Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke

[jlindquist74]

Originally Posted by magnets

To be totally honest, I didn't use a 2012 or 2013 tablet, so I have no idea. I agree with your comment that previous games didn't rely on the responsiveness of the tablet. But I know that the 2011 tablets were about 1 second latency between your touch and the tube changing on the tablet screen.

Originally Posted by mathking

I used the panels in 2011, 2012 and 2014, and the response time was about the same in all three.

I know I'm not the only software engineer in the house. That this problem continues to exist... does anyone else find that professionally offensive? Look at the FMS, look at the tablet application, look at the tablet OS. Allen-Bradley HQ is a short drive from the Wisconsin Regional. I would've asked for a couple panel engineers to come out on practice day to observe and investigate if I had indications the OS was the bottleneck. We owe all of our kids (and everyone else's) better than this.

(Software's so wonderful. There's so many ways to Do It Wrong™!)

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

When I play soccer, I don't show up on Saturday and take the pitch with 10 random other people. Tell me one, since you claim "most," legitimate sport in which you have random teammates.

That's no bug. That's a beautiful FIRST feature I point out to others. You have to be ready to collaborate with strangers. Even better, you have to do it when you know you'll play against them in the next game. They'll know your weaknesses and strategies, and you still do it. Being bossy or arrogant will not serve you well here.

Sports is sports. FRC is FRC. We must be cautious about making either more like the other.

Originally Posted by mathking

At the start of the year (and even more after Crossroads) I have felt that what is needed are dedicated scorekeepers, so that a few more eyes are watching the match and the referees are focusing on fouls and not scoring.

But this is where it's needed. As scorekeeper for football, basketball, and lacrosse, I cannot see everything that happens on the field. The action is too fast, with too many actors over too wide an area. (Just like FRC!) My focus has to stay with the ball. I can't credit points, tackles, or assists properly if I'm looking for holding or fouls off the ball. The stripes don't do my job, and I don't do theirs.

Side note: I bought an iPad to develop scorekeeping software... using other people's software showed me what a bad idea this is. I have to look at the screen to be sure I touch the right spot, which means I'm not watching the action anymore. Give me something tactile, whether it's a keyboard or a button pad, that lets me keep my eye on the ball.


There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

We've had a couple of bad days. Our robot broke down, or came up short. We rose in the standings but didn't get picked at alliance selection. Our Chairman's presentation got lousy marks. I didn't downplay that. I just told them that the joys and pains of winning and losing would fade over time, and pale next to the memory of the camaraderie of the weekend... the makeovers, the games of Spaceteam in the airport, or Cards Against Humanity in the hotel lobby. The mechanical and cooperative skills they build will carry them through their professional lives.

Winning still matters. And losing still hurts. And some people should be happy I don't have video of them getting hit in the junk by the launch spring during build season. Because man, that was priceless...

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it.

I must have no credibility at all with my team. Maybe I don't get it. We had an over all losing record this year. When I look at kid's faces, they don't give a rip about that. I see excitement about the next event and talking about improvements for next year. Winning is nice, but that is not the reason I do what I do. Yeah, maybe I just don't get this competition thing.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I must have no credibility at all with my team. Maybe I don't get it. We had an over all losing record this year. When I look at kid's faces, they don't give a rip about that. I see excitement about the next event and talking about improvements for next year. Winning is nice, but that is not the reason I do what I do. Yeah, maybe I just don't get this competition thing.

This. Very nice post.

[scooty199]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

I know I'm not the only software engineer in the house. That this problem continues to exist... does anyone else find that professionally offensive? Look at the FMS, look at the tablet application, look at the tablet OS. Allen-Bradley HQ is a short drive from the Wisconsin Regional. I would've asked for a couple panel engineers to come out on practice day to observe and investigate if I had indications the OS was the bottleneck. We owe all of our kids (and everyone else's) better than this.

(Software's so wonderful. There's so many ways to Do It Wrong™!)



