Lessons Learned - The Negative

[Gary Fields]

[quote=EricH;852427]There were. If the practice fields were being run as practice rounds, then I think FIRST made the biggest mistake ever. (<G14> not excepted.)[/QUOTE

FIRST tried something new this year, wireless control of the robots on the practice field. In years past robots were required to be tethered.

The wireless operations required having set practiced rounds, and safety required not having people on the field while the robots were moving....It does not require a lot of thought to realize that you don't want people to get hit by a 130lb robot going full speed down the field. I don't know about you, but it is not worth getting hit, to make an adjustment. To get a prospective on how dangerous the practice fields were, more trailers were damaged on the 2 practice fields, than were damaged in competition on all 5 fields.

I for one, because of all the comments made here, and comments, abuse, and the non-GP treatment that was given practice field volunteers, am going to recommend that FIRST goes back to the all robots must be tethered while on the practice field.

Please remember the volunteers were running the fields as they were instructed. Ask yourself.....Did you treat those volunteers as you would have liked to be treated? I witnessed on more than one occasion mentors verbally abusing the volunteers running the fields. This should be unacceptable to all of us. Instead of criticizing the volunteers you should be thanking them!

To illustrate some of the non-GP actions....While repairing one of the trailers on the Curie/Archimedes practice field I set down a wrench, & a socket wrench (My own tools.) on the sign up table. A volunteer was dealing with a mentor, and need my help to answer a question. Turned around to pick them up less than a minute later, and they were gone.

I hope that all of you who found time to criticize how the practice fields were run, will find time to volunteer at a practice field next year.

[BurtGummer]

I don't think people are complaining about how they were run by volunteers. We are talking about not having a field were we could just test stuff on the regolith without having to sign up for a match. We know it isn't the volunteers fault....it was the organization by FIRST. Not having a regolith surface available for testing like at regionals was a big mistake.

I brought a 100 foot ethernet cable because i thought there would be a practice area where they would be required to be tethered.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Gary Fields

FIRST tried something new this year, wireless control of the robots on the practice field. In years past robots were required to be tethered.

I guess one of the problems was that the teams didn't know that ahead of time....

Maybe there could be one wireless practice field, and one tethered? As long as it's described ahead of time, I think teams could adapt.

[EricH]

Gary, I wasn't even AT the Championships this year. In the past and at the regionals, it's been, bring a tether and join the line/get a block of time. It shouldn't require a lot of thought to realize that teams might want the regional practice field setup, not a setup that is Thursday every day when something just needs a minor software tweak and repeatability testing. That's what I'm calling a mistake.

Steve, when does FIRST change your status from "rookie" to veteran? Right after the Championship, right, at least officially? I.e., at the end of the season? So, logically, the year begins in late April. Therefore, summer counts.

But when does the "rookie" status begin? That is a tough question. When you sign up as an FRC team? Then you have a wide spread of time for rookies to get something going. When registration opens, all teams that haven't competed before are rookies? That would be more fair, but then you have a gap of several months with no rookies, only "pre-rookies". Right after Championship, when the previous rookies are now veterans (sophomore-type)? That makes more sense, but they're still "pre-rookies" all through the summer.

It's a tough call, and not one I'd want to make.

Brian, the trailers weren't assigned to an individual team and were also scored on when no robot was attached. They were neutral; the only time they counted was in a given zone. I'm not quite sure that counts.

[Steve_Alaniz]

Originally Posted by EricH

Steve, when does FIRST change your status from "rookie" to veteran? Right after the Championship, right, at least officially? I.e., at the end of the season? So, logically, the year begins in late April. Therefore, summer counts.

But when does the "rookie" status begin? That is a tough question. When you sign up as an FRC team? Then you have a wide spread of time for rookies to get something going. When registration opens, all teams that haven't competed before are rookies? That would be more fair, but then you have a gap of several months with no rookies, only "pre-rookies". Right after Championship, when the previous rookies are now veterans (sophomore-type)? That makes more sense, but they're still "pre-rookies" all through the summer.

It's a tough call, and not one I'd want to make.

Eric,
No according to FIRST a rookie is a team that is competing in their first SEASON with FIRST and the SEASON, as defined BY FIRST, starts at kickoff. SO logically it cannot stretch back to the previous April. You are a rookie in the same way baseball players are rookies... until the start of the next season. But the in between time is undefined as far as I can tell.
I agree with you it is confusing and that is part of the problem and exactly what I was trying to say. It's definitely a tough call to make and you make some very valid points that highlight that confusion.
I must also admit that this whole thing may just be Bad writing on the part of Woodie's speech writer. Perhaps only the season was considered by the judges.
I nitpick when it comes to wording. Let's just call it a bad habit.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Steve_Alaniz

You are a rookie in the same way baseball players are rookies... until the start of the next season. But the in between time is undefined as far as I can tell.
I agree with you it is confusing and that is part of the problem and exactly what I was trying to say. It's definitely a tough call to make and you make some very valid points that highlight that confusion.
I must also admit that this whole thing may just be Bad writing on the part of Woodie's speech writer. Perhaps only the season was considered by the judges.
I nitpick when it comes to wording. Let's just call it a bad habit.

