"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[seanwitte]

I always figured the "We" in the song meant everyone at the event, not the winning teams. I, personnally, have no time for losers. Not winning is different than being a loser.

[JaneYoung]

I do agree with meaubry (Mike) regarding moving on -
but...

I looked up the song in Wikipedia and kind of waited to see if anyone else would post this.

It was written for sports events. (one thing to remember is that Queen was known for rocking the house - engaging the audience/fans in the stands. Another song is, We Will We Will Rock You - go for it, Beth.)

Wikipedia:

Queen about the song

“ Certainly it's a relationship that could be, but I was thinking about football (soccer) when I wrote it. I wanted a participation song, something that the fans could latch on to. It was aimed at the masses; I thought we'd see how they took it. It worked a treat. When we performed it at a private concert in London, the fans actually broke into a football (soccer) chant between numbers. Of course, I've given it more theatrical subtlety than an ordinary football (soccer) chant. You know me. I certainly wasn't thinking about the press when I wrote it. I never think about the British music press these days. It was really meant to be offered the musicians the same as the fans. I suppose it could also be construed as my version of "I Did It My Way." We have made it, and it certainly wasn't easy. No bed of roses as the song says. And it's still not easy.
-Freddie Mercury (1978)[1] ”
“ I have to win people over, otherwise it's not a successful gig. It's my job to make sure people have a good time. That's part of my duty. It's all to do with feeling in control. That song "We Are the Champions" has been taken up by football fans because it's a winners' song. I can't believe that somebody hasn't written a new song to overtake it.
-Freddie Mercury (1985)

[AdamHeard]

There is another arguement a lot of people are making that you unfairly lumped into #1 and #2.

#3 Aknowledge that There is in fact no conlict because celebrating the winners in a sportslike fashion has been one of Dean Kamen's goals (he's trying to make it popular like sports right? Well, then you have to celebrate the winners in a traditional, well known way) and anyone offended really needs some thicker skin because people lose, and no one will allways win.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

There is another arguement a lot of people are making that you unfairly lumped into #1 and #2.

I really didn't expect my last posting to evoke yet more criticism, but...

I didn't lump anything in with anything. You've either misinterpreted what I said or chose to read very selectively. Yes, a goal of FIRST is to celebrate excellence. Yes, I'm all for that. Yes, I realize that some teams will win and some teams will lose. However, if you think (as I do) that the song takes a taunting tone towards the losers, then its "celebration" of the winning teams is no excuse. I said specifically that there were two "eminently reasonable" arguments to be made.

And no, Alan, there is no personal history that makes me extraordinarily sensitive to this song. Even your anecdotal reference doesn't really help me understand where that came from. If you don't see how the song puts down the losers, take another listen.

To both Adam and Alan, I must say again that we seem to be at an impasse over something very simple: what, exactly, is meant by "losers" and "champions" in the phrases "No time for losers" and "We are the champions"? If (in the context of FIRST) we define losers as teams who didn't try, had a defeatist attitude, and we define champions as every team who came to the competition and participated positively, then you are both exactly right, and my argument has no basis.

However, if this is really what we mean by "champions" and "losers", then explain to me, if you would, why this song is played [i]right after the final elimination round, when there is both a clear "champion" and "loser" (or regional winner and finalist, if you will). If we use this broader definition of champion and loser, then why not play this song, say, at the beginning of the competition, to celebrate all the teams that were able to build a robot and make it to the regional? Or at the end, to celebrate all the teams who stuck through to the end, regardless of whether they won or not?

The bottom line is this: the "champions" in the song are the regional/championship winners, and the "losers" are either (take your pick) everyone else, OR the finalists, and neither one of those choices is conducive to the argument that this song is anywhere near clicking with gracious professionalism.

