I want to put a little perspective on this that maybe will shed some light for folks on the stress and decision making that has to happen by volunteers, to points here and elsewhere about balancing the team experience with other competing priorities, but generally trying to provide the best experience for everyone.
In Channelview, the delay between finals was because a Roborio was corrupted through (likely) no fault of the team, they hadnāt deployed code or done anything between F1 and F2 other than change batteries. Why would I want to penalize somebody for something they didnāt notice until they powered up on the field for F2, and that was not their fault? I donāt want to, thatās not good for me, not good for the team. Even while we were working on it, there was a constant mental conversation going on āletās try A, B, and C, if that doesnāt work, what comes next?ā, then āletās try Y, a 20 minute operation with everybody else on the field and connected, that isnāt guaranteed to fix the problem, if that doesnāt work what comes next, and weāre at an event that is already running pretty late, we might have to bypass them which would likely end the event for their alliance which I donāt want eitherā. I donāt know what we would have done if Y hadnāt fixed the problem, or some Z or AA or AB tries that came after, luckily thatās all still a theoretical. I suppose the line would have to have been somewhere, but I donāt know where. 10 minutes? 30 minutes? Until the teams that were gracious enough to wait decided they didnāt want to wait any more? Until somebody or some group decided the issue was unfixable within some time constraint (no issue is unfixable with enough time, right?)? Until 30 minutes before the venue would kick everyone out so we had time for awards after? Luckily the other teams were cool with waiting on the team with issues and just shutting off their robots and having a dance break while we got everybody going. Hereās the tricky bitā¦ would I do the same thing again in taking time to let the team fix the problem? Absolutely. Would I allow any team in that same situation to do the same thing? Absolutely. Would I allow any team in any situation to do the same thing? Absolutely. Then reality made me a liar.
Letās fast forward to I think it was Pasadena 1. Quals, probably middle of the first day, donāt really remember exactly, competitions all seem to run together. A team has the exact same problem, corrupted or whatever roborio, needed a reimage, purportedly with the only action again having been powering off and on the robot between matches. The team was already on the field for their quals match. The event is a bit behind. Do I put us 20 minutes further behind to let the team reimage their roborio and then compete in the match? My heart answer is yes, my brain answer is while yes, this is quals, and while that shouldnāt really be a distinction, itās 20 minutes in a not-event-ending quals match. If the same issue were to happen to another team later, fairness would dictate taking the same action and letting them fix it, and suddenly we could be unrecoverably far behind, which would seem to force my hand at drawing a line in order to finish quals / an event in 2 days. I caved to that, talked to the team about it and why I was thinking the direction I was and what their input and feelings were. I consider myself exceptionally luckily the team was pretty cool about it, I know it wasnāt a positive experience for them, and itās distressing, emotionally draining, and just demoralizing to me making those decisions. I hope that team will accept my apology that I didnāt give them the same opportunity another team was given in Channelview, I think in hindsight it was the wrong decision, and beg some understanding of making it with the information and future considerations I had at the time. It was my second most hated decision I made this season. The first most hated decision, that really just tore me apart, was later on in Quals at the same competition, with the exact same team, and the exact same issue.
That one I lost sleep over. The team would now have missed two quals matches. Itās the same issue again and not the teamās fault, and theyāre being negatively affected by it, by not being given time to fix it before their quals match and thus not participating. Fairness would dictate that since they didnāt get time the first time, they shouldnāt get time this time either. Or if I gave them time this time because āthis is outrageous that you are so impacted by something you have (essentially, one could argue otherwise I suppose) no control overā, why didnāt I give them time the first time? Same situation too however, what if even a handful of teams from that point forward needed to reimage their roborio before a quals match (or playoff matches)? There just isnāt time to do that. Balancing the fairly low probability of that happening though, should I have given them time to fix it for the second occurrence? The first? What opportunity did we miss after the first occurrence to mitigate the risk? Or did we assume that it was fixed, they hadnāt had the problem all during build or competition up until that first occurrence, so was it just going to be a fluke that was fixed and was good? Why didnāt I think of telling them to go to spare parts and get a replacement roborio after the first instance (which wouldnāt necessarily be without itās own set of risks, but thatās the teamās decision on whether to take those risks or not)? I donāt want to āpenalizeā them for not having a backup SD card of code to pop in and run, since (sarcasm) obviously every team does that or knows about it or thinks about it, when I didnāt even think about it after the first occurrence to get them to make one (nor did the CSA that got with them I donāt think). This one tore me apart, on one hand the circumstances for a second occurrence are different because I must have missed some opportunity to solve or mitigate the issue during the first occurrence, so itās a perfect opportunity to rectify that mistake and whatās 20 minutes in correcting a mistake, or for a better team experience? On the other hand, time concerns always, and consistency and fairness are also key. I was already inconsistent between two events in allowing/not allowing for reimaging in this circumstance, I should be at least fair and consistent within the same event. Should I have allowed it in all situations, present and potential future, and if the event didnāt finish because of that, negative experience for everybody and lesson learned I guess? Should I have allowed it in no situations and run a Finals 2v3 because of a āconnection issueā outside the teamās control?
We got it fixed after that second occurrence, I think they got a spare roborio and used that, Iām ashamed to admit I was preoccupied with other things and didnāt follow up, and only know I didnāt see that issue again. But two matches, missed, unwillingly by that team, by no fault of that team, and because I made a decision to ābalanceā keeping the event moving with giving the best experience to a team. Hindsight being 20/20 and with no other teams winding up having the same issue (and fortunately some of the other issues dying down so we stopped losing time as much) I should have just taken the extra time to let them fix the issue. Why didnāt I just do it, as we had for Finals in Channelview? Whatās the worst that would have happened on the flip side, we run hours late, and cut several quals matches in order to fit somewhat in the schedule?
These are things that I both love about volunteering, that I can be the influence to make decisions in a direction that most benefit the teams and provide the best team experience, and hate in that I also know that if the event doesnāt finish, then the team experience couldnāt be more negative, which is opposite of the goal. And thatās just one example. Even as simple a statement as saying the team experience is of paramount importance, thereās A LOT that goes into that, decisions big and small to be made that I donāt envy anybody. Do you trade a āsmallerā negative experience in favor of a ālargerā positive one? A more positive experience here in favor of a positive-but-slightly-less-so experience overall? Some decisions are easy. Some need outside assistance, from engaging the team to collaboratively come up with the best solution, from other volunteers, from HQā¦ Some are impossible, where even folks with the best intentions and experience are 50/50 on being viewed as ārightā or āwrongā, or all possibilities are both right and wrong depending on various recipientsā perspectives.
Volunteers canāt be loved by everyone all the time, my theory is at minimum we shouldnāt be hated by anyone any of the time. Iām glad we took the time in Channelview and the teams were willing to do so and wanted to do so, thatās āsouthern hospitalityā for you. Iām not glad we didnāt take the time in Pasadena 1, but also still remembering the what ifs that fortunately didnāt come to pass. Was taking the time in Channelview the right thing to do? Within the context of that event only, yes. Within the greater Texas context, maybe, the precedent it sets makes decisions at future events (just counting ones I do) harder. Within the nationwide and worldwide context? Probably not. Because there will be times where we canāt do the same thing, and that becomes unfair and inconsistent. Iām glad it was a good experience for those involved, thatās what Iām here to do and want to do and strive to do. Iām truly sorry for any negative experiences that did and will result from either myself or anyone else not affording or not being able to afford others the same opportunity. Itās something easy to celebrate as a win looking at it simply, but I donāt think itās something that should be celebrated, because itās borderline in the bigger picture of whether it was ultimately the right decision.