"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[John Gutmann]

OK just for the sake of not seeing anything else come from what in my opinion I think is a stupid discussion. Can a Mod please lock this thread?

Thanks,
John

[Madison]

Originally Posted by John Gutmann

OK just for the sake of not seeing anything else come from what in my opinion I think is a stupid discussion. Can a Mod please lock this thread?

Thanks,
John

We'll take action as is necessary and appropriate.

[GaryVoshol]

Beside reffing FLL, FRC and FVC, I also ref soccer. There we have the concept of a "trifling" foul. Yes, the action was technically a foul - but it had no effect on play and to whistle for it would be a bad thing.

"No time for losers ..." - yes, techincally it's anti-GP. But in the overall scheme of things, it's just a trifle. Such a little part of the song, with such little effect on anyone, we just let it go.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Is it appropriate to celebrate the champions of an event here in FIRST? Does this celebration conflict with GP?

Jacob,
Without a doubt, celebrating those who have demonstrated their best is GP at it's finest.

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

That question leads to this question: Should FIRST remove any possible non-GP element from the games?

I don't think there is anything non GP in our games. That said, I think it is important to point out that GP is one of those states that you strive to achieve, to shoot for and sometimes you hit the mark. A lack of hitting the mark doesn't make you a loser, not trying is the loss.

We have been going on for six pages now talking about a song that was written before First came into existence that was chosen by someone because it had a recognizable theme and lyrics that would help recognize the best of the best. If you want to tear the lyrics apart as if they were written specifically for First then let's do that. All of us are blessed because we participate in a great undertaking, FIRST. There are many who would like to participate who can't and there are many more who don't even know what FIRST is. Are any of these people losers, I don't think so. So WHO is the loser? I think the losers are those who know about FIRST but think it's beneath them. I think losers are the people who stand at the door and shout in that we're the stupid ones. The losers are the people who down through the centuries have kept the thinkers and doers from accomplishing great tasks, improving our culture, making great strides for humanity. A loser is the patent clerk who in the 1890's said all that could be invented already has been, or the clerics who said it was blasphemy to think the world was round and the earth was not the center of the universe. It was the losers who put Leonardo and Galileo under house arrest. It is the losers who do not think that education is important, that drugs are the answer and that gangs can solve all. So if this is the definition of losers than the song is appropriate for FIRST events, I have not time for losers. Bring on more songs justs like them.

[JBotAlan]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

[...]FIRST should remove non-GP elements. Gracious professionalism is such a central tenet of FIRST that the organization should do its best (and in most cases does) to remove non-GP elements. However, if you take another look at Jane's post (specifically her quote of... Woody I think it was?) I hope you can see that gracious professionalism and strong competition are not in conflict.

I'm still not sure I understand your definition of GP. As someone earlier in this thread said, "GP is an internal ruler." It's different for everyone. So I must ask, how do you find this song, which seems to celebrate the winners--not mock the 'losers'--not within GP? Before you jump on the "Quote" button, read the rest of my post.

Here is some hard evidence for you--that song was not requested by the winning alliance. That song was not played by the winning alliance. In fact, I remember it playing with no influence from my team, or any other team, at competition. The teams are not acting in a non-GP way towards each other--they still shake hands, exchange the phrase 'Good game' with other teams, etc. They are not mocking the other alliances--the 'losers'.

FIRST, as you say, does not tolerate non-GP elements. Therefore, the intent behind the song must be considered. Would FIRST play this song with the intent of mocking teams that did not win? No! In fact, I'm sure they have a celebrate-the-winners playlist--"We are the Champions" is one of many songs that get played during awards.

Nobody has a non-GP intent, so there is no breach in GP.

JBot

//I really should stop posting here, since it seems I am providing fuel for a flame war. This is my last post.

[Bharat Nain]

Jacob, I'll post my perspective on GP and maybe you will understand what people like Woodie Flowers think. I know this because I have been fortunate enough to have a couple discussions with him. Gracious Professionalism is an act, internal ruler, anything you want to call it to teach the students(and leaders of tomorrow) how to be friendly, ethical, moral, firm, competitive, smart all at the same time. The world out there does not practice Gracious Professionalism and therefore there is a lot of unethical and immoral practices that need to be stopped. If we teach the students today how to practice Gracious Professionalism, then tomorrow we will have a better world of free enterprise, better jobs and better neighbors. You get where I am going with this? As Dean Kamen and others say, "FIRST is a microcosm of the real world". That's why FIRST does not have to be perfect, fair or in complete submission to gracious professionalism. If they did that, then our games would be boring and would contain no element of defense, pushing, or anything really. It would be a simple game pure offense which is not really fun. Gracious Professionalism also builds character. What do you do when the team in the pits next to you tells you that your robot sucks? Do you make a big deal out of it or do you understand that they are still probably new to FIRST or have not embraced the ideals of FIRST and let them be.

Many teams demonstrated Gracious Professionalism this year. We all know that in the first couple weeks of competition there were problems with the scoring, sometimes referees, robot inspectors etc. Teams did not make a huge fuss about this even though they could have. Everyone makes mistakes, including FIRST. Forgiveness is another trait of people and teams who practice Gracious Professionalism.

