::rtm::
While the Chairmanâs Award is about âmore than robotsâ, teams often leverage their robots to enhance their impact on the broader community. For this reason, it is expected teams in contention for the Chairmanâs Award will have built a robot appropriate to the gameâs challenges for the season. This does not require the team to have ranked at a certain level during the event, but does require teams to put in more than just the minimal effort necessary to field a drivable robot.
The Chairmanâs Award is presented to the team judged to best exemplify the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large with emphasis on promoting science and technology through FIRST programs.
Seems a little reminiscent of the 2011 âand their kitsâ Team Update.
Dave Lavery was quoted in that thread and I think it still applies today.
A little less time spent on turf wars, and a little more time spent on reaching the 95% of students who are oblivious to your existence, might be wise.
Iâm a little upset about the auto award. If this is another award that cant stack, a lot of really good robots are going to miss out on design awards at regionals simply because they have the only high level auto. I know âall awards are equalâ but we all know theyâre not. And this wouldnt feel as much of an achievement as industrial design, quality, or engineering excellence.
If it does stack and itâs an objective award like âhighest rookie seedâ then itâs fine.
I feel like the teams that will win the auton award will be teams that put it on the same level as a design award, as they are teams that specify a high level of programming.
Innovation in controls isnt seen as such despite it basically being an auto awardâŚ
Nov 1, 2017 version of the chairmanâs award description.
The Chairmanâs Award is presented to the team judged to have created the best partnership effort among team participants and which best exemplified the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large.
Webcache link for the Chairmanâs Page
Todayâs Updated Version
The Chairmanâs Award is presented to the team judged to best exemplify the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large with emphasis on promoting science and technology through FIRST programs.
Just for a history lesson 1997 Chairmanâs Award Description
https://i.imgur.com/foimQ4Vl.png
Seems like a judged award to me:
Guidelines
The award is based on the performance of the robotâs autonomous (non-operator guided) operations during matchesConsistent and reliable operation is weighted more heavily than the ability to score maximum points during any specific autonomously managed actions
A team spokesperson must be able to explain:
â How the robot understands its surroundings, navigates on the field or positions onboard mechanisms and then executes tasks.
â The factors the teams considered that could interfere with success during autonomously managed actions.
â The design, development, and testing that was done for the robotâs autonomously managed actions.
I thought we already had an autonomous award though?
Coming from a team that primarily used VEX programs to inspire the younger generations, the chairmans update is upsetting. If the mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators then it shouldnât matter the means that brings said inspiration whether it be VEX, FIRST or any other STEM program.
Maybe im blind but I hold IoC in the same regard as the rest of the engineering awards, and dont really know many who actually see it as truly âLesserâ besides the fact that its a bit too broad. ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Also, who sees it as an auto award? the 4 times 4513 has earned it was all for things the bot could do in teleopâŚ
I agree. I wasnât on the team when 842 won HOF, but a lot of what we did was outside FIRST programs. NURC, Railfair, Mate, and the numerous other things the team did certainly fall outside the scope of FIRST but were very influential in our community. I probably wouldnât even have joined the school/team and been a part of FIRST had the team not reached the community in those ways. If a team is making significant impact in their communities, I donât think it should matter if they are using FIRST, VEX, or any other tool to do so.
I wonder what prompted this change. Are they preemptively trying to prevent some sort of chairmans-only team from forming?
The Chairmanâs Award is presented to the team judged to best exemplify the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large with emphasis on promoting science and technology through FIRST programs.
The idea that FIRST would use their highest prestige award as a means for expanding their program makes a lot of sense from a business perspective⌠but from a culture change perspective and in terms of promoting their missionâŚ
FIRST Mission Statement:
The mission of FIRSTÂŽ is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.
âŚI donât think the new Chairmanâs Award description improves anything. Promoting students to pursue STEM fields through non-FIRST programs such as VEX, BEST, etc. still helps to change the culture, and still works towards achieving FIRSTâs mission. Even outreach projects and community engagement events that arenât robotics related, but still promote STEM and engage with the local community about the importance of STEM, fulfill FIRSTâs mission. I can understand the logic behind FIRST not wanting to promote their primary competitor in their target market⌠My biggest concern stems from the fact that the new wording seems to disincentivize general community engagement activities and other non-FIRST related outreach events that many teams do.
Non-FIRST related outreach is a staple of many FRC teams. Those teams create a massive positive impact in their communities and throughout world. I would hate for a (smart) business decision to cause these teams to discontinue their non-FIRST related outreach. Luckily, I believe many (I hope a large majority) teams arenât motivated by the Chairmans Award, but instead are motivated by a drive to improve their community and the world.
FIRST isnât a for profit business they should be worrying about their mission and not who has more teams. If the Red Cross started changing policy to actively disincentives people from supporting cancer research I think a lot of people would get upset.
I believe in FIRSTâs mission and have for a long time, I believe a little a less in the people employed to complete the mission today.
Yeah, my team has won also won the Innovation in Control award 4x, and for at least one of them it was explicitly for something that could not be used in auto.
In other news, since the number of judged team awards has changed everyone who has district point prediction models will most likely need to go update them. I guess that will go on my to do list. Lol.
For the auto mode, if âconsistent and reliable operation is weighted more heavily than the ability to score maximum points during any specific autonomously managed actionsâ then the judges should be watching and scouting all matches, right?
Iâm not holding my breath on this, but it would be a big step in the right direction. More of than not, there is at least one award that doesnât match the on-field performance. My favorite was a team we moved to our âDo Not Pickâ list after not being able to leave the corner of the field due to drive issues winning the Quality Award, which âcelebrates machine robustnessâ.
During my first year in FRC, my parents asked a question, considering it as a team sport. They were told by a mentor that itâs not a team sport; itâs a businessâŚand it is.
Depending on how scoring is recorded, I can create a report that shows your consistency in auto pretty easily. If auto is composed of âcross baselineâ, âacquire game pieceâ, and âscore game pieceâ and thatâs reflected in the scoring data per robot it would be almost trivial to build a âmost capable and consistent autoâ report.
Just because that may be how it seems to operate it doesnât make it right.
FIRST is a non-profit with a mission statement. It should not care by what means teams work towards and accomplish this mission statement.