New FIRST competition structure in Michigan

[Jim Zondag]

Jason,
I didn't know that other areas had made any serious attempts to implement low-cost strategies before. As I said before, none of the planning for this was deliberately done in secret, but until the idea got approved by FIRST, there was nothing to talk about publicly. Any other similar past proposals are catagorically the same, no news until it becomes news.

Perhaps the difference here is timing; after multiple attempts from various areas, combined with the current state of the US economy, FIRST finally agrees that the time is right to try something new. One thing I will say, this was not easy, and it took a long time to convince FIRST that this pilot should be allowed to proceed. We have the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as our leaders.

The local situation here is as follows: in 2008 we had 3 regional events. All of these are at capacity and cannot be increased in size. We have recruiting and growth targets for adding new teams which cannot be met without adding another regional. Our Regional Event planners already have diffiiculty finding the funding to run the exisiting events on the traditionaly cost model and it looked very unlikely that we would be able to properly fund a 4th event. Hence the pilot: for the same event support costs from our sponsor base as our current 3 events, we are now going to do 8! Ambitious? Yes...Risk Free? NO!....More Sustainable in the long run? Absolutely!

"A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is not why ships are built."

[J@GMFlint]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Then, the same political forces that shoved this pilot program through the system will demand that the "successful" model be adopted across the country. The same concerns that tried to counter how this pilot was structured will be unable to stop this next effort. And two years from now, we will all be playing at district events, whether they are appropriate for our states or not.

Sorry, but that smacks of "well, if Dean says so, then it must be right, so we can all stop talking about it now." I could not disagree more. The whole reason this thread was started was to get people talking about the pros and cons of the new idea, to see the reaction, and understand the concerns. If, as I suspect and discuss above, this is going to become the new national model of how the entire FRC program will be structured in the future, this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.

-dave


.

More discussion questions in response to Dave's suggestion to talk MORE.

Please do not take these as a slam on the pilot, these are serious questions.

Questions, that would probably have been addressed had there been some level of communication in the planning phases of this venture. As a Michigan team leader, I must object to a "no news until it becomes news", (translated "need to know basis") position. We are supposed to be a community, and secrecy, deliberate or not, only serves to undermine that sense of community and creates a greater potential for friction.

It was posted that "The new system will definitely be much better at promoting the best robots"

Does this mean we are moving to where the "robot" and the "robot competition" is what will matter and count most for teams to "advance" to the championship? One of our Founding Father's once said "it's not just about building robots... that we get the best of what we celebrate..." where are we now headed and what will we be celebrating?

Look at the proposed points system for ranking and advancement to see what appears to be the FiM Vision.

The proposed points system for State qualification ranking is ALL about ROBOT FIELD PERFORMANCE. Why not consider total package scoring something like FLL, or FTC does while we reinvent here and demphasize the machines?

Here are a couple eye brow raisers:
#1 Alliance Captain = 16 points
#1 DRAFT PICK = 16 points (Why is this = to #1 Seed? Other than the assumption that a strong team, yet still not the #1 seeded team, will get picked first from wherever they are in the standings and benefit equally even though they had lesser points, by talent or luck?).

It even assigns points based off of the Elimination Rounds, with adjustments made to individual teams points by WHEN they were picked. Should draft pick even count for points as it is a decision solely made by teams and subject to, potential manipulation for points?

While Judged FIRST awards.... earn a whopping 5 points for a technical award, and 2 points (equal to a match win) for other Judged Awards!! Something looks amiss on the values. Do we as a FIRST Community concur with this, esp. if this indeed our future?

We can argue that it's essentially the same today, but look at the outward message this point system presents. Success in FiM is about building the best robots. Granted, that has always been implied, but now there's no redeeming gracious option in the system.

What about the team that bombs their first event, then Win's the 2nd- but doesn't have the points to go to State? Or the team who never Wins, but gets the points? (I haven't done any of the math, but I'm sure analysis would be worthwhile and interesting) Maybe FiM has something they can share? Or if that team that bombed the first, Wins the 2nd, then actually qualifies for State, but realizes they have no shot at the CMP, and/or has no $$$ to go. When do the tallies come out? So that the next in line might go. Who keeps track and issues the lists?