Alan, I was not making any sort of reference to "Le Tigre" as I have never heard of who/what that is. The tone/notes I was referring to were the notes of "No time for losers" which constitute (_approximately_): starting note, minor third down, perfect fourth up, major second down, minor third down. The "taunt" I was referring to was something a little child might say before/after sticking out his/her tongue. I'm not sure how to more completely express this.

Paul

*EDIT*: Yes, Travis, that is exactly what I was talking about. Didn't see your posting until I had already posted mine. Does that clear anything up?

[Tim Delles]

The bottom line is this: the "champions" in the song are the regional/championship winners, and the "losers" are either (take your pick) everyone else, OR the finalists, and neither one of those choices is conducive to the argument that this song is anywhere near clicking with gracious professionalism.

Wow.................

once again it goes to your views... Honestly, how do you know what every single person at an event is thinking??? have you asked every single person in FIRST what they think the words champions and losers mean?

i doubt it...

This makes me very sad for you, espeically when you say that this is the bottom line. This may be the bottom line for you, but everyone is entitled to their thoughts about the song.

Also this is something that has been playing as long as i can remember (8 years in FIRST).. I myself am one of the sorest losers (i can admit that because i get very grumpy when i/my team does not win) and this song has NEVER bothered me. The reason is because they were simply better than me/my team, and that is just one way to help celebrate that they out smarted or built something better than me/my team.

Honestly how would you celebrate the winners of an event? Because if you don't celebrate them what would make a team want to win? If they don't want to win what would make them want to build the best robot they could? if they don't build the best robot they could why would they build a robot? if they didn't build a robot why would they be in FIRST???

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

Wow.................

once again it goes to your views... Honestly, how do you know what every single person at an event is thinking??? have you asked every single person in FIRST what they think the words champions and losers mean?

i doubt it...

This makes me very sad for you, espeically when you say that this is the bottom line. This may be the bottom line for you, but everyone is entitled to their thoughts about the song.

[...]

Honestly how would you celebrate the winners of an event? Because if you don't celebrate them what would make a team want to win? If they don't want to win what would make them want to build the best robot they could? if they don't build the best robot they could why would they build a robot? if they didn't build a robot why would they be in FIRST???

Tim,

While everyone is entitled to their thoughts, this doesn't make their thoughts interesting, valuable, correct, logical, or valid. How would I celebrate the winners of the regional event? If I had to pick a Queen song (I like Queen, as a matter of fact) I might go with "Don't Stop Me Now" (despite "sex machine ready to reload"). Though I'm sure I'm not as conversant with either Queen or this song as many of the people who have replied to this thread, I can say that to me, this is a high energy song with an extremely positive attitude that does a much better job of celebrating everyone who has participated. Are there better songs? I would bet there are; however, my knowledge of music in written in the last 100 years is overall very lacking, and I wouldn't try to pass myself off as a music expert.

"Don't Stop Me Now" does lack some of the elements that specifically celebrate the winners. I agree (as I said before, which you apparently missed) that creating strong incentives to win the competition is important... but let me ask you this: do you really think these incentives are not in place? Do you honestly think that there are significant numbers of teams who don't want to do as well as they can (and I don't mean being happy/unhappy with their performance)? If you do, I challenge you to provide evidence or stop putting out FIRST doomsday scenarios about teams not caring.

Part of the great strength and great weakness of the "sports world" (if there can be said to exist one) is the idea that winning is everything. You do everything you can to win, because the winners get everything - more money, more fame, more girls. And if this is the way we want FIRST to be, then you're absolutely right, we should have this song.

I think after reading all these replies and thinking about them and discussing them with friends and family for a few days, I've come to realize the problem here. We're all indoctrinated into the cult of gracious professionalism (and I don't mean that pejoratively). This isn't a bad thing, in general. This means that we tend to behave with a lot more sportsmanship and have a lot more fun. However, the problem (which I think we're experiencing now) is that we have become blind to the fact that the world is not actually like FIRST. To me, Bharat's comments earlier in the thread ("If this song had a negative meaning towards the finalist or second place, then I do not think the world of sports would embrace it so much.") are especially indicative of this (though I over-reacted in my response). We're so caught up in our GP bubble that we fail to see that not everyone believes as we do. One doesn't have to reach very far back into sports history to come up with examples of this, but reaching back farther to something that is familiar to most, the Black Sox come to mind.

