[FRC Blog] Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions

FIRST General Forum
#1

Posted on the FRC Blog, 10/12/15: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Chairmans-Award-Submissions-Definitions

Chairman’s Award Submissions Definitions

Blog Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 - 16:45

Hello Teams,

The most prestigious team award in *FIRST *is, and I believe always will be, the Chairman’s Award. For a team to earn this award, they must be able to describe, among other accomplishments, their initiatives in supporting other teams. In doing so, teams often use phrases like “we started x FLL teams” or “we mentored y FRC teams”. As teams may have different definitions of what terms like ‘started’ or ‘mentored’ mean in this context, it can be difficult for Chairman’s Award Judges to compare accomplishments between teams.

To help solve this problem, the Hall of Fame teams have developed a common set of team support definitions for teams applying for Chairman’s Award to use. You will find them in the ‘Chairman’s Award Submission Definitions’ PDF here. A link to this document can also be found on this page. Teams applying for Chairman’s Award for the 2016 FRC season will be required to adhere to these definitions when describing their support for other teams. This will help Judges know, for example, that one team’s ‘started’ will be comparable to another team’s ‘started’.

Please recognize that *FIRST *and the *FIRST *community value all your efforts in supporting other teams, regardless of what form that support comes in, or what particular Chairman’s Award definition of support your action meets. By implementing these defined terms, we’re not attempting in any way to minimize the work you are doing, but to give our Chairman’s Award Judges a common vocabulary to use in their very difficult task of determining the most deserving teams for this incredibly important award.

I want to thank the Hall of Fame teams for developing these definitions, it’s a wonderful service to the *FIRST *community!

Frank

#2

I really like this. Providing a standard vocabulary should make Chairman’s applications easier for teams, since they won’t have to worry about misrepresenting themselves. Furthermore, it will, along with the published winning Chairman’s submissions, provide greater accountability in the FRC community. I’m glad these definitions are provided to us during our first year of creating a Chairman’s submission.

Thank you Frank and the HoF teams!

#3

The definitions are straight forward. What I love is the requirement that the team being helped has to agree to the relationship or that the help took place. Would this mean that teams will have to submit the team numbers or substantiating documentation to put these claims in the chairman’s essay?

#4

Not to descend into my standard winter/spring behavior too early, but why does this matter if there isn’t really a lot of teeth to this? I think it’s a step forward but how is this actually supposed to be enforced significantly better than what we had before?

1 Like
#5

By “event”, do they mean JFLL Expo / FLL, FTC tournament / FRC district competition or just a generic “event”?

#6

Does it need to be enforced? Or does the FIRST ethos of Gracious Professionalism ensure that there’s no need to enforce it, so long as everyone is aware of a consistent set of definitions?

Part of the problem we’ve had in the past, I think, is teams taking credit for “starting” or “mentoring” a team that existed in their school system, even if they didn’t have much interaction with them - after all, if they held a kickoff event the team attended, or talked with them once or twice during the season, that’s interaction enough, right? Some people/teams may have said so honestly while others did not. Now the new definitions give teams a benchmark to measure themselves against, something they have never had before.

#7

If teams actually do adhere to these definitions, I would expect to see a **dramatic **reduction in the number of teams claimed as being started, mentored or events previously claimed as being run by teams… The big question is whether or not judges are going to attempt to verify said claims. Hopefully CA judges won’t continue to be swayed so much by the number claims that apparently led to this point…and focus more on the quality and effects of outreach efforts.

#8

I would like to think this is the way it works but I am a bitter cynic with only occasional trust in the “system” to work. It’s probably just me and not the environment but w/e.

#9

They won’t. It’s a logistics issue really; The type of people you want as a judge are the type of people who don’t have a lot of free time. Families, jobs, hobbies… they all get in the way. At best the judge will read your essay a week prior your event, maybe mark it up with some things to ask about, then watch your presentation, interact with your students, keep notes, and then after all teams are done, make a decision. I know I’ve had Chairman’s judges who spent the week prior to the event traveling and they had no ability to read the essays in advance. The Chairman’s judges (and all judges) are stretched thin as is without the onus of verifying claims.