I'm assuming that a serpentine draft will help balance some of this point distribution though, right? Or, are they planning top-down each round? It really does begin to matter more for State Quals now, and it's not just an impact on a winning alliance.

What is the plan for current Chairman's Award teams? Will they still get the automatic qualification to the Championship? How do they impact the 18 teams from the State if they Win an event and get a ton of points? Or are the final point values going to be calculated after taking the CA teams out? What about the teams they won, or lost with?

How about the State Championship events? Should they (Past Chairman's, or Winner's) be able to go to State and diminish the chances of others qualifying for the Championship if they are already going to Atlanta?

Perhaps FiM should "pilot" them not getting the automatic qualification as well? Or if they do have an automatic qualification, does FiM plan to bar them from competing in the state championship and "suggest" their teams provide the "volunteers" for the State event?

Is there going to be financial assistance made for teams that need to cough up $4000 in a few days if they qualify in week #5 for State? Remember, everyone's budget is expected to drop dramatically.

What if the same team earns a spot at the CMP? That's $9000 in a short time, and two trips back to sponsors and almost 2X of what the initial cost was. I don't know about all this... esp. in tighter times and for smaller teams.

Why only 2 Rookie All-Stars to the CMP, when the State used to send 3? This opportunity can significantly boost a new team, the kinds of teams we are supposed to be helping with all this

Only one Eng. Insp?

We're still planning to send 3 Chairman's...

3 Winners...

9 Top points/field performers...

I highly advise ALL teams to look this pilot over very carefully and critically. Don't let anyone else do your thinking for you.

No one questions the need to improve. Are we sure we have the right vehicle to get there and are keeping to the objectives of developing people along with robots? If we can work through some of the questions and questionable aspects now together, why wait a full season to test & see?

Perhaps FiM will host some official discussion soon. I think it would be well worth the time.

[fuzzy1718]

Now knowing that the initial idea came from michigan teams ALOT is explained. I guarantee (I don't know anything for sure just my thoughts) that the planning was mostly done by FIRST's "Elite" members (if you don't know what I'm talking about then email me, my rep can't take another huge hit) and had lttle to no imput from "newbie" FIRSTers.
As far as the comments about everything being public and little done in side deals, all I can say is get used to it. Everyone builds up FIRST so much that many think that it is the utopia that we all dream of, the fact is most of the stuff that gets done happens through smoke and mirrors. The same is true in the real world of every day life.
There was a post earlier that made a comment about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) I think the new system's designers' hearts were in the right place, but not everything was thought through or is this the smoke and mirror effect again? If everything is a strict need to know basis and a "small" group put this idea together, Then FIRST is no different the the current government. (I know that a lot of people won't like that comment, but hey not many like me and in my eyes it is the truth)
I guess what many want to know (especially me) is who put the idea out there and was the mastermind of it. often who puts something together shows in how it works and for who it works. Those who did put it together probably don't want to come forwards due to all the heat, but would you rather like people to draw their own conclusions? That can turn ugly very fast.

I know that my rep will probly go down after this, but it needed to be said. I admit I don't want the new structure to go away, I even like some of it's ideas, I just think it needs to be revaulated and the whole community needs to have a say and know what is going on at all times. No more of the smoke and mirrors B.S. that FIRST pulls and now FiM is trying to pull.

Now you can bash what i have said here, since everyone is so good at it, or put yourselves in someone eleses shoes and view it with a new light, although half of you probly stopped reading after the government bit. Let's see... if you read the whole thing put robot in size 5 font at the top of your post.

let the bashing begin,
Fuzzy

[SusanMeyer]

I'm not going to bash you Fuzzy. I agree with most (not all) of what you said, though you could say it in a less confrontational tone. I don't know what the rep thing is, but don't feel bad for questioning things that don't look right. I agree with those that think challenging things that don't seem right and asking questions and having open discussion is good (when done respectfully). You should not be afraid to post views that question and challenge decisions made by FIRST or any other organization, that's the only way mistakes can be fixed. The point that "Michigan has the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as leaders"(including a board member) who can get things pushed through that benefit their teams and not the rest bothers me very much. That doesn't sound like something the FIRST I've been a fan of would allow and is what disappoints me most. School hasn't started yet, so don't they still have time to fix this and make sure all teams get the same benefits for the same price?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

"rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) Fuzzy

Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy"

I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". These teams have money, have build shops and have the means to ALWAYS produce a great robot in 6 weeks. What does this do for them?....very little. Now, on the flip side, half the teams in the state have barely enough resources to play at one event in 2008. In 2009, every team will now get to play twice, and will have 3 times as much field time as in the past for a lower price. This has almost no benefit for the rich teams, they already have the cash to play as many times as they want, but this will make a world of difference for many who can not currently afford to expand their involvement.

Now look at how this will actually hurt the elite. It is a well documented fact that the more a team plays, the better they get. If you don't believe this, look at the OPR value growth on any team across multiple events. The trend is almost universally in the positive direction. This is why many senior teams try to play as many times as possible. In 2008 there were only 5 teams from Michigan that played at 3 regionals. In 2009, there will effectively be over 60 teams who can make this claim. There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy"

I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". ..... There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!

Jim I will have to disagree. The fact that you can pocket more money is a plus. The fact that you (with all of the experience) have more time with your robot is a plus. The fact that the elite are not helping the less fortunate at events on practice day is another plus for the elite. The better (elite but not necessarily) robots get a better chance at qualifying for Championship is a plus.

I am not saying that it was designed for this purpose (knowing some of those involved I believe it not to be the case) but it seems to outsiders to have the illusion of elitism.

I will have to agree with a few of the people who have put thoughtful posts in this thread. WHY were many of the Michigan teams not informed and or consulted and why must they follow the few who left them out? Why is FIRST allowing Michigan teams to have benefits that others do not have and if they are going to give some to us why have they not released this info to us.

FIRST does read these threads. FIRST chooses not to respond. FIRST does not care what you or I think. FIRST has come to think of themselves as untouchable. FIRST counts on their volunteers to make things work yet keeps them all in the dark as long as they can. The problem is that volunteers have the choice to continue or not. When they leave you do not get them back because they find other causes to help at. Volunteers include teachers and mentors. How many teams have left FIRST and returned? Very few.

[IndySam]

I do get a little tired with the whats fair and teams having advantages discussion.

I learned a long time ago that FIRST isn't fair and never will be. There will always be teams with huge advantages over others. Some will always have more money, more experience, more mentors, and ..........

The only way to make it fair would be to make all teams play to the lowest common denominator and nobody wants that.

I think what we need to concentrate on is will be new system better than the current way FIRST does things. It would be nice to have some definable metrics to go with.

The other thing is will this be portable to other parts of the country or if it works well does it need to be how everyone does it?

If the leaders in Michigan can raise the money to make it cheaper for teams to compete then good for them. Other states or groups should seek to do the same thing not put MI down for what they accomplished.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy"

I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". These teams have money, have build shops and have the means to ALWAYS produce a great robot in 6 weeks. What does this do for them?....very little. Now, on the flip side, half the teams in the state have barely enough resources to play at one event in 2008. In 2009, every team will now get to play twice, and will have 3 times as much field time as in the past for a lower price. This has almost no benefit for the rich teams, they already have the cash to play as many times as they want, but this will make a world of difference for many who can not currently afford to expand their involvement.

Now look at how this will actually hurt the elite. It is a well documented fact that the more a team plays, the better they get. If you don't believe this, look at the OPR value growth on any team across multiple events. The trend is almost universally in the positive direction. This is why many senior teams try to play as many times as possible. In 2008 there were only 5 teams from Michigan that played at 3 regionals. In 2009, there will effectively be over 60 teams who can make this claim. There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!

Don't worry Jim, no one with even a small amount of intelligence would believe you would orchestrate such a massive overhaul just for personal gain.... And this is coming from someone who doesn't exactly agree with this pilot program (well, not the program, but it's lack of publicly stated measures of success).