Poor analogy, Steve, due to having to play x games to not be a rookie in MLB (i.e., if you have to play 70 MLB games to be a non-rookie, then you can play 68, get injured, and still get Rookie of the Year the next year.) But I'll take it at face value--you're a rookie until your second season or declared otherwise.

I also have that habit, so no comment there.

And yeah, it is very confusing. Let's say that a team goes through 4 stages. It may not go through all of them, but here they are, along with an approximate timeframe:

1. Pre-rookie. Did not compete in FRC the previous year, it's their first year coming up, and the season hasn't started. For simplicity, they become rookies on Kickoff, though they have a number previously.
2. Rookie. Kickoff through Championship/other final official event of the season. Please note: EVERY year that I can remember, Dean or Woodie tells the rookies for the year that they are now veterans at some point during award ceremonies.
3. Sophomore-class. Starts right after the Rookie status ends and continues for a year or two. (Years end at Championship now.)
4. Veteran. 3+ years under their belts.

Note that it's easy to jump stages; I would count 2753 as sophomore-class after they won NJ, and a full veteran now. Most other teams their age would be sophomore-class right now.

The problem is that FIRST doesn't define exactly when a team goes between pre-rookie and rookie, effectively. They also don't use the full spread, confining themselves to 2 and 4.

If you start as a pre-rookie after it's completely impossible to get into the event, anything after you start is fair game in my book.

[Carol]

I think it is interesting that this forum, Lessons Learned - Negative, now has 10 pages of posts whereas Lessons Learned - Positive has three pages. I challenge everyone who has posted here to go to the Postiive forum and post there as well.

(Including me)

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Carol

I think it is interesting that this forum, Lessons Learned - Negative, now has 10 pages of posts whereas Lessons Learned - Positive has three pages. I challenge everyone who has posted here to go to the Postiive forum and post there as well.

(Including me)

This brings me back to a discussion me, Chuck Glick, Jessi Kaestle and Brian Stempin had at the Spaghetti Warehouse after the Philadelphia Regional.
We were talking all things FIRST (as us FIRST-aholics always do) and Brian made a very interesting observation. Every one of us just brought up negative aspects about FIRST from people we've dealt with, teams we put up with and the way FIRST is run in general. Not one positive thought was said. We didn't even realize it.
As Brain pointed out that why he no longer bothers with CD because it's become a negative bitter place. I notice that FIRST in general has that element. There's an ugly undercurrent of anger and resentment in FIRST. Towards people, towards teams, towards FIRST itself and no one team is above the behavior or immune to it. We are all guilty of it. That's why I personally dislike the term Gracious Professionalism because it's being used as a measuring tool when no one has shown they have the right to pass judgment on other around here (me included). It reminds me of a term from the bible "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We should all be dropping those stones right now.
One reason is people expect quality and therefore see no reason to compliment it but will complain bitterly when they feel wronged in any way shape or form. It's real easy to say we should check ourselves, behave better and so and so forth but complaints also change whatever flaws are out there (acting like it's not happening will not solve the problem) and if you keep what's bothering you inside it's not good for you physically and you'll just leave FIRST out of frustration anyways due to your overall dissatisfaction with the program. So not complaining is not an answer either.
I just think we need to step back and take a little perspective that's all.
Maybe everyone who has posted here should take a moment and post something in the positive thread too. There had to be something you liked about FIRST this year or else you all would have left a long time ago.

[martin417]

One reason this thread may be so long is that people are posting multiple times, arguing over a particular statement. While it is easy to argue with a negative statement, arguing over a positive one is less so.

[Mr MOE]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

This brings me back to a discussion me, Chuck Glick, Jessi Kaestle and Brian Stempin had at the Spaghetti Warehouse after the Philadelphia Regional.
We were talking all things FIRST (as us FIRST-aholics always do) and Brian made a very interesting observation. Every one of us just brought up negative aspects about FIRST from people we've dealt with, teams we put up with and the way FIRST is run in general. Not one positive thought was said. We didn't even realize it.
As Brain pointed out that why he no longer bothers with CD because it's become a negative bitter place. I notice that FIRST in general has that element. There's an ugly undercurrent of anger and resentment in FIRST. Towards people, towards teams, towards FIRST itself and no one team is above the behavior or immune to it. We are all guilty of it. That's why I personally dislike the term Gracious Professionalism because it's being used as a measuring tool when no one has shown they have the right to pass judgment on other around here (me included). It reminds me of a term from the bible "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We should all be dropping those stones right now.
One reason is people expect quality and therefore see no reason to compliment it but will complain bitterly when they feel wronged in any way shape or form. It's real easy to say we should check ourselves, behave better and so and so forth but complaints also change whatever flaws are out there (acting like it's not happening will not solve the problem) and if you keep what's bothering you inside it's not good for you physically and you'll just leave FIRST out of frustration anyways due to your overall dissatisfaction with the program. So not complaining is not an answer either.
I just think we need to step back and take a little perspective that's all.
Maybe everyone who has posted here should take a moment and post something in the positive thread too. There had to be something you liked about FIRST this year or else you all would have left a long time ago.

