Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by tsaksa

I know that FIRST Choice was intended to be a part of the KOP, and not a funding program. But I for one would rather see early access to ordering on FIRST Choice offered to rookie teams and teams demonstrated financial need rather than a random drawing if that is being considered. The other teams could be offered access to what is left a few days later. Just trying to consider a new way to look at the issue. I hope no one takes offence.

I like the sentiment, but I regret to inform you that your idea is even less likely to be implemented than the draft system proposed in this thread.

Two reasons:
1. Determining who has a greater need for the resources would be a bit of a nightmare. Even if you assume single regional teams are the most needy, you're going to have a hard time prioritizing.
2. FRC has had a pretty constant position on things like this, oft repeated at the kickoff: Life's not fair. I don't think it's meant in a mean-spirited way, but there really doesn't seem to be much interest in doing things to level the resources field among teams. The GDC's advice to low resource teams is pretty consistently that they should work harder and find more resources.

The latter point is the main reason I doubt the draft process has much chance of getting implemented, regardless of how good an idea it seems.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

2. FRC has had a pretty constant position on things like this, oft repeated at the kickoff: Life's not fair. I don't think it's meant in a mean-spirited way, but there really doesn't seem to be much interest in doing things to level the resources field among teams. The GDC's advice to low resource teams is pretty consistently that they should work harder and find more resources.

I was going to post something similar but refrained from doing so. Thanks for getting it out there. It's easy to feel sorry for teams without the fortunate circumstances others enjoy. However, we'd be in a much worse state if we embraced the idea that everyone who needs help is entitled to it. Then you basically enter a competition of who can prove to be more needy than the next, which is not at all where we want to go. I'd rather compete for resources than lack thereof.

[billbo911]

I hate to say it, and really don't want to see it happen, but there really is only one way to make the parts distribution in the KOP "fair". That is to go back to the old model where everyone gets the same KOP. The only exception is for rookie teams who also get a controller and extra battery.

I understand why FIRST moved away from this model, but these parts issued have been around ever since the change to some degree. It just seems to have hit a peak this time around.


Here's a slightly off topic but related question.

How do you define what "fair" is?

Here are two versions I see a lot, but are by no means definitive.
"Equal outcome for all regardless of effort applied." I see this one used in reference to socioeconomic conversations.
"Outcome proportionate to effort applied." This one is used more often when applied to employment and income.

What I would like to believe in means in respect to this specific thread is:
"The same resources are equally available to choose from, for all teams."

So, what do you think? (Or maybe this needs to be in a thread by it's self.)

[JohnChristensen]

Life is not fair and never will be. If there is one thing that really irks me is how often I see and hear that "Everyone is a Winner." That attitude does not improve anything, I believe it makes things worse. I don't believe the ideas presented in this thread by everyone who has participated are about making FIRSTChoice perfectly fair. Nothing will ever be perfectly fair and that does not need to be a goal.

As an engineer, I am always interested in improving efficiency and performance. The reason for this thread is not to have pity party about unfair things in life, but to discuss ways to improve a system. I have be discouraging by all the negative comments in all the other threads today (and while I am not blaming anyone who feels cheated by what happened) I think the best course of action is to discuss solutions.

My idea is only that, an idea. I would also fully support another idea if it would eliminate the major short comings that affect teams' mentors who have to order parts and meet budgets.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by billbo911

I hate to say it, and really don't want to see it happen, but there really is only one way to make the parts distribution in the KOP "fair". That is to go back to the old model where everyone gets the same KOP.

I have 12 years of unused parts accumulated here. I have 3000 square feet, and 260 linear feet of shelving, and we're short on space. Unless a building expansion appears on the 2014 FIRST Choice, I could never agree with going back to the old standard KOP and no FIRST-Choice model.

[AlexD744]

Libby,

I don't believe that the OP was intending to insult the hard-working people that make FRC happen, I think he was merely trying to suggest a possible improvement to the system that is in place. I think we are all very grateful for what they do, and don't say thank you enough. So THANK YOU FRC staff!

Most people would probably agree that FIRST Choice as a concept is a really good thing, and has a lot of tangible benefits. However, there were many perceived problems with the implementation this year. The technical problems were handled very professionally by AndyMark, however, the underlying problems with the system are the current concern.

The OP is trying to help FRC staff by adding an idea that may or may not solve the problem. I for one think that it is good when the Chief Delphi community begins to brainstorm a problem, as often time a solution is found. It's no secret that at least one person in FIRST leadership reads these forums (Frank). And if I were running a company, I would find it very helpful to know what my customers were dissatisfied with. Here, however, we don't just have people complaining (well, sometimes we do ), but we have people trying to help generate solutions. Will every solution work? No. Is every solution feasible? No. But, the OP posted here so that he could get other points of view, which could possibly point out flaws in or improvements to his proposed system. And to be fair, the OP probably didn't know how few people work in just FRC; I sure didn't.

To get back on topic though, I like the idea behind the system, but can see significant hassle in actually maintaining this. Others may know of simple ways to implement it though. I still am in favor of a slower release of credits, quantity limits, or more accurate pricing on high demand items, all of which I see as positive tweaks to the current system (and all of which have been debated in other threads). Feel free to disagree! In the end the decision comes down to FIRST and AndyMark.

$0.02
Alex

Edit: Well I clearly missed the boat on this one! haha

[Nemo]

A draft order system would be fine with me. It would solve the race issue that we have this year. Fantasy sports leagues do this; it's not a big deal for computers to sort that out and generate a list of who gets what after the ranking lists are finalized. You just pick your draft system's rules and run the algorithm. The most difficult thing would probably be communicating how it works to the team main contacts and getting them to properly fill out the ranking form online. But that's certainly doable.