I do know of one instance where a Team X claimed to have mentored Team Y. Some set of judges asked Team Y about this, and Team Y did not agree. Team X was removed from contention for Chairman’s.
It may not happen all the time, but it does happen.
"^ 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. "
I can think of at least 2 recent CCA teams that focused a lot of time and energy on Vex based outreach…I hope that openness to other programs promoting STEM growth is still in effect. If FIRST CA judges are going to weigh alternative program use as outreach less than FLL, FTC, etc. then I would hope they clarify that asap.
I agree, the changes to the questions and this form both seem like that is the way FIRST is heading with out directly telling teams that.
There are a lot of schools and students who don’t have every opportunity to be on a robotics teams, any type of competitive STEM team. It’s my belief that we should all be trying to support the grow of all STEM education. I love FRC but there are tones of schools where an FRC team just doesn’t make sense, maybe FTC does, or VEX, BEST, Botball, Trinity Firefighting, OCCRA, MATE, or any of the other dozens of programs that want to inspire students to learn more about STEM.
I’d be interested to know how the HOF teams felt about this since the way the blog reads these definitions were published by them.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the discounting of other STEM initiatives varies heavily from judge crew to judge crew. I know presenters from various teams have definitely come away with the impression that FIRST-related activities were weighted more heavily, based on judge questions. However, results seem to be a mix.
That I agree with, my worry is what is being told to judges in training. If CA judges are all being told to limit the importance of spreading STEM through other means besides FIRST programs, to me that greatly changes the meaning of the award.
And I can think of at least one of the Chairman’s videos being changed to say “other robotics teams” when released to the public rather than “VEX robotics teams” (which was the version shown live at the Championship).
It’s also been no secret that the Chairman’s award focuses on FIRST related outreach, especially with the changes to the online submission short answers questions starting in 2014.
I doubt you’re going to ever hear FIRST say “We don’t value non-FIRST outreach” In stead, they’ve made it clear they have emphasis on FIRST-related outreach.
It may help to keep checking Frank’s Blog to see direct responses from him regarding some of the questions in this thread…
Receiving team documentation
Permalink Submitted by Frank Merrick on Tue, 10/13/2015 - 10:24.
“Hi Liron. We had talked about requiring some documentation briefly, but did not want to turn this into a legalistic exercise. Our working assumption is that most teams, in keeping with the ethos of Gracious Professionalism, will not mislead about their support for other teams, once presented with reasonable definitions they are told they must adhere to. With the number of teams applying for Chairman’s Award, some percentage certainly will still intentionally mislead, but we don’t want to punish those who don’t by requiring additional paperwork.”
Related to the definitions in the new document,
I’m glad FIRST is providing these definitions. It will be helpful for teams in several ways.
Now teams have clearly defined terms they can use when writing Chairman’s Essays.
Also, teams will have a standardized set of terms/measures with which they can compare themselves to other teams to know if they’re really doing what they should be in terms of helping other teams.
Lastly, it may help motivate some teams to move from an assist role to a mentor role or a mentor role to a start role.
In the 2nd portion, it also clarifies a somewhat muddy distinction between “running” an event and just helping.
I wonder where Frank got that particular phrase from 
Hi Frank!
I actually did laugh out loud when I saw this.
“Team A creates and publishes a scouting database compiling statistical data from competitions, and the database is downloaded and used by other Teams”
There are only a couple of teams that publish scouting databases. There are a few more if you include scouting apps. I know my previous team did mention the scouting database as part of the Community Service Slide. I also know they never claimed the other teams that downloaded the file as being “mentored” or “assisted” in their chairman’s presentation.
So it is either (a) some team did claim that or (b) somebody thinks that a team like ours had claimed that but not sure so adding this clarification will make sure it does not happen. Either way it is sad we have to come to that.
I took that more as something relatively benign-- Karthik/Simbotics have been releasing a pre-Champs scouting database since forever, so given that this was constructed in collaboration with HOF teams, I can see how they might see this as uncontroversial statement or at least one that’s just coming from their experience. I certainly didn’t read it as a jab at any particular team.
Or, that scenario now falls under the new category of Providing Published Resources and it doesn’t actually have anything to do with previous teams.
This isn’t FIRST “cracking down” on what criteria need to be met to win a Chairman’s Award. The CA has always been rather up to interpretation (even more so in the recent years) and this is simply a way to find some sort of common ground for CA submissions.
A massive thank you to all the HoF teams who helped with these definitions. I’m sure there was a lot of debate over what it means to “start” vs. “mentor” vs. “assist” a team. What would seem tedious to some will be a huge assistance to the entire FRC community going forward - so thank you heaps!
I made that comment because of how specific it is and how few teams it can direct at. They could have made it more general like saying a team developed a software utility or tools instead.
You’re 100% correct. It was just an example of one of the many types of beneficial resources FRC teams have created.
This is a good move, and I like the concise definitions. Hopefully this will smooth out the churn in direction business teams take and reduce the gamification this season w.r.t. what and how to write & present for CA. Teams do so much but only get X number of words and Y number of minutes to show the impacts. There are so many good programs, I’d much rather hear about unique community approaches (e.g. Kell) in the CA winner announcements.
I think this was an incredibly smart move. As we see more and more very deserving teams submitting for the CA, it’s important to standardize terminology. FIRST is a technical program, and that doesn’t apply to just the robots. When submitting for the CA, students are learning how to write in a persuasive AND technically accurate way, in the same vein that many professionals use in their day to day lives. It’s important to teach them how to follow technical guidelines and provide ethical and truthful statements.
In the same way that as an engineering consultant I have to provide accurate summaries of my firm’s capabilities in a project bid document, FIRST students need to write about their accomplishments in a professional and truthful manner. This is another side to the professional world that doesn’t always get emphasized but it’s a huge teaching opportunity for our community. It standardizes the terminology and places everybody on an even playing field. This move leaves little to the imagination and eliminates differences of interpretation that teams may or may not use to exaggerate or spin their claims.
It’s never an easy task to get students to document, document, document! They don’t like it when you comb through their numbers and claims with a fine tooth comb to ensure their accuracy. It’s a frustrating process, but I’m glad to know that FIRST is on the same page when it comes to honesty in submissions.
During the creation of these definitions there was no discussion about including other types of programs in this new common set of terminology. We were working within the pre-exisiting framework and written criteria and just ran with it. There was absolutely no intent or direction to exclude other types of robotics programs. However, creating these type of specific definitions would have been much harder if we weren’t applying them to specific programs.
I think my feelings are well known on this topic; inspiring students to get excited by STEM is the goal, it really doesn’t matter what program they use to achieve this goal. I would hope the judges continue to award teams who are inspiring by promoting this vision via any avenue, as they did for 1114 in 2012.
thank you for clearing that up
Additional information from Frank’s Blog in response to my questions…
"Submitted by Frank Merrick on Wed, 10/14/2015 - 15:10.
Hi Joe. 1. The submission will not require the listing of specific teams supported. 2. Judges may or may not attempt to verify claims based on circumstances. If a team claims to have mentored Team 9999, and team 9999 happens to be attending the same event, the judges may ask Team 9999 to confirm the relationship. 3. The examples given are just examples, and are not intended to change the emphasis on the award. If you look in the manual for specifics on award submission, though, you will see emphasis is given to supporting FIRST teams. It has been this way for some time.