I just wanted to say that I agree with the OP about his first point. While I entirely understand the importance of spreading FIRST’s message, I think there does come a point when it begins to be diluted. At some point, the ideas of Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism become so ambiguous through usage that it becomes difficult (for me at least) to understand their true meaning. Not just their general gist, but the values they are meant to instill in students.
Also, I think his point about “nerdiness” was grossly misunderstood, as evidenced by those who believed he was talking about making FIRST a “nerd club”. Instead, it is more about accepting that STEM education and programs like FIRST are viewed as for people who are nerdy (in the not incredibly insulting way). However, it is very important to point out that the nerdy side is not the only side of FIRST, which is something my team needs to work on. Ultimately, I think that trying to convince others that FIRST is anything other than it is will not work.
On the subject of “nerds” and other labels/groups of people, I was talking to another mentor at the Seattle regional. Not sure how we got around to it, but he shared what he thought was the greatest thing that has came about as a result of their program. It was that it got two groups together the “nerds” the “gear heads” and working side by side they found out that they were more alike than different and basically went along way to erasing those labels.
My general attitude about the competition aspect:
When I show up at competition, the team has put countless hours of work into the robot and strategy, and will put 100% effort towards putting the best possible product* on the field. And when it gets to the field we’ll compete like no tomorrow, for doing anything else is disrespectful to our own efforts, and to our competitors.
That being said, you stop by our pit, you need help of any sort (except psychiatric we need that ourselves), we will do whatever is within our power to help you, Fasteners, tools, troubleshooting, rebuilding…
You ask, we’ll help.
For the goal of pitting our creation against the toughest opponents we’ll help.
I’d much rather loose a match fighting tooth and nail for it to someone running at 100% we helped, than to win against a crippled robot.
A sense of accomplishment is a very Inspiring thing
That sense of accomplishment can come from losses just as much from wins, you just need the right viewpoint.
I’ve never been one for the “you did your best” and other “everyone’s a winner” sayings, they don’t push you, they don’t get you to analyze what went wrong and figure out where to improve. If i truly tried my hardest I would’ve accomplished my goal, if I fell short I WILL find out where and why, and remedy it.
A sense of accomplishment from hard work is getting our butts handed to us by 111 and 2826 in the Wisconsin finals, and working for a solid week to bring the battle to within a minibot fuse from a 3rd match at Midwest.
Bring your A game, wherever you go, I hope FIRST never pushes anything different
*product is robot, strategy, driveteam, communication
you pretty much summed up part of what i was trying to say earlier. GP is for off the field (in the pits/stands, etc.), but on the field, people should play to win.
This is a false dichotomy.
FTC Rocks!!!
To my eyes, FIRST has turned its focus to TOMA (Top Of Mind Awareness), and that has led to the things with which you disagree.
Regarding the message: People come and go. There are people who went to kickoff who are no longer with the team; there are people at the team who didn’t go to kickoff. We’ve got parents, administrators, sponsors, friends at events - some just for a day, some just for a couple hours. If the message isn’t repeated, it’s lost.
FIRST has every right to brand itself, and it should. To reach the long-standing goal of being in every high school in America and abroad, people (a) have to know about FIRST and (b) realize FIRST isn’t other robotics competitions. The more I think about Dean’s comments at kickoff, the more I’m thinking it wasn’t aimed at VEX/BEST as much as it was aimed at BattleBots. Most of the public associates competition robots with SawKill or HammerPound - the type of robotic competition that FIRST is most decidedly not. Creating that separation is necessary, and a key way to do that is through the branding of FIRST.
This is just my 0.02 and all my opinion, this is just how I see it. I was on a team as a student for 4 years and have now mentored for 2 years. I’ve been the assistant coach of FLL teams for 2 years and also am the assistant coordinator on the regional planning committee for the MO/KS area and have been for 3 years.
