[BB] What did you do with your weekend?

FIRST General Forum
#47

I wonder how often sports teams are penalized for the behavior of fans wearing team jerseys. Probably not often.

When we’re at competition – especially those closest to home – about half of the people walking around the venue in 488 shirts are folks I’ve never seen before.

What do we do? We could deny our supporters the chance to wear our uniform, but that doesn’t really seem to jive with the notion of celebrating what we’re all doing there. We could make them all go sit through some ridiculous “gracious professionalism” lecture, but since these are people I’ve never seen before, I’d rather be happy that they’ve showed up at all.

The short version, I guess, is that I think penalizing an entire group of people for the actions of a small number of people – especially without any notion of the role those people play on the team – is completely ridiculous.

#48

Yes - the message FIRST is sending here is crystal-clear. It looks like they’re telling you that if you have any kids on your team that you can’t trust to not make a dumb comment, ever, then you better kick them off the team and/or not bring them to any events. You know, those types of kids that FIRST probably needs to reach the most - the misguided ones who maybe haven’t always had the best influences in their lives. FIRST apparently doesn’t want any of that type of riff-raff at their events. :rolleyes:

Oh, and you probably better not invite any parents or other adults either. You never know what some unmonitored adult could say that might be tied back to your team. Best just to not have them there, right?

Good grief.

#49

Group punishment is ridiculous under most circumstances, but I think that that’s not the root of the problem.

In a sports context, there’s usually a separation between the fans (even those wearing jerseys) and the players. If a fan ran onto the field wearing team colours, there wouldn’t usually be any question about who was responsible.

In a FIRST context, teams often just mass-produce a shirt and hand it out to anyone with a pulse and a tenuous connection to the team. Since a FIRST team member could be anybody, it’s hard for a judge to guess who’s just a related spectator, and who’s actually on the team (and partially responsible for the team’s conduct).

One solution might be to print two sets of shirts—one for the team, and one for the team’s supporters (labelled as such). Of course, the judges would still have to know how to make the distinction, and it’s not so easy to raise that point with the judges (to make sure they know what to look for) without throwing up red flags.

Either way, the team needs to be cautious about how they’re being perceived.

#50

I understand what the poster is saying here. To use the spilled cup of coffee as an example: You’re in an interview with someone. The interviewer has various papers on his desk, as well as a Styrofoam cup of coffee. He goes to reach for something and accidentally knocks the cup, which spills on the paper. First thing out of his mouth is a muttered “Sh**!” Turns out the coffee just ruined some important document. (Or consider the same situation for someone giving a presentation.)

Now, I don’t think many of us would begrudge the interviewer for that. Personally, curse words have their place. Used right, they can convey a large amount of emotion and/or feeling. Much more than “Darn/Drat/Shucks/Uh-oh”.

Now, I’m not saying that it’s right to direct them towards anyone. However, the tone of most people’s comments are coming across as being rather condescending. I’m just trying to point out that there are situations where a curse word could be considered appropriate.

#51

This may be showing both age and cultural differences between those posting in this thread.

As an illustration - at about midnight with a group in St. Louis at the CMP, I had someone say to me “You are the s**t.”
My face must have looked as shocked as I felt. I was really tired so at first I thought I heard her wrong. This is someone I like, and I thought liked me. However, she is half my age.
I said “What???!”
And she and two others piped in “No, that is good. We all like you.”

I dunno. Sometimes it feels hard to keep up. :wink:

#52

I swear I like you too :slight_smile: , but being your age I also wouldn’t use those words in polite company.

#53

Shouldn’t judged awards be basded on direct evidence rather than hearsay?

#54

I doubt that feedback from field personnel would be the only input used to base an award on, its just one bit of the data used.

#55

So you are saying that a team whose members scream swears at the FTAs are Gracious and professional (the criterion for a GP award)?

As you said … Good grief.

#56

The team as a whole may be very gracious and professional. What if the person in question was not even a member of aforementioned team? I know lots of people not on our team have Cheesy Poof shirts either through shirt trading, launching them out of the t-shirt cannon or other means. Do we need to require a class on gracious professionalism before someone is allowed to own our shirt?