[J@GMFlint]

Originally Posted by Steve W

FIRST does read these threads. FIRST chooses not to respond. FIRST does not care what you or I think. FIRST has come to think of themselves as untouchable. FIRST counts on their volunteers to make things work yet keeps them all in the dark as long as they can. The problem is that volunteers have the choice to continue or not. When they leave you do not get them back because they find other causes to help at. Volunteers include teachers and mentors. How many teams have left FIRST and returned? Very few.

This is of GREAT concern. You make a valid point Steve. FIRST, at least in appearance, seems to gradually be taking the outstanding volunteer, corporate and collegiate support for granted to where the support has become more of an expectation. (There were some VERY disappointed schools and scholarship winners at the 2008 CMP!)

Some of this is probably because of how large FIRST has become so fast. I know we used to get bored at some of the old speeches at events, but they at least showed that they cared and openly recognized the importance of the volunteer base. At least we could feel good before we dozed off... As Volunteers, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the folks involved are also involved in other organizations outside of FIRST and after the good-byes are done, would be full bore into another worthy cause with FIRST being but a chapter.

FIRST as a whole cannot afford to lose, alienate, or ostracize any of its quality people or even start down that path, because you are right, once a team folds, they're pretty much done. However, Volunteers can and often do move on and pop up somewhere else, often starting new teams. I wonder how many new teams came from off-shoots or folded teams with an experienced volunteer or two at the helm? I can think of more than a few in my local area, 1243 included.

HOPEFULLY FIRST IS PAYING ATTENTION!!

Back to Michigan...

This announcement has been out for about 15 days now, and given the concerns being raised, I would think someone at FIRST or FiM would at least organize a call before people begin to develop more, or deeper resentments to this plan, (or toward one another) based on what could be partial facts, speculation or just simple misunderstandings.

Do "They" merit a thousand lashes with a wet pool noodle? Well... probably at least a few for this whole silent approach and for the appearance thus far of not having a representative cross-section involved in the planning. But, we don't know any of this for sure- because of their silence. Hopefully they will soon present a decent reason, or at least their logic (flawed or not in our opinions) and we can move into the next phase of change.

What we DO know is that a group of very well-intentioned FIRST Volunteers put a whole lot of time into developing a competition structure to help elevate FIRST. How they arrived at this... I'm sure we'll find out - IF FIRST or FiM steps up, realizes that the approach/roll out was miscalculated, removes the gag order, and facilitates open discussion I'm thinking the hot-button things will work out, or at least that anything totally unbearable can be worked out... afterall isn't this kind of problem-solving part of what we are supposed to be teaching and learning?

The genie is already out of the bottle, time to deal with what we've got before it starts to get out of hand.

FIRST ARE YOU LISTENING??

[JaneYoung]

I've worked with different FIRST staff members over the past couple of years and they care. Very much.

Bashing FIRST or making demands for FIRST staff to respond in the CD fora is not a great way to expect a response.

There are fora set up in the FIRST website. That might be a place for consideration when addressing FIRST concerns/questions in general.

Or create a different thread to address FIRST concerns, separate from this Michigan initiative, for discussion among the CD members. It doesn't make any sense to me for Michigan to be drug through needless mud or fire when folks can air or vent their general views regarding FIRST somewhere else without causing harm or hurt feelings with the folks of Michigan.

As to this thread, Michigan has created a process and a plan. They apparently have a strong basis/foundation of support in order to implement this plan. It is not perfected but it has a solid beginning or these community leaders would not be moving forth with it.

Maybe/perhaps other regional areas/states/countries are ready today, August 14, 2008, to implement a similar plan. My bet would be it takes some time to make something like this happen, getting organized and ready to move forward.