So all in all, we do not need to eliminate every little thing in FIRST that might threaten to be anti-GP. It is okay for these things to be there because not everyone can win the competition, chairmans award, WFA, website award, inventor award all at once. Sometimes, you work hard for an award and don't get it. That's okay. Someone else worked harder. Sometimes there is a radio issue in the final match of the regional. You know your robot was disabled and it is not your fault. That's okay. Is it anti-GP from the field crew or IFI? I don't know, maybe. But you have to deal with it with GP. When you are the finalist and they play a song like Queen's-We are the champions, you really should be happy for the winning alliance and never accept defeat in your mind. Your alliance very well could have been the winning alliance. Sometimes, there is only so much you can do and the rest is left upto the environment, high power, anything you believe. Okay, enough. I have just tried to put my unorganized thoughts down. But I hope you see what I am trying to say about GP.

[Pavan Dave]

Before I start let me mention that I hate all of this GP talk. I understand being courteous etc., and being a gracious professional, but completely changing everything to achieve that "GP" status is not practical at all. You can't be GP in the business to be very successful.
Now...On topic:
Ditto what Karthik and the others said above me but I have to add that it is a song, and although it does say champions and losers, it is very fitting. Losing is not always bad. It points out your (personal and team) weaknesses and design flaws which help you learn and become a better engineer.

Peace.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

I'm still not sure I understand your definition of GP. As someone earlier in this thread said, "GP is an internal ruler." It's different for everyone. So I must ask, how do you find this song, which seems to celebrate the winners--not mock the 'losers'--not within GP? Before you jump on the "Quote" button, read the rest of my post.

Here is some hard evidence for you--that song was not requested by the winning alliance. [...]

Nobody has a non-GP intent, so there is no breach in GP.

Jbot, I'm not sure why it matters who requests the song. If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP. If you don't agree with that, and you realize that I think differently about this song, then why would you bother asking how I find this song un-GP? I'm confused here.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the non-GP elements are minor and can be overlooked. But if you acknowledge that the "losers" in the song are the teams that just lost, it's fairly hard not to see parts of this song as (at least in minor ways) exhibiting qualities that are diametrically opposed to the concept of gracious professionalism. And again, if you agree that the song is dismissive of the losing alliance, how does gracious professionalism being "an internal ruler" have anything to do with it? I'm not saying this is what the song says, but if I walk up to a losing team and say "your robot sucks and I'm glad you lost," would you say "Oh, well GP is an internal ruler, and I guess for Paul, that was GP"? No. We may not be able to describe the entirety of possible actions that fall under the 'GP' label, but to paraphrase Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it, and being dismissive of losing teams is not gracious professionalism.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Jbot, I'm not sure why it matters who requests the song. If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP. If you don't agree with that, and you realize that I think differently about this song, then why would you bother asking how I find this song un-GP? I'm confused here.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the non-GP elements are minor and can be overlooked. But if you acknowledge that the "losers" in the song are the teams that just lost, it's fairly hard not to see parts of this song as (at least in minor ways) exhibiting qualities that are diametrically opposed to the concept of gracious professionalism. And again, if you agree that the song is dismissive of the losing alliance, how does gracious professionalism being "an internal ruler" have anything to do with it? I'm not saying this is what the song says, but if I walk up to a losing team and say "your robot sucks and I'm glad you lost," would you say "Oh, well GP is an internal ruler, and I guess for Paul, that was GP"? No. We may not be able to describe the entirety of possible actions that fall under the 'GP' label, but to paraphrase Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it, and being dismissive of losing teams is not gracious professionalism.

Wow.... Well, that's like saying stepping on ant and genocide are the same thing because they're both killing.

The song is fine.... If it wasn't I'm sure Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, or Dave Lavery would've put an end to it a long time ago.

[Elgin Clock]

http://www.lyrics007.com/print.php?id=TkRJNE1qY3k

If you look at the rest of the lyrics, and not just the chorus it actually applies more to the overall goals of FIRST than just a song to play at the end of Finals.

But it's been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise -
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race -
And I ain't gonna lose -

What's the challenge before the whole human race we are accomplishing within FIRST? Is it a win in the final rounds of a competition that won't mean anything a year from now when we start over again?
No.

The challenge laid upon us all by FIRST is to inspire, and educate kids about science & technology.

If this is the challenge that Queen is talking about when analyzed to apply to the FIRST world, then I sure as heck don't want any losers bringing us forward into the 21st century and beyond when it comes to educating our kids.

I've paid my dues -
Time after time -
I've done my sentence
But committed no crime -
And bad mistakes
I've made a few
I've had my share of sand kicked in my face -
But I've come through

What's the "sentence" we've all had to pay? Is there a reason we all call it (sometimes jokingly) the six weeks of he-double hockey sticks? lol

We have commited no crimes, except when we have excluded people from participating in FIRST (but none of us would think about doing that now would we?)