That's no bug. That's a beautiful FIRST feature I point out to others. You have to be ready to collaborate with strangers. Even better, you have to do it when you know you'll play against them in the next game. They'll know your weaknesses and strategies, and you still do it. Being bossy or arrogant will not serve you well here.

Sports is sports. FRC is FRC. We must be cautious about making either more like the other.



But this is where it's needed. As scorekeeper for football, basketball, and lacrosse, I cannot see everything that happens on the field. The action is too fast, with too many actors over too wide an area. (Just like FRC!) My focus has to stay with the ball. I can't credit points, tackles, or assists properly if I'm looking for holding or fouls off the ball. The stripes don't do my job, and I don't do theirs.

Side note: I bought an iPad to develop scorekeeping software... using other people's software showed me what a bad idea this is. I have to look at the screen to be sure I touch the right spot, which means I'm not watching the action anymore. Give me something tactile, whether it's a keyboard or a button pad, that lets me keep my eye on the ball.


There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

We've had a couple of bad days. Our robot broke down, or came up short. We rose in the standings but didn't get picked at alliance selection. Our Chairman's presentation got lousy marks. I didn't downplay that. I just told them that the joys and pains of winning and losing would fade over time, and pale next to the memory of the camaraderie of the weekend... the makeovers, the games of Spaceteam in the airport, or Cards Against Humanity in the hotel lobby. The mechanical and cooperative skills they build will carry them through their professional lives.

Winning still matters. And losing still hurts. And some people should be happy I don't have video of them getting hit in the junk by the launch spring during build season. Because man, that was priceless...

Agree with this entirely.

I think Herm Edwards agrees as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

[mathking]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

Saying that winning is not the goal is not the same things as saying winning doesn't matter. De-emphasizing winning is an expression you used, but saying to de-emphasize winning you have to make in mean nothing is a false dichotomy. The original post of this thread started a discussion about whether people had buyer's remorse for this season. Meaning are you unhappy that you decided to participate? I suspect that there are a great many students unhappy with how the season ended up for there team who are nonetheless very happy they participated.

If we define our goal as winning, then almost every team at every competition is going to fail. When I say winning is not the goal of FIRST I mean just that. The goal is changing the culture. That is a goal at which a lot more teams can succeed. Winning is certainly something to strive for. I would even argue that if you are not trying to win the game on the field then you are going to have a harder time inspiring students. But they way you say "They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win." brings that dichotomy back.

A decade and a half of FIRST experience, two and a half decades as a coach and my own experience in athletics tells me there are going to be kids on just about every team that are participating for other reasons than winning. Sometimes that is very hard for me as a coach. I am by nature very competitive, but I have to remember that I am there for the kids. They are not there for me to live vicariously through them. We had about 170 kids on our cross country team this past season. Only one of them ever won race, and he only won one race. Our girls team did not win a single meet. But our season was certainly not a failure and the kids did not feel that the season was a failure. I know some coaches who would (and do) consider such seasons as failures. And they are the ones who feel unhappy most of the time. Always chasing the once a while season when you win a lot.

Yes, if you are not sincere, your students are going to read it in an instant. So you need to be sincere. I have missed a top 8 position at the Championships by a half an inch. I have been on what should have been the winning alliance at Buckeye and had our robot KOd by the faulty CAN connections of the Jaguars. I have missed qualifying for the state cross country meet by a single place of a single runner. I have had a dead spot in an arena floor turn running out the final few seconds of a basketball title into a game winning layup by the other team. I have had an athlete run her personal best time at the state meet, lead her team to its best finish in a decade but miss making the top 15 podium by one spot. Its not that those things don't hurt. They do. But part of my job as a coach is to make kids realize not winning is not the same thing as failing.

The point is that if you let these negatives define the experience the kids will also define the experience this way. Sometimes you do your absolute best and you don't win. If winning is the goal then you have failed in the endeavor. If winning is something you strive for in order to achieve the goal of inspiring kids to change the world, then you can succeed even when you don't win.