Jbot, while that may be a question that you would like answered, I just would like to clearly state that that was never the question I was asking. To answer your first question:

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Is it appropriate to celebrate the champions of an event here in FIRST? Does this celebration conflict with GP?

My answer, as well as FIRST's answer (see Jane's posting about a page or two back) is yes, it is appropriate, and of course not.

Your second question is more complex:

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Should FIRST remove any possible non-GP element from the games?

While the answer to this question is not as simple, I would again have to say yes, FIRST should remove non-GP elements. Gracious professionalism is such a central tenet of FIRST that the organization should do its best (and in most cases does) to remove non-GP elements. However, if you take another look at Jane's post (specifically her quote of... Woody I think it was?) I hope you can see that gracious professionalism and strong competition are not in conflict.

There's more to say here, but I'm having browser problems and I've talked enough anyway.

-Paul

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

While everyone is entitled to their thoughts, this doesn't make their thoughts interesting, valuable, correct, logical, or valid.

You're not winning anyone's favor with that arguement.

I would like to point out that you are not omnipotent, nor do you know everything. So stop acting like any disagreement to your arguement means that their thoughts are not "interesting, valuable, correct, logical, or valid"

Just stop all ready; Your blowing the song way out of proportion and to say we should remove all non GP things from FIRST is kind of ludicrous (well, at least by your definition of non GP). Right now, the events are fine; There is no glaring non GP event happening that is offending any reasonable person.

In fact, more people (people who believe in GP, whom you'll just write off as having thoughts that aren't "interesting, valuable, correct, logical, or valid") would be upset by the absense of the song, than by it's presense.

[JBotAlan]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

[...]FIRST should remove non-GP elements. Gracious professionalism is such a central tenet of FIRST that the organization should do its best (and in most cases does) to remove non-GP elements. However, if you take another look at Jane's post (specifically her quote of... Woody I think it was?) I hope you can see that gracious professionalism and strong competition are not in conflict.

I'm still not sure I understand your definition of GP. As someone earlier in this thread said, "GP is an internal ruler." It's different for everyone. So I must ask, how do you find this song, which seems to celebrate the winners--not mock the 'losers'--not within GP? Before you jump on the "Quote" button, read the rest of my post.

Here is some hard evidence for you--that song was not requested by the winning alliance. That song was not played by the winning alliance. In fact, I remember it playing with no influence from my team, or any other team, at competition. The teams are not acting in a non-GP way towards each other--they still shake hands, exchange the phrase 'Good game' with other teams, etc. They are not mocking the other alliances--the 'losers'.

FIRST, as you say, does not tolerate non-GP elements. Therefore, the intent behind the song must be considered. Would FIRST play this song with the intent of mocking teams that did not win? No! In fact, I'm sure they have a celebrate-the-winners playlist--"We are the Champions" is one of many songs that get played during awards.

Nobody has a non-GP intent, so there is no breach in GP.

JBot

//I really should stop posting here, since it seems I am providing fuel for a flame war. This is my last post.