Of course, this also assumes that the teams actually READ this and take it into account. Not that they have much incentive to do so since ignorance actually benefits them. (but I’m a cynic)

#10

A friend once told me that the crux in judging for FRC is that those with the most “power” at an event typically have the lowest vested interest in utilizing that power in a way that teams would like.

EDIT: While that is a harsh way to generalize it, there may be a nugget of truth there.

I’ll try to word the way I view the problem properly without sounding like a total jerk or a hopelessly ignorant fool but there’s a good chance I will continue to fail.

Another cynical way I approach this move is that this is the minimum level of transparency of criteria HQ wanted to allow. Maybe FIRST thinks that a pursuit of their own doing concerning enforcing accurate representation of facts and statistics for teams would evolve into a pursuit by teams of calling for accurate representation of facts and statistics that FIRST does or does not publish.

#11

Best thing since sliced bread. Hope team’s honor the requirement.

#12

Awesome changes! Our team discussed a lot about this last season/this off-season and we are happy to see these changes to the definitions.

#13

At least it’s more obvious to these teams what these definitions are. Before there wasn’t even a clear line as to what is really “mentoring” or “started” was. At least people’s moral compasses are the enforcer here and the line is clear, which is more than we had before.

Great work FIRST.

#14

Big fan, great idea, happy this is a thing. Props to all that made it happen.

#15

I love the motivation behind this change, and I think the definitions are reasonable and will help judges figure out which teams are most deserving of the Chairman’s Award. That being said, I agree with Andrew’s point above that a team’s ignorance regarding these definitions could end up giving them an advantage, and while I’m not sure what could be done about that, it’s unfortunate.

#16

The biggest impact here is that it will help both the teams AND the judges follow a more clear set of definitions when defining quantity and terms used often by teams in their essays, interviews with judges, and their presentation.
This is a big improvement versus the status quo where many teams in the past have used such terms loosely to their advantage.

#17

It could be as simple as having a link in a compliance statement on the submission website - “check this box to acknowledge that you and your team has read and complied with the definitions supplied here.” With something like that, no team can claim ignorance…

#18

This is a good thing and long overdue, but I still see two potential issues that this document seems to allude to:

  • FIRST seems to value only FIRST programs. This document infers that robotics and engineering programs that are not affiliated with FIRST are not given the same if any “credit”
  • The Chairman’s award seems to have returned to a competition of who can start, mentor, and assist, more teams and who can run more events.
#19

To your first point. makes sense to me.

TO #2: That is not it at all. What they are trying to do is standardize what it means to “start” ,“mentor” ,“assist” , teams. It is in no way stating how this is going to be weighted.

I do have a questions about how this is going to be enforced, if it was ever intended to be. Why have the second part of the definitions here at all unless there needs to be some sort of supporting documentation required or each mentored team listed? It makes no sense otherwise.

#20

This is a great addition to the Chairman’s Award rules and criteria… an excellent tool to encourage and provide consistency. I’m very happy to see this put in place. We often have discussions about what a particular term really means and what it might imply to the judges… now we have it defined for us. This is definitely a positive change. Thank you HOF teams for your work on this. :smiley:

^ This is a perfect suggestion… can’t claim ignorance after that.

^ My interpretation has long been that the Chairman’s Award does emphasize outreach within the FIRST community. This has also been reinforced with the updated short answer questions in the last couple of years that specifically asked about interactions with and encouragement of other JFLL, FLL, FTC, FRC teams. Alternately I have viewed the Engineering Inspiration Award as encompassing more efforts not necessarily associated with FIRST, as well as emphasizing STEM related outreach as opposed to more charitable efforts like Relay For Life or Special Olympics. Of course, that is just my personal interpretation since it is not explicitly spelled out in the award criteria.

^ An excellent point! Stating the requirement of agreement of the receiving team certainly implies that there will be some sort of validation or expectation of follow-up.