[FrankJ]

Full disclosure: I am one of the one that doesn't see winning the robot competition as the primary goal of First.

The more the rules shift so that there is parity in the robots the more there is going to be an element of luck in winning. Like it or not parity seems to be a goal of the GDC. This year if you could build a good robot, develop a good drive team, & have good scouting, you have a pretty chance at winning. (Of course the teams that build uber robots tend to have good drive team & scouting)

The biggest issue in not winning is the ticket to worlds. I can see how teams can have losing, and not getting that ticket, hinge on a bad call or poorly thought out rules being very upsetting. Which I think is the major point of this now 8 page thread.

[mathking]

Frank, I think you are probably right. And I don't think it is unfair to ask for a game design which minimizes those kinds of issues. I think there have been other games where the issues about correct scoring were just as serious (such as the minibot towers in 2011, so the automatic scoring last year meaning you couldn't really tell how many points you and your opponent had) but in those games one really good robot could dominate the game, so there were more teams who could overcome the problems so the "better" robot won.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win.

That simply isn't true for many teams. There are plenty of teams who are well aware that they aren't going to bulid the best robot in the competition, and they may be better suited not focusing on the primary scoring objective. You hear it all the time in strategy and design presentations, that many teams should focus on doing one task well, especially a complimentary task (like inboudning or passing this year), than trying to do everything. Yet there are plenty of teams who eschew this advice, not because their own hubris, but because they enjoy the engineering challenge, enjoy lofty goals, and want to build a machine that can achive the difficult objectives, regardless of whether or not it will be one of the best on the field.

This year, my team did go simple. We opted for a complimentary design focused on inbounding, passing, defense, and maybe catching. We did that because we wanted to be competitive at all of our events, so we could reach MAR championship. But that hasn't always been our design goal, and that's certainly not the driving force behind all the students on my team or other teams. I've seen a multitude of students who'd rather build a "cool" robot than a winning one. They wanted mecanum wheels and turreted shooters, even if they rarely possess the strategic value on the field to be make them worth the investment in the build season. I've met plenty of mentors who'd rather design for a difficult challenge, knowing we may fail, than tackle a simpler challenge that we know we can accomplish. These aren't lesser motivations, they're just different motivations. Winning is not everyone's ultimate goal, and it's not the only way to foster a culture that appreciates science and technology.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

...But that hasn't always been our design goal, and that's certainly not the driving force behind all the students on my team or other teams. I've seen a multitude of students who'd rather build a "cool" robot than a winning one. They wanted mecanum wheels and turreted shooters, even if they rarely possess the strategic value on the field to be make them worth the investment in the build season...

I agree with you completely, but I think your argument misses part of their statement (perhaps an subconscious/inadvertent part). Specifically, "when you tell your kids"...So if they tell you, the issue is moot. More power to them! But if you're trying to dictate to them, it can cone across as heavy-handed and contrived. We can want what we want, we can try to explain alternative approaches, but in then end the goal is theirs. Of course, this also means we can't afford to the reverse: force it to be about winning when that's not what students care about-we can't assume student motivations (making intra-student disagreements tricky).

[mathking]

Originally Posted by Siri

I agree with you completely, but I think your argument misses part of their statement (perhaps an subconscious/inadvertent part). Specifically, "when you tell your kids"...So if they tell you, the issue is moot. More power to them! But if you're trying to dictate to them, it can cone across as heavy-handed and contrived. We can want what we want, we can try to explain alternative approaches, but in then end the goal is theirs. Of course, this also means we can't afford to the reverse: force it to be about winning when that's not what students care about-we can't assume student motivations (making intra-student disagreements tricky).

