels that. Everyone. The teams that emerge from the competition having won by defeating worthy opponents, enjoy the moment of celebrating their journey and their win. There is no time for losers in the moment. Only a time for winners and celebration. When you look in the stands you see that moment clearly. For the champions and for everyone who participated in the season.

That's what I've always felt the meaning of that line to be. After working so hard to get to the competition - and after then making it so far - you don't have time to lose. You want to win.

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

The song is 3 minutes long. And it gets played once in celebration of the champions. This is their 3 minutes, and naturally, because they won, they should have a prettier celebration. A big trophy, gold medals, and a 3 minute song.

That's all it is: a song that's three minutes long. It's just a song. A song with lyrics that can be interpreted in many different ways.

I know our FRC team has been to the semi-finals more times than I can remember, and our FVC team has been finalists twice. And like Karthik, I don't feel bad because of that song. It's just a song. If anything, it makes me want to try even harder for next year.

If we really want to cavil over single lines of songs played at a competition as being "un-GP", then that'll probably put everything but Sandstorm and the FIRST Theme Songs out to the pasture. Practically every song with lyrics ever played at a FIRST competition, could have the meaning of at least one of it's lines [mis]interpreted as being "un-GP", or against the "ideals" of FIRST.