[Bharat Nain]

Jacob, I'll post my perspective on GP and maybe you will understand what people like Woodie Flowers think. I know this because I have been fortunate enough to have a couple discussions with him. Gracious Professionalism is an act, internal ruler, anything you want to call it to teach the students(and leaders of tomorrow) how to be friendly, ethical, moral, firm, competitive, smart all at the same time. The world out there does not practice Gracious Professionalism and therefore there is a lot of unethical and immoral practices that need to be stopped. If we teach the students today how to practice Gracious Professionalism, then tomorrow we will have a better world of free enterprise, better jobs and better neighbors. You get where I am going with this? As Dean Kamen and others say, "FIRST is a microcosm of the real world". That's why FIRST does not have to be perfect, fair or in complete submission to gracious professionalism. If they did that, then our games would be boring and would contain no element of defense, pushing, or anything really. It would be a simple game pure offense which is not really fun. Gracious Professionalism also builds character. What do you do when the team in the pits next to you tells you that your robot sucks? Do you make a big deal out of it or do you understand that they are still probably new to FIRST or have not embraced the ideals of FIRST and let them be.

Many teams demonstrated Gracious Professionalism this year. We all know that in the first couple weeks of competition there were problems with the scoring, sometimes referees, robot inspectors etc. Teams did not make a huge fuss about this even though they could have. Everyone makes mistakes, including FIRST. Forgiveness is another trait of people and teams who practice Gracious Professionalism.

So all in all, we do not need to eliminate every little thing in FIRST that might threaten to be anti-GP. It is okay for these things to be there because not everyone can win the competition, chairmans award, WFA, website award, inventor award all at once. Sometimes, you work hard for an award and don't get it. That's okay. Someone else worked harder. Sometimes there is a radio issue in the final match of the regional. You know your robot was disabled and it is not your fault. That's okay. Is it anti-GP from the field crew or IFI? I don't know, maybe. But you have to deal with it with GP. When you are the finalist and they play a song like Queen's-We are the champions, you really should be happy for the winning alliance and never accept defeat in your mind. Your alliance very well could have been the winning alliance. Sometimes, there is only so much you can do and the rest is left upto the environment, high power, anything you believe. Okay, enough. I have just tried to put my unorganized thoughts down. But I hope you see what I am trying to say about GP.

[Pavan Dave]

Before I start let me mention that I hate all of this GP talk. I understand being courteous etc., and being a gracious professional, but completely changing everything to achieve that "GP" status is not practical at all. You can't be GP in the business to be very successful.
Now...On topic:
Ditto what Karthik and the others said above me but I have to add that it is a song, and although it does say champions and losers, it is very fitting. Losing is not always bad. It points out your (personal and team) weaknesses and design flaws which help you learn and become a better engineer.

Peace.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Pavan

You can't be GP in the business to be very successful.

I beg to differ, GP works well in real life, too.

Don

[JaneYoung]

promise broken -

---
All threads provide an opportunity for each of us to sharpen our communication skills, present our perspective, practice spelling and punctuation, experience others' viewpoints while stating ours. It's a glass half full opportunity.

And - some 'side' topics have risen from the initial post regarding the song that I will spend some time thinking about.
For example, without this thread, we would not have received a post from Mr. Lavery discussing a view on champions and winners. How golden is that? I would not forfeit a single post of this thread that lead to that kernel of wisdom, shared with the whole of the CD community.

.02

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

I'm still not sure I understand your definition of GP. As someone earlier in this thread said, "GP is an internal ruler." It's different for everyone. So I must ask, how do you find this song, which seems to celebrate the winners--not mock the 'losers'--not within GP? Before you jump on the "Quote" button, read the rest of my post.

Here is some hard evidence for you--that song was not requested by the winning alliance. [...]

Nobody has a non-GP intent, so there is no breach in GP.

