Another Culture Change

[Elliot191]

Originally Posted by Cory

Why should you not want to win?

Why do we celebrate mediocrity as a culture?

Why do we look down on people who have competitive drive?

FIRST is a lot of things, but at it's heart it is a robotics competition. When we are at a competition we're there to win. There's a lot of other great things we get out of the actual competition like meeting other teams, learning about other teams robots, etc, but it IS a competition and if you aren't there to compete and try to win, why bother?

A desire to be the best you can at everything you do should be what all teams strive to teach their students, in my not so humble opinion.

This comment saddens me. What many people are failing to see is that the competition is a byproduct of the mission of FIRST. To even question why a team would build a robot for anything other than competition, who to imply that every team should be driven by an insatiable need for winning is feeding into the attitudes which FIRST is against.

Let me reiterate. It's not about the competition. FIRST is simply about spreading interest in science and technology . the competition is a byproduct, one of many tools employed by the organization. But competition is not at the heart. If a team builds a robot to field, even builds a robot that won't move, they've all won, because they are all taking part in the solution. If a group is working to inspire students to go into science and technology, then how they do in the competition is dust in the wind, because it's the building and long hours to accomplish a collective goal that are going to stick with them, not the scores of their 3rd qualifying match at FLR.

Also, how can you imply that if a team isn't winning, they are mediocre? any person involved in building a FIRST robot is far from mediocre. The advanced systems, design techniques, teamwork etc. is far from what society would consider mediocre.

That being said, I'd love to win. Anybody would. But in the long run, winning and losing are the same thing. At the end of the day, every team in FRC has accomplished something amazing in the sculpting of the next generation of leaders.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Elliot191

This comment saddens me. What many people are failing to see is that the competition is a byproduct of the mission of FIRST. To even question why a team would build a robot for anything other than competition, who to imply that every team should be driven by an insatiable need for winning is feeding into the attitudes which FIRST is against.

Let me reiterate. It's not about the competition. FIRST is simply about spreading interest in science and technology . the competition is a byproduct, one of many tools employed by the organization. But competition is not at the heart. If a team builds a robot to field, even builds a robot that won't move, they've all won, because they are all taking part in the solution. If a group is working to inspire students to go into science and technology, then how they do in the competition is dust in the wind, because it's the building and long hours to accomplish a collective goal that are going to stick with them, not the scores of their 3rd qualifying match at FLR.

Also, how can you imply that if a team isn't winning, they are mediocre? any person involved in building a FIRST robot is far from mediocre. The advanced systems, design techniques, teamwork etc. is far from what society would consider mediocre.

That being said, I'd love to win. Anybody would. But in the long run, winning and losing are the same thing. At the end of the day, every team in FRC has accomplished something amazing in the sculpting of the next generation of leaders.

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I specifically said when AT the competition, we are there to win, because it is indeed a competition.

I never said that the whole point of our team is to win. Those are two totally different things.

[CassCity2081]

Originally Posted by Cory

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I specifically said when AT the competition, we are there to win, because it is indeed a competition.

I never said that the whole point of our team is to win. Those are two totally different things.

I have to agree here. FIRST is a great organization that has had an amazing impact on most of our lives. We are all familiar with FIRST's real message.

On that note, we are still at a competition and should not settle for anything other than our best. Just because a team wants to win a regional or see themselves on Einstein doesnt mean that they have missed the true message of FIRST.

[Elliot191]

Originally Posted by Cory

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I specifically said when AT the competition, we are there to win, because it is indeed a competition.

I never said that the whole point of our team is to win. Those are two totally different things.

You also specifically said that FIRST was at it's heart a robotics competition.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Elliot191

You also specifically said that FIRST was at it's heart a robotics competition.

That's because it is, hence the name FIRST Robotics Competition.

[Elliot191]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

That's because it is, hence the name FIRST Robotics Competition.

FRC is a division of FIRST in which we participate. It's not the mission. Like i said, the competition is a byproduct of the mission. FIRST-For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. No where do i see the word competition.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Elliot191

FRC is a division of FIRST in which we participate. It's not the mission. Like i said, the competition is a byproduct of the mission. FIRST-For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. No where do i see the word competition.

Okay, FRC Team instead of FIRST Team then. He used the term interchangeably and the argument about terminology is kind of pedantic.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Elliot191

FRC is a division of FIRST in which we participate. It's not the mission. Like i said, the competition is a byproduct of the mission. FIRST-For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. No where do i see the word competition.

FRC: the C in FRC is competition.


Competition doesn't mean rudeness, though. I certainly don't see that mentioned anywhere!

[Elliot191]

FIRST existed before its competitions did. And it will continue to exist after they end. To say that competition is at the center of FIRST is to completely overlook all of the other things they do to inspire students.

[JVN]

So back to the topic...
Can we change the culture within FIRST to where it is no longer okay to make mean remarks about a team on YouTube just because you're jealous of them?

How can we teach teams to use their jealousy to raise the bar instead of try to lower the ceiling?

How do we instill a culture of professionalism?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JVN

So back to the topic...
Can we change the culture within FIRST to where it is no longer okay to make mean remarks about a team on YouTube just because you're jealous of them?

How can we teach teams to use their jealousy to raise the bar instead of try to lower the ceiling?

How do we instill a culture of professionalism?

Can we? I certainly hope so, and think so.

But how? Well, we could respond to every post/comment with a "You don't know the team, please withhold this type of judgment until you do" or some similar device. But that can also make us look bad.

Could we simply ignore actions and comments like that? NO. We cannot afford to. If ignored, they will get worse. Sometimes it might work--but only if the person is a troll looking for a response.