[fuzzy1718]

Jim I wasn't talking about the teams, I ment the leaders and mentors of the old teams and those who have just been invovled with FIRST for a long time. On a side note when someone says something don't jump to a conclusion based on previous posts. I also didn't mean to come across as blameing them for deliberately creating a structure for pesonal gain. I know that MOST people involved wouldn't do that. Just the fact that it was such a small group involved and knowing how things in FIRST seem to get done (although nothing is ever made public so I can only guess) it was most likley the same old group of people. By having the same group of people not everyone was represented. By not having everyone represented it appears in my mind to be unintentionaly made to favor certain teams, once again NOT ON PURPOSE, BUT BY ACCIDENT due to a common point of view. After reading an e-mail from a friend of yours some of that isn't true, but regardless everyone still needs to have a say in fixing the problems not just a select few.
As far as the rich getting richer comment, those are not my words they are someone eleses a few pages back, neither he (I think) nor I ment it in terms of money but rather who qualifies for states and who wins districts. The advantages are there, you just have to look at it from the flip side.
That being said, the "tone" of my last post was without a doubt deliberate, due to the fact that it is easier to understand what a person is saying when they are angry with you. Am I against the new system no, it just needs to be tweaked. If you ask for more than you actually want/need then you will get what you actually wanted/needed.

fuzzy

P.S. If anything Jim I'm the leftist radical in most minds and I'm fine with that.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Just the fact that it was such a small group involved and knowing how things in FIRST seem to get done (although nothing is ever made public so I can only guess) it was most likley the same old group of people. By having the same group of people not everyone was represented.

I agree 100%. Everyone should have a voice in how this program is run, not just the people with the most experience and the greatest insight on how to run a program. After all, everyone has an opinion.

If I had to choose a group to determine programmatic direction, I would certainly select a balanced group of people who have lots of experience, and people who do not -- to ensure everyone gets the chance to put their stink on things. Every opinion carries equal weight. Right?

-John

[Rich Kressly]

In the interest of clarity and in taking Jane's point to heart, let me start by saying that this announcement basically sparks two conversations - and rightfully so.

Conversation 1 - How this affects Michigan teams, FIRST in MI this year, FIRST in MI in the future.

I stated earlier that it appears that this kind of structure fits a place like MI fairly well because of the number of teams and the strong volunteer base of committed people like you, Jim. However, it would appear from reading here (and from looking at a map) that in places like Western Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, the new structure may actually cost teams more money and headaches than what they are used to. Is there any way to come up with a mileage/travel formula to help these teams out? Is there any way to grant exclusions on a geographic case-by-case basis? Does MI have grant funds to subsidize travel for those most affected by this "mandatory" change?

Conversation 2 - How it affects people and teams in all of FIRST now and in the future.

Personally, I'm having a real hard time swallowing a few things every time I read the pdf announcement Dave linked to as well as the FAQ. It has nothing to do with teams and volunteers like you, Jim. I applaud all of your heroic efforts to make a new FRC system work in your area. As you stated, some things get done at a "board level" that none of us get to know about. We're all just the poor schleps that need to turn our lives upside down to make it all work.
A. This announcement assumes that the way to help solve the STEM crisis in the country is by creating as many FRC teams and events as possible. While this can be part of the equation, it's a little disingenuous for anyone to state that there is a determination "...to assist the national goal by establishing FIRST high-school robotics programs in 15% of the public schools in the US by 2012." ... and in the same statement purposefully ignore Michigan FTC team numbers. If I'm a Michigan FTC team I'm part of FIRST but I can't compete in MI, nor am I recognized by this wonderful new entity that supposedly wants to solve the STEM crisis in my state and nationally. Come on! This sends a very uneasy message all across the country IMHO. When I think about STEM and the need in our nation and I think about how this pilot might roll out to the rest of us in the future, I shudder at the thought of exhausting energies solely in one direction when smaller robotics platforms achieve the exact same goal in oh so many ways.
B. Which brings me to my next thought. I've spent a little time "working" for FIRST as a senior mentor, so I put on my "FIRST hat" just to think about how I might apply this kind of system to my own state in the future. The only answer I can honestly come up with is, "I can't and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to discuss it with my RD." PA doesn't have nearly enough FRC teams and has a huge black hole in the middle of the state (Harrisburg is barely an FRC infant). Simply put, there's just no way to make this work well in my state at any time in the foreseeable future and if my state is ever asked to implement such a structure for FRC, we'd almost be forced to abandon that "other high school program that's already growing" to try and get it done as key volunteers can only do so much in a year. So I thought, "If not in PA, where else could this work?" California? New England if you combine states? NY/NJ with REALLY small events? In no way do I see this FRC system being "scalable" as the announcement alludes to and I shudder to think what might happen if this Michigan model gets rolled out to the rest of the country after it's a success - because I know it will be in some ways just because of the Jim Zondag's of the world.
C. Does creating more FRC teams and more importantly, more plays per team, necessarily translate into more students pursuing STEM careers? No, not necessarily. We all have had times with our FRC teams where some students who would have been great to have on board, but they just wouldn't commit the time to the huge FRC animal or maybe they were intimidated by it. Personally, I currently have four students in my robotics program all of whom got themselves into summer engineering camps at universities on their own. They now want to be engineers more than ever (two weren't even considering it before Dawgma came into their lives) and none of them would have ever been involved if it weren't for FVC/FTC.
D. How about the shipping and other rules differences? Can these be applied to all teams regardless of competition structure? If not, why not?

