Kettering Results from Week 2

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

...is there any data on...

I'd be EXTREMELY interested to see any data of this type. Quantitative comparisons of the "new FIRST" vs the "old FIRST" interest me significantly more than opinions like "Dude, the event ran great!".

If none of this data exists, that would cause me to question exactly who is evaluating FiM, and how they are doing it. After all, that is the answer we were given when this program was leaked/announced: "This is an evaluation". I seem to remember one of the concerns voiced back then was that this would be a sham evaluation and the program would be declared a success regardless of what happens.

No Data = No Due Diligence?

-John

[Herodotus]

John and Ken, I think you both have valid points about data, and I would also like to see data of this type being released by FiM. However, I'd also say that simply how the teams felt about the competition is as important, as well as how inspired the students were. It's hard to objectively measure satisfaction and inspiration.

The two most important competitions to watch in regards to collecting data and making comparisons will be Detroit and West Michigan. These two events are still being held at the same venue, as far as I know, so you can make a comparison between new and old FIRST while maintaining the venue as a constant.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

Apologies in advance for such a long post...

...

(2) This issue was already raised by another competitor, but I think there was at least the appearance of favoritism on the playing field. A team had a DS problem at the very beginning of eliminations, and it was announced that it was a DS problem (a team problem) as opposed to a field problem. Several minutes went by while this problem was being worked on and eventually resolved. No timeout was taken. In the finals, this same team had a problem at the beginning of match1, and at that time a timeout was taken. An extension cord was run out onto the field from under the scorer's table in order to allow the team to power up their DS so they could run a motor on their robot. I thought this was going too far.

In summary, I am thankful for the cost savings, but worried that the so-called "new FIRST" is diverging from "old FIRST" in an unsupervised fashion that may not be following the rules/guidelines/philosophy of FIRST. I think more should be done to maintain consistency and transparency.

Respectfully submitted,
Ken

At GLR last year, late in the eliminations, a laptop battery ran down as a team was loading code, which rendered them useless. An extention cord was run from under the scorer's table (with FTA permission) to power the laptop and get the code loaded. My team had seeded in a ten-way tie for second on QP, but ended up eleventh on RP. We didn't get picked, but were first in the que for back-up robot. I didn't see that action as giving the appearance of anything, other than an example of cooperation and fair play. As a matter of fact, I was the one who ran and got the extension from our pits for them to use.

IMO, there is no "Old FIRST" nor "New FIRST", only the same FIRST that preaches coopetition. I hope that FiM continues to practice what they preach, rather than harden their hearts for fear of it being perceived as them playing favorites.

[IKE]

Possible suggestion for a district event:

Lighting. I liked that the lighting was the same for the pits and field during competition. I think this made it easier for teams to tune in their cameras. For awards I would have liked to have seen it turned down. With the team reps down on the floor, there should be less of a tripping hazard, and I think it adds a formal touch to the event. I am OK with the Robot Competition being a bit less dramatic, but the awards ceremony should have some intentional pomp to it.