- The “true” message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
Personally I do not feel the message has been over used because everyone’s view of the true message is different. Just look at what FIRST stands for “For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.” How you go about achieving that in your team, school and community differs for every team because there are factors like other teams or a small town. I am someone that always is in a FIRST mindset, during the season it’s all I talk about and off-season I’m the same way. Outside of your team and FIRST if you went into your community and asked 10 random people if they knew what FIRST was how many would say that they knew exactly what it was? - Go back to more competition, you’re beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
As you said FIRST started with gracious professionalism, which is sportsmanship taken to the next level. There was always a coopertition factor to it though, it just didn’t have the label. Look at team 1108’s No Robot Left Behind program or teams that get to competition and share their extra arms and such(I know my team did in 2007) and my team also loaned our Classmate to a team on an opposing team during the finals once so they could compete. I know that “coopertition” has only had the label for 2 years now but I still see competitiveness at the regionals. - Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it’s not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it’s about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
I am unsure what shameless advertising you are talking about. So what if Wil.I.Am talked at kickoff, it shows that people are taking notice about FIRST. Even the picture of Obama on the ground looking at the robot, it is getting FIRST out there. I just do not see how this is “shameless” advertising. - Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says “nerds, beware” like a sign saying “hehehe, it’s not nerdy”
Yes it is nerdy, many teams have accepted this fact, just look at what some of the team uniforms/tshirts are. But, there are so many different parts of the team that are not quite as “nerdy.” We recruit by talking about fun experiences and say that anyone can join. I’ve never gone out and labeled my team or others nerdy, I call them FIRSTers. - You were on a good track with the “spectator friendly” game breakaway, continue on that track.
I do not see how this years game was not “spectator friendly” nor do I see FIRST making a game that wasn’t because (at least at GKC) the attendance of spectators is growing rapidly. This years game was a bit more difficult to follow all teams at once but most spectators come to watch their team. Breakway was a very simplistic game, it was basically just soccer.
Exactly. At 461, we try to help everyone who comes to us. It doesn’t matter whether they are our next ally or our next opponent, we help them. If we end up losing, then we helped a team to success.
Why do we do that? What honor is there in defeating a bot that can’t move or can’t score, when you could defeat a bot by a small margin knowing that you helped them have a better experience at their regional because they could play the game.
I would only like to address the issue of “shameless” advertising.
I don’t get your point… This is the 20th Anniversary of FIRST.
It is ENTIRELY appropriate to use the LOGO as the game pieces.
Are you really so tunnel-visioned in your opinion about FIRST being self-serving to not see that?
As far as the game being the same one… sorry…not so…
We played in Rack and Roll… Different dynamics totally… even if you leave off the end game (ramps vs minibots)
If you want to have totally new games… we wouldn’t be able to use a ball as a game piece. They have been used most years…
I suggest that if you want to boycott to force FIRST to do YOUR thing instead of what is currently being done… that is certainly your right.
Just take your robot and go play somewhere else…
Oh wait a minute… there really aren’t any other places to play with a robot as sophisticated or a field as large or the rich history that this competition has…
My apologies to the other robot competitions…I have participated in many of them and I am in FIRST because it is really the Superbowl of Smarts… yes I like that phrase…
The game itself mostly, although seeing as it was the 20th anniversary, that makes more sense than it did initially. Also the video they put up on the splash page during the first week of build season.
if you haven’t seen it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmyVKvZ3vfo&feature=related
i agree with the third part, and also i was really mad this year that this year’s game was almost EXACTLY like 2007 and like one of the games from the 1990s (i think '97) Hang a tube during auto, and make rows of tubes during teleop to get max points. I know how hard it is to make a robotics game, but still, there have been 3 hanging end games, 3 games hanging tubes on racks, a bunch with the octagon shaped goal things (like in 09 and 02), and i just feel like all teams had to do this yea (besides teams formed after 07) was to look at their robot from 07, see what they could do better, and see what robots were really good that year, so i really feel like the games are becoming more and more repetitive and repeats of previous years.
First, I somewhat disagree with number 1. While I think that it can get a bit grating for FIRST veterans, It does a great deal of good for new members. It shows the newbies that this isn’t battlebots, and that we have expectations that we act professionally. For me, it’s more annoying to hear new people ask things like “why don’t we put something on the robot to damage other ones” than hearing about gracious professionalism and coopertition. With that said, though, I think that a lot of people who haven’t had much experience with FIRST don’t know what those mean.
As to number 3, I agree that the FIRST splash page was needlessly awkward. It seemed to me as though they greatly overplayed the appearance he made at kickoff.
And at number four, I disagree. We don’t recruit saying “Are you a nerd? Join all the nerds here!”. We say “Hey, you can build these cool robots, no experience required, and here are XYZ reasons why it’s good for you to do this.” I don’t think robotics is for nerds at all. I think that robotics is for people who want to learn, and be inspired.
I have mentored FRC and FLL teams for ten years and I have to agree with the original poster’s comments regarding FIRST and the message it shares.
Whether or not nerdy is nice or nasty is not entirely relevant. Broadcasting that you’re not nerdy is a pretty sure way to highlight your nerdiness.