Furthermore, did the judge go up and talk to the student after it was witnessed? What if the person had Tourette syndrome and was exhibiting coprolalia or something similar? FIRST needs to be careful about using potentially out of context incidents like this as the basis for judged awards (and if they choose to publish them like this, they should release more context)…

#57

I said no such thing, thanks.

FIRST is stating plainly that a team was discarded from awards consideration due to the actions of 1 single person (which is quite a bit different from “a team whose members” which implies many/most of the team). I’d venture a guess that the poorly-behaved student in question was identified as a “team member” based only on the shirt they were wearing too.

My contention is that calling this event out will have the wrong impact: it’s not possible to police all of a teams’ members 100% of the time. Even with extensive “GP training”, some kids won’t believe in it and/or simply won’t get it. So, knowing that, the only way as a team leader that I could avoid being called out in a Bill’s Blog post would be to expunge all the “loose cannon” students and adults from my team. To me, it’s a logical conclusion. However, as I said in my earlier post, the types of kids who are more likely to say something inappropriate from time to time are the same kids who could probably benefit most from FIRST. So, if you make a big stink of “we’re watching you” on a blog and tell a story about how 1 student ruined a team’s chance at an award, maybe you’re inadvertently taking away the opportunity of a program like FIRST from the kids who need it most. I also contend that there’s plenty of students who would never, ever utter the words “you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing” to an adult under any circumstances, but for the most part these are the types of kids that already “get it” and are probably less in need of FIRST showing them the way.

Of course such behavior out of any person, student or adult, should not be condoned. I guess I just hope that the evaluation in Seattle wasn’t as black-and-white as Bill presented it. If a team spends a whole regional helping out every other team there, and a bunch of rookies play on the field who otherwise would have had a pit area full of parts but no robot, and 1 student is caught saying something dumb, should that team be eliminated from consideration for all awards? I sure hope not. I also sincerely hope that the team in question in Seattle was notified of this at the event, because there’s nothing worse than a problem you can’t solve because you don’t even know about it.

Something else for thought: I’m sure there are kids in FIRST who are competitive and don’t mind crossing the line from time to time. An unscrupulous student might look at Bill’s Blog and figure out he has a sure-fire way to help his team out at his next event. His team is up for consideration for the Chairman’s Award and he really, really wants to win, but there’s another team in the running that is strong. Luckily he traded shirts with that team last year, now all he has to do is put on that shirt and go swear at a judge a little, and boom - competition eliminated. Think that’s impossible? I’ll bet there’s some who would have thought no student would say “you don’t ****ing know what you’re doing” to an FTA too.

#58

First off, answering a question with a question isn’t an answer :wink: .

Teams are based on all sorts of criterion, and observing them during stressful times is most likely one of those critera.

You might want to consider giving out shirts that are not the ‘team’ shirt, so as to avoid this issue.

If you give out stuff that identifies that person as part of your team (whether they are or not) then any actions they do WILL reflect back on your team, for better or worse.

FTAs are typically a very reliable source of information. If judges had to ‘follow up’ on all ‘ungracious or unprofessional’ outbursts before casting their vote … well, we’d never see a GP award.

As I’ve stated in other places, teams need to understand their members and not put them in a position they cannot handle. In your above example, companies/buisinesses would be careful not to put that person in a position where they would/could cause the company embarrassment (such as spokeman). FIRST teams should do the same.

In the end you should consider this a real world experiance. When you are wearing a team shirt (even if it’s not yours), you represent that team and everything you do reflects back on that team.

#59

Sorry for the double post. We cross posted :wink:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to put in a plural. :rolleyes:
And I would not venture any guess as to how they knew what team they were on as we have no information/proof. You, Of course, have already stated otherwise.

Or … you could accept that you will not win the GP award and work to inspire those that need it most.

Also, they were ‘eliminated’ from only the GP award (reread bills blog), not all awards.