I agree, but I don't think Sean missed anything. There a middle ground between the students telling you what they want and you trying to force them to want what you want. If my students see me getting enraged by something that happened on the field, it will influence how they see it. If they hear me be upbeat after losing a match it will influence how they react. As mentors we need to be good role models for students. Because like it or not, we will be role models.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by mathking

I agree, but I don't think Sean missed anything. There a middle ground between the students telling you what they want and you trying to force them to want what you want. If my students see me getting enraged by something that happened on the field, it will influence how they see it. If they hear me be upbeat after losing a match it will influence how they react. As mentors we need to be good role models for students. Because like it or not, we will be role models.

Absolutely. I think I'm just trying to distinguish between modeling and lecturing. "It's not about winning" is indeed a very pat line that tends to get written off in places where the team culture isn't already aligned to it by/with student support (at which time the line is superfluous).

Just a note, rookies only get extra points in Districts. For thr majority outside of MAR/FiM/PNW/NE, rookies are teams that can get HRS, RAS and RI.

[nlknauss]

Answering the question from the OP, do I have buyer's remorse?

The answer is no. My mind is always open to whatever game FRC has up it's sleeve going into kickoff. Yes, the game is a part of the product FIRST produces but we are ultimately producing our own product through the robot we build and the experience our students and mentors receive.

At this point in the season I can state that we have successfully took our students through an engineering design problem, that we are leaving the season knowing more than what we went in with, that many individuals have grown, and that we had fun doing it all. I've had plenty of personal conversations about this year's game and have opinions on it but it doesn't effect what we are trying to do on our team. Trust me, we design and prepare with hopes of winning and doing the best we can but there's only so much I can control. We've accomplished everything we can control, so no buyers remorse here.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by nlknauss

Answering the question from the OP, do I have buyer's remorse?

The answer is no. My mind is always open to whatever game FRC has up it's sleeve going into kickoff. Yes, the game is a part of the product FIRST produces but we are ultimately producing our own product through the robot we build and the experience our students and mentors receive.

At this point in the season I can state that we have successfully took our students through an engineering design problem, that we are leaving the season knowing more than what we went in with, that many individuals have grown, and that we had fun doing it all. I've had plenty of personal conversations about this year's game and have opinions on it but it doesn't effect what we are trying to do on our team. Trust me, we design and prepare with hopes of winning and doing the best we can but there's only so much I can control. We've accomplished everything we can control, so no buyers remorse here.

Well put Nate.

[CLandrum3081]

Disclaimer: I don't know everything, I don't claim to know everything, and my social skills are horrid. I don't mean to change anyone's opinion. I am just expressing my own in hopes of contributing to the conversation.

I've read all the posts on this thread, most of them by mentors. A lot of you are talking about the outcome on the kids, the whole point of competing, whether or not the competing part is important, and all that. These are topics I've had conversations with others about.

I am a senior this year, meaning that since our team did not make it to World Championships, our last competition was my last competition with my team. This was disappointing - we had a solid design and solid execution, but didn't make the cut. I could go into every reason why, but I'm sure all these reasons have been pointed out by someone else several other places on CD. These issues aren't unique to 2014 - just made worse in 2014.

We never even made it to eliminations, but I do not have buyers' remorse. Yeah, my family paid the activity fee and the cost to travel and all that, and we didn't make it to Champs. Our robot's ranking didn't represent how it truly performed, and that's the risk we take when we attend big regionals with a limited amount of matches. That happens every year one way or another. I feel our 2014 robot was our best in history, yet the year our team went to Champs was 2012. This stuff happens.

Not only do I not have buyers' remorse, but it would be immature of me to have it. I have already admitted my disappointment, but that's no reason to regret the time, money, and hours put into the robot and into FIRST.

Reasons I don't have buyers' remorse:
1. Participation in FIRST inspired me to major in Electrical Engineering
2. Such inspiration has led me to work harder in school, and I'm going to college almost entirely on a scholarship as a result
3. My technical knowledge and social/leadership skills have improved beyond what I can even express
4. This program has inspired my mother - the most technically limited and un-STEM-oriented person in the world - to volunteer at competitions in 2015 (yes, she knows what volunteers have been put through this year). She's seen how the program has changed my life, and wants to help change the lives of other kids.