The games have become overly complicated for easy consumption by the general public. We study the game for 7 weeks before we actually play, only to find out that we don’t understand all of its nuances. Ask yourselves how much time you spend explaining the game and the competition structure (randomized qualification matches, ranking points, coopertition points, alliance selection, etc.) to visiting relatives, let alone the other guests in the hotel lobby (the folks you’re really trying to attract in order to “spread the word”).
FIRST has created an amazing program for promoting interest in the field of engineering. It spans the globe. The competitions are exciting. Everyone - students, mentors, sponsors, guests - is inspired by the ideas and solutions developed by others. The enthusiasm is contagious. The only way that can happen is by FIRST promoting itself to potential sponsors, but I think FIRST has gone overboard in its promotion.
In our rookie year we were fortunate enough to qualify for, and attend the Championships. The competition was fun and exciting. Then we sat through the closing ceremony - for a long time. Our other mentor, myself and all of our team’s parents felt like we had just sat through a pyramid-marketing convention. Aside from presenting teams their respective awards, the speeches were about how important FIRST is in encouraging students to pursue careers in science and technical fields. The speeches weren’t about inspiring or encouraging youth toward those fields; they were about FIRST. Over the course of the last several years I have heard the phrase “…the message of FIRST…” more often than I have heard the actual message. That is shameless self-promotion. I believe the constant repetition that FIRST is about this, or FIRST is not about that, only serves to detract from the mission of most of the program’s participants: inspiring young people to exceed everyone’s expectations.
Largely as a result of our experience, we do not advertise ourselves as a FIRST team. To be sure, we are a robotics team that competes in FIRST, but we are primarily a team that shows kids that, when challenged, they can rise above themselves; that problem-solving is rewarding; and that they have the power and the ability to succeed.
I have a couple of things to add to this thread:
- Competition vs. coopertition: this has come up every year that I can remember (that would be 2007 and onward) and people are always complaining about rules, penalties, and seeding systems that discourage defense and “take the competition out of the game,” so they say. “On the field you should play to win.” Of course you should play to win! FIRST wants you to play to win; in 2010 GDC altered the seeding system after Week 1 to specifically clarify that teams are supposed to play to win.
Do not confuse rules against defense with rules against winning. It becomes more and more obvious to me each year that FIRST wants us to do one thing: build a robot that achieves the scoring challenge. It’s that simple. We should play to win by scoring points, not by stopping other teams from scoring points. How do you beat a top-notch scoring team? Build something that can score better.
FIRST are not a bunch of hippie communists for wanting us to do this, but they simply encourage scoring for two reasons. First, GDC spends months developing a unique challenge for us each year; they want to see more teams tackling that challenge rather than building a brick on wheels. Second, this is how it works in the real world. What can you do if your competitor is beating you? Pretty much one of two options: (1) design a better product or (2) do something to hamper the effectiveness of your competitor’s product. Option (1) leads to better technology for everyone; option (2) usually leads to an antitrust lawsuit. I’m glad FIRST is training future engineers to choose option (1).
Of course, for the competition itself to be fun it must involve some defense. I don’t think recent games have gone so far as to prohibit this. Design a robot to play the game, and you have no penalties to worry about. Play defense when necessary, but be aware that it is risky - just as in the real world - and don’t make it your primary focus. Above all, have fun, and remember that the competition season is only a small part of the FRC experience.
- Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.
FIRST doesn’t need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.
I so wish this were true. The Chairman’s award and the Engineering Inspiration award are not given to the teams that do the best to spread the word of FIRST, instead they are given to the teams to best spread the word FIRST. It has become virtually impossible for a team to win the Chairman’s without starting a FRC or FTC team and mentoring tens of FLL teams. We live in a small, fairly isolated community that is incapable of supporting another FRC team. Why can’t we be given credit for showing kids what is so great about science and technology and for getting people together in our community instead of getting a few people involved with a FRC or FTC team. It can be very had to convince people that FIRST is so great when the cost per person is so high and similar benefits can be had without being directly involved in FIRST.
I am not saying that FIRST does not benefit those involved in incredible ways or that it is not an incredible program, just that FIRST involvement is not the only way to get kids excited about math, science and engineering, and that FIRST needs to recognize this fact.
Yes, but the “major” sports work because they have the same rules year after year and the general goal is simple. Having a new game each year is part of what makes FIRST so fun, but if FIRST wants more people walking in from the streets, they need to create games that can be concisely described. Breakaway and Aim High are good examples of this, Lunacy wasn’t even that bad, but I think this years game may have been the worst in my 10 years of FIRST (in terms on simplicity and explain-ability).