Totally agree and guilty as charged. I wanted to make sure I posted in both posts (positive and negative) with feedback. One comment on the Negative feedback, as opposed to simply listing all the negatives, be prepared to share how you would turn each negative around to make it a positive. It's easy to knock something, but much more challenging to suggest alternatives that result in lasting improvements.

Also, if you go through this thread, you will have commonality over a few key topics. If I would be working for FIRST and looking at this thread to make improvements, these common issues are those that I would target. Some of these are low-hanging fruit and others would take some time and effort to implement.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

This brings me back to a discussion me, Chuck Glick, Jessi Kaestle and Brian Stempin had at the Spaghetti Warehouse after the Philadelphia Regional.
We were talking all things FIRST (as us FIRST-aholics always do) and Brian made a very interesting observation. Every one of us just brought up negative aspects about FIRST from people we've dealt with, teams we put up with and the way FIRST is run in general. Not one positive thought was said. We didn't even realize it.
As Brain pointed out that why he no longer bothers with CD because it's become a negative bitter place. I notice that FIRST in general has that element. There's an ugly undercurrent of anger and resentment in FIRST. Towards people, towards teams, towards FIRST itself and no one team is above the behavior or immune to it. We are all guilty of it. That's why I personally dislike the term Gracious Professionalism because it's being used as a measuring tool when no one has shown they have the right to pass judgment on other around here (me included). It reminds me of a term from the bible "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We should all be dropping those stones right now.
One reason is people expect quality and therefore see no reason to compliment it but will complain bitterly when they feel wronged in any way shape or form. It's real easy to say we should check ourselves, behave better and so and so forth but complaints also change whatever flaws are out there (acting like it's not happening will not solve the problem) and if you keep what's bothering you inside it's not good for you physically and you'll just leave FIRST out of frustration anyways due to your overall dissatisfaction with the program. So not complaining is not an answer either.
I just think we need to step back and take a little perspective that's all.
Maybe everyone who has posted here should take a moment and post something in the positive thread too. There had to be something you liked about FIRST this year or else you all would have left a long time ago.

The plight of the engineer is that he is never satisfied with what is, and he is always thinking of what could be. He applies this to his work, and also to other aspects of his life. But where metal, wires, and electrons don't complain when perfection is demanded of them, people do.

This is unfortunately a distinction that not all engineers can recognize, and I think it's at least one of the factors at play here.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Carol

I think it is interesting that this forum, Lessons Learned - Negative, now has 10 pages of posts whereas Lessons Learned - Positive has three pages. I challenge everyone who has posted here to go to the Postiive forum and post there as well.

(Including me)

"It's easier to criticize than to create!"

To be fair, a significant number of posts were responses to criticisms. I do agree with Cory, though: There's too much whining with not enough suggestions for improvements!

[Mr MOE]

Going back to the main point of this thread...

* Too much human player scoring.

* Practice field set-up could be much better.

* No match video in the pit. Some team members hardly get out of the pit. It would be nice if they could see some matches too.

* No opening ceremonies video on the DaVinci Field side of the dome. I know why it was done (to get everyone to come to the other side). However, for those teams that got up early to secure seats, team members needed to stay in the seats and could not see the opening ceremonies.

* Country flags blocking the view of spectators in the upper section to the left of Einstein (while looking at the field). We could not see the main screen at all and totally missed Dave V.'s Top 10 list.

* It would be nice to see the names/teams of the recipients of the FIRST scholarships on the big screen at all the fields.

* I know this is the pink elephant in the dome, but I thought that Dean's closing ceremony speech sucked a great deal of energy out of the dome. The message was too long and too repetitive. I understand his intent and absolutely agree with it, but the message delivery was off, in my opinion.

* Closing video was overlooked, everyone was running out to get plates so they had something to put food on at the Wrap Party. This was a good video and people spent lots of effort putting it together. It's a shame not many people got a chance to see it.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Mr MOE

* I know this is the pink elephant in the dome, but I thought that Dean's closing ceremony speech sucked a great deal of energy out of the dome. The message was too long and too repetitive. I understand his intent and absolutely agree with it, but the message delivery was off, in my opinion.

Thank you for mentioning this. I feel the exact same way. Getting a 22 minute address (yep, timed it) after three days of intense competition and little sleep completely derails the adrenaline-fueled enthusiasm of the crowd.

There has to be a better compromise between getting the message across, and remembering that Atlanta is a celebration of all of our hard work. Yes, even engineers get to celebrate.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Thank you for mentioning this. I feel the exact same way. Getting a 22 minute address (yep, timed it) after three days of intense competition and little sleep completely derails the adrenaline-fueled enthusiasm of the crowd.

There has to be a better compromise between getting the message across, and remembering that Atlanta is a celebration of all of our hard work. Yes, even engineers get to celebrate.

I've given up hope of this getting fixed because every year it's brought up it seems the response is "Oh you guys don't like the speeches? OK we'll do more!"