What we can do is to respond appropriately to actions and comments of that form: Invite those making those comments to join us for a while, or ask if we can work with them for a time--the remainder of the event, or a build week(end), or as long as they like, as long as necessary or until one or both decide that differences are irreconcilable. Maybe even trade a few members for a short time, or arrange for the experience to happen with another similar "powerhouse" team. Fight fire with water, if you will. This works especially well if the team making the invitation is the team that has been accused/badmouthed, etc., but may also work for a similar-level team.

If a team opts to accept that offer, ideally both teams benefit. One more team wants to be like the powerhouse, which keeps the powerhouse innovating and the level of competition climbing. One more team "gets it". Two teams become friends. Ideas are exchanged. Teams are exposed to some of the inner workings of other teams.

If a team opts to decline the offer, OTOH, then that's their choice. There isn't a limit to how many times the offer can be extended.

All teams should be reminded of <G60>: Be civil while in the arena. You can't be penalized for off-field actions in a match, but you can be held accountable by field personnel. (paraphrased) I would also say that other teams may help said field personnel in some cases. I'm not going to suggest any methods, but there are a few that could be employed, most of them less than gracious and/or taking way too long to implement (i.e. multiple years instead of weeks/months/one year).

[Taylor]

Although I don't think it applies, the metaphor of athletics is constantly applied to FRC.
So I'll go with that.
If an athlete is very talented/skilled/athletic, people instantly assume that athlete is on steroids/HGH/blood doping. This is so pervasive, it goes outside the traditional popular sports into auto racing, bicycling, even horses and dogs. It doesn't stop at professional sports - think of the East German women swimmers or Chinese gymnasts at their respective Olympic games.
Robots don't have steroids. Thorough inspections certify that. The fallback kneejerk reaction is Adults.
It has been ingrained in us all that every great drama must have a villain. "You're either with us or you're against us." "If you're with us, then you're against them." "If you like A, then you must hate B." Sports are built around rivalries - Packers vs. Vikes, Sox vs. Yanks, Buckeyes vs. Wolverines. To be a fan of your team, you must hate the opponents.
It is critical to our continued growth and success to recognize, and to make others realize, THERE ARE NO OPPONENTS. In the qualifications, alliance partners are (sort of) random. In the eliminations, there are only the good and the other good. We're all part of the same team - it's sometimes called Team Kamen, sometimes called Team Flowers.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by EricH

What we can do is to respond appropriately to actions and comments of that form: Invite those making those comments to join us for a while, or ask if we can work with them for a time--the remainder of the event, or a build week(end), or as long as they like, as long as necessary or until one or both decide that differences are irreconcilable. Maybe even trade a few members for a short time, or arrange for the experience to happen with another similar "powerhouse" team. Fight fire with water, if you will. This works especially well if the team making the invitation is the team that has been accused/badmouthed, etc., but may also work for a similar-level team.

If a team opts to accept that offer, ideally both teams benefit. One more team wants to be like the powerhouse, which keeps the powerhouse innovating and the level of competition climbing. One more team "gets it". Two teams become friends. Ideas are exchanged. Teams are exposed to some of the inner workings of other teams.

Not that any of the "powerhouse" teams would not take up such a proposal, but why should they have to?? We're now saying that on top of everything else most of these teams do, they now must prove to teams who question their capabilities that they do it "respectfully"?? I just don't think thats fair to those teams. However, like I said, I doubt any of them would turn down the request.

It's certainly something that must be dealt with. It will require people to speak up and make somewhat awkward situations in times they may usually do or say nothing. Despite all of this, human nature will still run rampant.
The nature to say "wow, our robot was not competitive, it must be because those other teams cheated."

This kind of attitude will be very difficult to deal with because for most teams its never stated publicly or even out loud to other team members. This is where we must emphasize that powerhouse teams need to be celebrated and not persecuted. Like I said, it will have to be on an individual basis, we're all responsible for shifting the culture.

-Brando

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Not that any of the "powerhouse" teams would not take up such a proposal, but why should they have to?? We're now saying that on top of everything else most of these teams do, they now must prove to teams who question their capabilities that they do it "respectfully"?? I just don't think thats fair to those teams. However, like I said, I doubt any of them would turn down the request.

I would argue that some teams already do this. Displays in pits, community outreach projects, rookie team mentorship, live blogs and webcasts all display this.
In every reveal video I've seen this year, there has been a collage of still photos of people working on designs or parts or assemblies. I would estimate that in less than 4% of these pictures, a non-pre-college-student is the one holding the tools. The evidence is out there, people just choose to ignore it to suit their conspiracy fantasies.
Given, JVN does blog a lot about himself spending a lot of time in front of his CAD machine, but I don't recall him ever saying he was alone, or the designs were solely by him. I rather got the feeling he was working with students, improving upon their ideas.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Not that any of the "powerhouse" teams would not take up such a proposal, but why should they have to?? We're now saying that on top of everything else most of these teams do, they now must prove to teams who question their capabilities that they do it "respectfully"?? I just don't think thats fair to those teams. However, like I said, I doubt any of them would turn down the request.

If you'll notice, I never said that it was required. I do feel that it's the best option that I can think of, both in terms of speed and in terms of not being a total jerk. That's not saying that someone else can't come up with a better idea.

Some other options I came up with:
--Judges blocking teams out of awards, no matter if they should get it or not--would probably work best if a note was sent to the team after the event explaining the reason
--Teams not allying with that team in eliminations, no matter how good their robot was, by decline if necessary
--Calling the team out publicly
--"Return the favor"; that is, do the same thing to them that they're doing to you/other team at the event

How many of those options would actually work? How many would take longer than a year? How many would create really bad feelings?

Again, for those reading this thread, remember <G60>. Remember the real meaning of Gracious Professionalism.