This year especially, I have several concerns with FIRST. I realize that they have a right to do as they choose, but we have a responsibility to evaluate our participation in FIRST.
Here are two of the things bugging me:
1 - Where is Woodie? He is the educator; Dean is the salesman. In my opinion, FIRST is heading away from the former and toward the latter.
2 - Whatever we do, FIRST is always asking for more. Not, “We know that schools are really cutting budgets, and we appreciate that you have made this a priority. Let’s talk about how we can keep this affordable.” Instead they ask, “What can YOU do for FIRST? How can you get more teams involved, etc?” Perhaps they should also focus on keeping current teams involved. FIRST seems to no longer care about sustaining. Growth is the only goal, and it’s HUGE for them. In my opinion, this has gotten more and more obvious over the past few years.
Notes - I know that they have done the light bulbs. That doesn’t actually help make the program more affordable. It’s more promotion for FIRST. A REAL savings would be to not require us to use motors that burn out frequently and are $20 to replace. For FTC, Lego is clearly making a fortune.
Also, we DID try to get people involved. We made a huge deal in our community to get people excited about the championships. Now we don’t even know if there will be room for them to sit, but that’s another thread…
Well first one key difference between the rules of most sports and first is scoring.
Multiplicative scoring is absurd. It didn’t make sense in 05 or 07 so why try it again now.
In every sport scoring is summation based. In basketball and football, you have the opportunity for extra points, but for the most sports your score a goal, you get x points for it.
In football, you may not understand all the penalties, or even the scoring, but you can quickly be told the goal and understand the basic idea.
Logomotion, not so much.
The problem is the way FIRST games are played. I understand the reason for autonomous / teleop / end game, but undertsanding this means to describe the basic format of the game, you have to describe 3 games each uniquely distinct, with distinct rules.
I would like to see all 3 of these incorporated into a single task making the game one game, but incorporating all of these elements, autonomous, teleop, and bonus.
I know nearly everyone would disagree with me, but end game takes away from the “game” aspect. No other sport or game has a concept of the end game. I will say that end games are very exciting for spectators, but maybe there is an alternative way of incorporating endgame in a field goal type manner. A fieldgoal / 2pt conversion doesnt break the flow of football, its not like its a completely different task than typical football play. I think having the endgame a natural extension of the game would be a cool idea. I think lunacy had something like this and overdrive did this very well. Also I’d like to see autonomous incorporated into the game, create a dead zone or something, where robots can only accomplish certain goals using autonomous, rather than having an autonomous period. Image the 2x ball in 04 only being able to be acquired using autonomous. This way autonomous would give you a distinct advantage, but during a match we wouldn’t have 15 seconds of 1/3 of the robots moving. I think it would create an interesting dynamic to autonomous, that doesnt currently exist. Also then matches could be 3 minutes long, no 2 minutes with a different game at the beginning and the end.
Basically sports have crazy rules, with many outliers, but the basic idea is easy to understand, and you catch on to critical outliers very quickly. I think FIRST can learn a lot from sports, and not detract from the challenge in doing so. Also linear scoring is important too…
but knowing first, next year we’ll see binary or exponential scoring 
I definately don’t agree with the bashing of Gracious Professionalism, and Coopertition. You say that they detract from the competition, however your dead wrong. Although it seems like they use the words too much, but if I had a patented word… it would appear in as many sentences as I could swing it.
Gracious Professionalism:
How many Sports have trash talk? I don’t know if you have ever played any competitive sports, but it is quite demoralizing getting beaten badly, and then reminded by your opponents. I have yet to see that in FIRST, as is the goal of Gracious Professionalism. It keeps people from getting demoralized to the point of anger, and hopefully instead drives them to work harder.
Coopertition:
Improvements can always be made. Some other team is always going to know something you don’t, and you should be able to learn from them. But if they keep everything a secret, its going to be difficult. Since the goal of the competition is to learn, being open and helpful is essential, thus Coopertition.
Actually this was exactly the example I was going to go for but as the opposite proof.
For 95% of the game of American Football teams do not want the ball to touch the ground and they use their hands to carry or throw the ball towards pre-marked zones at each end of the field.
In the other 5% a specialized player enters the field to put the ball on the ground then send it through specially marked Vision Targets (also referred to as Uprights).
Each competitive teams needs one or two people who can perform the specialized action in order to win (in some games the majority of points comes from the specialized action).
The difference is in FIRST we move all the field goals to the end of the game and it’s not an iconic standard thing that has been there since the beginning of time.
-Joe Kavanagh