Again, we have no data to go on, so I won’t comment on anything else the team ‘may’ have done or not done.

Unfortunately, here, you are correct. As in my last post, teams need to guard their image. Giving out team shirts invites this, hence my suggestion that the shirts teams give out not be the ‘team uniform’.

JM(NS)HO

#60

If this scenario occurs then the team is failing the student. The expectations regarding team behavior (students, parents, and mentors) should be instilled in the team way before a team member has an opportunity to get frustrated with an FTA. Way way before.

Do people get frustrated, mad, impatient, angry? Yes, they do. It’s how they handle those strong emotions that defines their leadership on a field of competition.

Jane

#61

Seeing as it’s coming up again, I just wanted to clarify where I think the onus lies, with respect to judges trying to interpret the significance of their observations with respect to an entire team.

As a matter of good practice, teams should strive to avoid situations where their insignia could lead a person to believe that something disreputable was happening with the team’s approval. But shirts are memorabilia too, and naturally, the most authentic pieces are the most valuable, and indeed the best ones to give your friends. So there needs to be some balance. Teams should probably only be handing out their actual uniforms to people they trust…and non-team members wearing those uniforms should probably be aware of what they appear to be to an uninformed observer. (In other words, if you’re wearing another team’s shirt, be nice.) For random people receiving gifts or souvenirs, maybe they should be provided with something different to at least minimize the possibility of confusion.

But more importantly, judges need to be aware that the opinion of one person doesn’t necessarily reflect the mindset of a team. (The same goes for inspectors for that matter, since they’re often in similar situations where they might have to evaluate a team’s intentions based on the conduct of individuals.) The judges need to be keenly aware of the nature of the contact they’re making, and the inferences they draw. If an objectionable remark was overheard while they interviewing a team in a formal setting, did the other team members react positively/negatively? Or was this overheard in a queueing line (e.g. reacting to a call from a past match in private conversation) or a hallway (e.g. a person wearing a shirt with a team’s number on it, saying something offensive)? And is the person making the remark in a position of leadership or influence?

And incidentally, the judges are going to have to figure out whether the gracious professionalism award is for the team that is most professional in aggregate, most professional per capita, most consistently professional, or something else. (Owing to the inherent subjectivity and the short amount of time judges spend directly interacting with a team, maybe it’s always going to be “something else” by default.)

#62

The Gracious Professionalism is definitely a team award so the team has to be considered as a whole, which means that one person on the team could undermine the chances of the whole team earning the award.

The individual’s behavior will most likely influence the decision of the judges, especially if it is a close contest between three teams as mentioned in Bill’s Blog. The behavior weighed against the team and lowered their standing in the considerations.

#63

What strikes me about this exchange is that the comment wasn’t directed at a fellow team member, an alliance partner, a parent, a sponsor - it was directed at AN FTA. The single most critical position at any event. Without an FTA, an event just plain won’t run (assuming the use of official FRC equipment). The manuals give the FTA complete and final authority. This individual should be treated with utmost respect in any situation, reagardless of situation or circumstance.
I can’t speak on behalf of other teams, but in our team, I don’t tell the students they have to be respectful. I DON’T HAVE TO.

If I have a student that, after a fall semester and entire build season, I have reservations about that student representing our school and team well while at an event, I have no problem un-inviting that student to the event. Competitions are a reward for months of hard work; if a student cannot behave during those three days, that student should not be there.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen the reprimand on CD of “no matter what the disclaimer, you’re always representing your team.” Doesn’t this extend beyond the interwebs and into competition?

#64

Why should I treat an FTA any better than anyone else? They are a person and if your reaction to any other person is a series of profanities then so be it.*

*It is still wrong but at least you are treating everyone fairly.

#65

So, in a dispute, you’d use the same language with your sibling or college roommate as you would the Governor of Michigan?
If that’s acceptable behavior, then we as culture-changers have a lot of work to do.

#66

And you would treat the guy who cleans toilets after hours differently than you would your Governor? They are both humans who deserve the same amount of respect as you would hope they would give you.