I am one of the most competitive people I know, and I wouldn't care if we had the best robot and were in last place at every stinking event for the past three years. The four reasons I've stated above (and the many other reasons I haven't listed) are more than enough to limit my concerns with winning.

**WARNING: Below is the most opinionated part of this post.**

As for competition, it is a huge part of FIRST. However, the importance of competition in the program isn't about the win-loss-tie record. It's about teaching students how to compete ethically and healthily - which means taking the losses, identifying where to improve, and moving forward. Winning is nice, but I don't think should always be the goal of competition. It's a nice bonus added to the skills we learn during the competition, and that's what I thought the "C" in FRC was.

However, I'm one of the youngest people posting on this thread, and I don't know everything. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm open to learning, so if anything I've said is offensive/off-colour/etc please let me know. I didn't mean for anything to be offensive, and I'm still learning. I just wanted to contribute by posting my opinion.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by CLandrum3081

Disclaimer: I don't know everything, I don't claim to know everything, and my social skills are horrid. I don't mean to change anyone's opinion. I am just expressing my own in hopes of contributing to the conversation.

I've read all the posts on this thread, most of them by mentors. A lot of you are talking about the outcome on the kids, the whole point of competing, whether or not the competing part is important, and all that. These are topics I've had conversations with others about.

I am a senior this year, meaning that since our team did not make it to World Championships, our last competition was my last competition with my team. This was disappointing - we had a solid design and solid execution, but didn't make the cut. I could go into every reason why, but I'm sure all these reasons have been pointed out by someone else several other places on CD. These issues aren't unique to 2014 - just made worse in 2014.

We never even made it to eliminations, but I do not have buyers' remorse. Yeah, my family paid the activity fee and the cost to travel and all that, and we didn't make it to Champs. Our robot's ranking didn't represent how it truly performed, and that's the risk we take when we attend big regionals with a limited amount of matches. That happens every year one way or another. I feel our 2014 robot was our best in history, yet the year our team went to Champs was 2012. This stuff happens.

Not only do I not have buyers' remorse, but it would be immature of me to have it. I have already admitted my disappointment, but that's no reason to regret the time, money, and hours put into the robot and into FIRST.

Reasons I don't have buyers' remorse:
1. Participation in FIRST inspired me to major in Electrical Engineering
2. Such inspiration has led me to work harder in school, and I'm going to college almost entirely on a scholarship as a result
3. My technical knowledge and social/leadership skills have improved beyond what I can even express
4. This program has inspired my mother - the most technically limited and un-STEM-oriented person in the world - to volunteer at competitions in 2015 (yes, she knows what volunteers have been put through this year). She's seen how the program has changed my life, and wants to help change the lives of other kids.

I am one of the most competitive people I know, and I wouldn't care if we had the best robot and were in last place at every stinking event for the past three years. The four reasons I've stated above (and the many other reasons I haven't listed) are more than enough to limit my concerns with winning.

**WARNING: Below is the most opinionated part of this post.**

As for competition, it is a huge part of FIRST. However, the importance of competition in the program isn't about the win-loss-tie record. It's about teaching students how to compete ethically and healthily - which means taking the losses, identifying where to improve, and moving forward. Winning is nice, but I don't think should always be the goal of competition. It's a nice bonus added to the skills we learn during the competition, and that's what I thought the "C" in FRC was.

However, I'm one of the youngest people posting on this thread, and I don't know everything. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm open to learning, so if anything I've said is offensive/off-colour/etc please let me know. I didn't mean for anything to be offensive, and I'm still learning. I just wanted to contribute by posting my opinion.

Bravo, it certainly wasn't offensive to me and it highlights the reasons I am involved with FIRST and will continue to be as long as I am able.