Moving forward, I think it's especially critical that we all keep our eyes on the real ball here - the individual student and truly working at that critical STEM need in the most efficient way possible. Many of them might not even give a crap how many "official" events they go to, who knows? I'm especially concerned that given no publicly stated goals or "success measurement criteria" for the pilot that this is a system that could be forced upon the rest of us by those "board decisions" someday.

Namaste, Michigan FRC teams, mentors, and volunteers. Keep going to make this experiment the best it can be in Michigan. There are positives to learn about for the rest of the FRC world - like streamlining inspections, lowering shipping costs/hassles, lowering registration costs (even by $1,000 as Ken's numbers show). However, let's be cautionary as to how we think about this for the entire FIRST community and why we really do what we do.

If we concentrate too much on the competitions, the league, the number of plays, and which robot wins and how they qualify I bet we'll be the next great American experiment gone wrong - just like the majority of high school sports programs and their "fans". Weren't these programs at one time in our culture's history supposed to help teach everyone about "life" much the same way FIRST does now?

I feel better having put all of that out in the open, please take no personal offense. I'm as passionate about achieving FIRST's real mission and promoting its ideals as everyone else here. Rest assured I get up every day with those ideals in mind and I try to live my life accordingly, just like so many of you who have done this way longer than I have.

-Rich

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by JVN

I agree 100%. Everyone should have a voice in how this program is run, not just the people with the most experience and the greatest insight on how to run a program. After all, everyone has an opinion.

If I had to choose a group to determine programmatic direction, I would certainly select a balanced group of people who have lots of experience, and people who do not -- to ensure everyone gets the chance to put their stink on things. Every opinion carries equal weight. Right?

-John

I believe Fuzzy might be more concerned not with granting spots on the planning committee to the "proletariat" commoner teams unfamilar with such dealings, but instead in seeing that those "in the know" teams and officials sought out sufficient input from numerous teams across the Michigan landscape who were not a part of the planning. Perhaps he is suggesting there should have been/should still be a series of "town hall meetings" that might have led to realizations such as "Oh fudge, we never thought that this plan as it is constructed might be problematic for Upper Peninsula teams," for example?

If such input was not openly sought from "the masses" during the development process, then I feel some of his concerns (and those of others) have merit, regardless of the abrupt way in which they were publicly communicated.

But I'm just a *lowly* Ohio State Buckeye fan....who am I to suggest what people from Michigan think?

[fuzzy1718]

You nailed what I ment right on the nose. I don't think that there was much info sought out from the masses, some but not much. Hey I wasn't invovled with the planning, no one in my area was invovled, so I can't be considered a creaditable source. From the sound of things very few were asked for input though. It would be nice if someone who was involved would come forward and say who was a part of the planning.

As far as the way I said things, it got all you guys to read it didn't it.
Best way to deal with a politician, make them mad enough to trip over there own words, so you can actualy find out what they are saying. Since everyone I have talked to about the subject has acted like a politician and side stepped my questions. Why not use the same tactics.

Fuzzy

Sorry not everyone side stepped, one person said he helped with the point system, and I thank him for answering fully and not dancing around.