Jbot, I'm not sure why it matters who requests the song. If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP. If you don't agree with that, and you realize that I think differently about this song, then why would you bother asking how I find this song un-GP? I'm confused here.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the non-GP elements are minor and can be overlooked. But if you acknowledge that the "losers" in the song are the teams that just lost, it's fairly hard not to see parts of this song as (at least in minor ways) exhibiting qualities that are diametrically opposed to the concept of gracious professionalism. And again, if you agree that the song is dismissive of the losing alliance, how does gracious professionalism being "an internal ruler" have anything to do with it? I'm not saying this is what the song says, but if I walk up to a losing team and say "your robot sucks and I'm glad you lost," would you say "Oh, well GP is an internal ruler, and I guess for Paul, that was GP"? No. We may not be able to describe the entirety of possible actions that fall under the 'GP' label, but to paraphrase Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it, and being dismissive of losing teams is not gracious professionalism.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Jbot, I'm not sure why it matters who requests the song. If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP. If you don't agree with that, and you realize that I think differently about this song, then why would you bother asking how I find this song un-GP? I'm confused here.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the non-GP elements are minor and can be overlooked. But if you acknowledge that the "losers" in the song are the teams that just lost, it's fairly hard not to see parts of this song as (at least in minor ways) exhibiting qualities that are diametrically opposed to the concept of gracious professionalism. And again, if you agree that the song is dismissive of the losing alliance, how does gracious professionalism being "an internal ruler" have anything to do with it? I'm not saying this is what the song says, but if I walk up to a losing team and say "your robot sucks and I'm glad you lost," would you say "Oh, well GP is an internal ruler, and I guess for Paul, that was GP"? No. We may not be able to describe the entirety of possible actions that fall under the 'GP' label, but to paraphrase Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it, and being dismissive of losing teams is not gracious professionalism.

Wow.... Well, that's like saying stepping on ant and genocide are the same thing because they're both killing.

The song is fine.... If it wasn't I'm sure Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, or Dave Lavery would've put an end to it a long time ago.

[Elgin Clock]

http://www.lyrics007.com/print.php?id=TkRJNE1qY3k

If you look at the rest of the lyrics, and not just the chorus it actually applies more to the overall goals of FIRST than just a song to play at the end of Finals.

But it's been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise -
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race -
And I ain't gonna lose -

What's the challenge before the whole human race we are accomplishing within FIRST? Is it a win in the final rounds of a competition that won't mean anything a year from now when we start over again?
No.

The challenge laid upon us all by FIRST is to inspire, and educate kids about science & technology.

If this is the challenge that Queen is talking about when analyzed to apply to the FIRST world, then I sure as heck don't want any losers bringing us forward into the 21st century and beyond when it comes to educating our kids.

I've paid my dues -
Time after time -
I've done my sentence
But committed no crime -
And bad mistakes
I've made a few
I've had my share of sand kicked in my face -
But I've come through

What's the "sentence" we've all had to pay? Is there a reason we all call it (sometimes jokingly) the six weeks of he-double hockey sticks? lol

We have commited no crimes, except when we have excluded people from participating in FIRST (but none of us would think about doing that now would we?)

Bad mistakes? Sure. Every year. Ever thought about the competition at the end of the year, and said to yourself, or to your teammates, "what if we had only had this feature, or what if we had only made this improvement on our bot like team XXX has done?
Then would we be more famous this year and made it to the "big show"?
Would we be recognized more?
We all as individuals have ego's to feed, and even as a team we strive to feed our ego's and do the best we can, but small mistakes along the way happen.
It's human nature, and the nature of competition.

We've all lost matches. We've all had "sand kicked in our face" by a loss. It's not intentional, but it's the nature of competition, there are winners, and there are people who go home without winning trophies.

But in the end, we've all "come through" better people from this experience, haven't we?

Have you ever lost a regional, and then just given up with your team, or with FIRST in general?

If you have spent the time to read all of this, then I'm guessing your answer to that question is a big NO.

It's not about winners, it's not about losers, it's about inspiration, and all that comes with that.

The only losers in FIRST are those who can't be bothered to teach the new generation of students coming through the program a little something before they leave their teams behind and move on.

Leaving knowledge behind to the younger generation, even if it's only someone a year or 2 younger than you, is truely making you a champion, and in the end securing your legacy.

Those who fail to do that and don't share their knowledge before they move on... well... that "L" word that is in question within this song can certainly come into play in that situation imho.