Bad mistakes? Sure. Every year. Ever thought about the competition at the end of the year, and said to yourself, or to your teammates, "what if we had only had this feature, or what if we had only made this improvement on our bot like team XXX has done?
Then would we be more famous this year and made it to the "big show"?
Would we be recognized more?
We all as individuals have ego's to feed, and even as a team we strive to feed our ego's and do the best we can, but small mistakes along the way happen.
It's human nature, and the nature of competition.

We've all lost matches. We've all had "sand kicked in our face" by a loss. It's not intentional, but it's the nature of competition, there are winners, and there are people who go home without winning trophies.

But in the end, we've all "come through" better people from this experience, haven't we?

Have you ever lost a regional, and then just given up with your team, or with FIRST in general?

If you have spent the time to read all of this, then I'm guessing your answer to that question is a big NO.

It's not about winners, it's not about losers, it's about inspiration, and all that comes with that.

The only losers in FIRST are those who can't be bothered to teach the new generation of students coming through the program a little something before they leave their teams behind and move on.

Leaving knowledge behind to the younger generation, even if it's only someone a year or 2 younger than you, is truely making you a champion, and in the end securing your legacy.

Those who fail to do that and don't share their knowledge before they move on... well... that "L" word that is in question within this song can certainly come into play in that situation imho.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP.

There's the issue in a nutshell. You think the song is dismissive, apparently because of a single line that's repeated twice, and regardless of the rest of the lyrics. Having listened to it in its entirety many hundreds of times over the past three decades, I don't agree.

Again, I find nothing unprofessional or ungracious about what it says. It's about having a winning attitude, not about putting down other competitors. If you take it in a negative way, I believe that's due more to your readiness to interpret it that way than to the intent of the song itself.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The song is fine.... If it wasn't I'm sure Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, or Dave Lavery would've put an end to it a long time ago.

Dang. And I was SO hoping to stay out of this whole tempest in a teapot. But since my name was brought up, I will make only two points:

1 - There is absolutely no inconsistency between the song "We Are The Champions" (and by that, I mean the ENTIRE song, including all the lyrics) and the concept of Gracious Professionalism. There is no need to "acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and ..." because the conflict just does not exist. And the choice of the song certainly does NOT "put the lie to the entire concept of gracious professionalism."

To me, the song is one of triumph and celebration, of recognizing a job well done, of superior performance, and of acknowledgment of a fierce competition. There are no implicit put-downs of the other competitors and no denigration of anyone else’s efforts. Read the lyrics from the standpoint of someone talking/singing about themselves and their own team. Read every word as it applies to that team, and see if you understand how this is so. When I read the line "no time for losers" and apply it to myself, it becomes my own statement about how I refuse to succumb to the forces that are trying to prevent me from succeeding. "No time for losers" means that _I_ have no time to be a "loser" and that _I_ will not give in to those pressures. It has absolutely nothing to do with how I look upon my competitors or a form of condescension. It is all about introspection and how I look at myself (which then, at an entirely different level, does become a factor in how I do treat my competitors, but let's keep it simple and not get into the meta-effects for right now).

As Sean Witte said so very well earlier, "not winning is different than being a loser." There are a lot of teams that may not "win" a FRC competition. But very, very few of them are "losers" by almost any measure that you choose to use. And I would submit that the corollary is also true - "winning is different than being a champion." I can win a competition a lot of different ways, through hard work, intense effort, etc. But I can also "win" a competition through the use of unethical behavior, working outside the rules, cheating, etc. (are you listening, Barry Bonds?). Tell me someone is a "winner" and I know nothing of HOW they "won" a competition. Tell me someone is a "champion" and I know they compete while doing their very best, with honest values, integrity, respect, fierce determination, and dignity. It is very easy to be a "winner" and a "loser" at the same time. But it is almost impossible to be a "champion" and a "loser." The song celebrates those that are "champions." And I believe that is entirely in line with the very best interpretation of Gracious Professionalism.

2 - It is the end of the summer. The academic year is about to begin (and in some cases, has started already), and with it the preparations will begin for a new FRC season. There are new team members to recruit, new teams to create, new sponsors to find, new corporate executives to brainwash, new grants to write, new mentors to indoctrinate, and new technologies to develop. All of this must be done before the formal kick-off in January. So don't we all have something better and more productive to discuss?

-dave

[Brandon Holley]

dave is 100% right


there is absolutely nothing wrong with this song. if you truly find it offensive than i think you might want to leave the building near the end of the final match so you do not have to listen to it. honestly this topic is ridiculous...

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Pavan

You can't be GP in the business to be very successful.

I beg to differ, GP works well in real life, too.

Don

[JaneYoung]

promise broken -

---
All threads provide an opportunity for each of us to sharpen our communication skills, present our perspective, practice spelling and punctuation, experience others' viewpoints while stating ours. It's a glass half full opportunity.

And - some 'side' topics have risen from the initial post regarding the song that I will spend some time thinking about.
For example, without this thread, we would not have received a post from Mr. Lavery discussing a view on champions and winners. How golden is that? I would not forfeit a single post of this thread that lead to that kernel of wisdom, shared with the whole of the CD community.

.02