Last there was a post entitled “Why is anybody surprised at ref problems.” This post was posted by a user under a second account. Since this is banned by CD rules the account was deleted and eventually the thread was also removed.
Many people commented on the bravery of the poster prior to the thread disappearing. I am afraid that these people might take the removal of the thread the wrong way and believe that this indicates some attempt at suppressing dissent on CD. I’d be willing to bet good money that this isn’t the case. It is logical to think that threads from banned members are removed regardless of their content.
It is a shame that this thread was removed as there was a great deal of professional and mature discussion which spawned from the topic which was raised. Thankfully this is the internet and so nothing can ever be truly deleted. Here’s the original thread.
Now, obviously we lost a few posts since the last cache, but I would love to hear a continuation of the excellent debate and general discussion which this topic spawned.
There are like 3 or 4 different threads right now all about refs, bad calls, consistency and other stuff.
There’s a lot of angry people, some venting, some with good points, and some with suggestions. I’ve
been one of those who says “they’re volunteers, if you think it’s so easy, then volunteer to ref or offer
suggestions to make it better?”
But not anymore, at least not now, since some posts a couple weeks ago changed that. So to those who say “offer
suggestions or volunteer yourself”, I say nothing can be fixed or improved unless those in charge agree, and
right now that is not the case. In one of the threads after week 1, a mentor offered some constructive
criticism about the referee system and ways it could be improved. I didn’t think her comments were at all
out of line, insulting or anything like that. I agreed with some of what she said and didn’t agree
with some. In my 3 years in FIRST, this thread had by far the post thats bothered me the most that I’ve
ever read here on Chief Delphi, but it wasn’t hers. Her requests and suggestions to improve officiating
were quickly met by a response which basically insulted her, telling her to stop whining and more. Who made
the post? An upset mentor, an immature student, a poor sport parent? nope, not even close. It was the
National Head Ref and a GDC member who replied to her and proceeded to insult, demean and dismiss the views
that mentor expressed. He was insulting, he was condescending, and worst of all he showed that he
did not want to hear ANY questioning of referees or things that should be improved. His replies were
totally ungracious, completely unprofessional and in my eyes a complete embarrassment to the people in FIRST so many of us look up to, respect and listen to like Dean, Woody and Dave. If these comments were
made by a student they probably wouldn’t have bothered me that much. But the National Head
Ref? Someone on the GDC? Someone who’s supposed to set an example to the students in FIRST? I think the
refs do a pretty good job, but I also know there are some problems with consistency, how rules are enforced
and the game knowledge of different refs - all things which should be gradually improved where possible and
which would make FIRST competitions even better. But what did his post tell us? It says that there is ZERO
hope of any issues with the referee system improving much at any time in the near future, since you can’t
improve or fix a problem if you are completely incapable of seeing it, admitting it, acknowledging it
or having any desire to fix it. My point is, why is everyone surprised that 2 weeks later consistency and
rule enforcement problems have gotten worse, not better? If the person in charge doesn’t want to see
problems, can’t take input or constructive criticism and insults team members, then why did anyone think
things would get any better after week 1.
This post has bothered me for a week or two now. I was also troubled that the moderators
on Chief Delphi removed his posts. Shouldn’t people have to stand by their words and posts, unless they
are vulgar? I can only guess the posts were removed to protect that individual and because they were an
embarrassment to FIRST and the GDC. But shouldn’t being accountable for your actions and words be a
value that the community (FIRST and Chief Delphi) should embrace instead of sweeping under the carpet by
trying to hide/protect someone just because they are involved in the management of FIRST? I think a lot of
people on here, especially with all the current threads, deserve to read what the head ref said.
Why wouldn’t I want to post under my normal screen name? Because the posts of that ref raise some
character concerns to me that there could be retaliation against our team for airing these views.
We play next week and still hope to maybe play in Atlanta, so I don’t want to put my students at risk
for any retribution.
This has nothing to do with the person who made those posts. It has to do with the position he holds. We have
the right to discuss public comments and views posted by a person in a decision making position. I have no desire
to criticze that person, but I do think we have the right to question and discuss public comments made by such
an important position.
I maybe one of the few it seems on Chief Delphi that found that the ref’s did as good a job as any other year. Yes they made some mistakes, but they are human, being human means your going to make some mistakes. Honestly its not like they are out to penalize everyone(any refs reading…if you are, be nice to my team jk) honestly, i think people are blowing this ref thing all outta proportion.
Why wouldn’t I want to post under my normal screen name? Because the posts of that ref raise some character concerns to me that there could be retaliation against our team for airing these views. We play next week and still hope to maybe play in Atlanta, so I don’t want to put my students at risk for any retribution.
I have a hard time believing that someone would honestly fear retribution against a team for having expressed an opinion about an official’s attitude. It’s also not that difficult to figure out who this “anonymous” poster is, so going against policy and creating a second account is unhelpful in that regard. I personally have a tendency to treat most things posted under a false name as exaggerated, unreliable, and generally not worth taking too seriously. The presentation interferes with the message.
I also have a hard time understanding why this is being discussed in a public forum full of people who have no power to act (i.e. students) and who can only be affected negatively by the various comments and complaints. There are better channels for addressing this.
I am not suggesting that such issues be swept under the rug. They just should not be hung out in public. I know of other concerns that have been resolved satisfactorily behind the scenes without being turned into a spectacle on the Chief Delphi forums. This strikes me as a situation that should receive the same treatment.
Alan I think you have completely missed the mark here, and I think that the original posters intent was to deter exactly the thought that you displayed here.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing or approving or disapproving of what the original poster said, but I DO see the times where censorship simply has no place. If someone said something that offended a person to the point of them wanting to anonymously post there disdain then I think it is something worth looking at.
Knowing who the referee was, that the poster was referring to, it nerves me to think they approach an arena of constructive criticism in such a way to take offense and lash back at people…
If students don’t have any power to resolve an issue like this, than FIRST has lost all its meaning in my eyes. FIRST is about the students, so I think a few people who should have influence are the kids.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the meaning in your post, but I cannot say it did not shock me.
I would find that excuse credible if you could explain the existence of these anonymousaccounts. There is obviously a double standard. Some are allowed, even celebrated, while others are quick to receive a friendly reminder that the practice is prohibited.
Don’t bother trying to reconcile the two; it is obviously the content that gets a thread deleted. I wish everyone would quit trying to insult our intelligence by suggesting otherwise, or by objecting about the author’s secret identity when it’s the content that puts him or her off.
So what about the content of the OP? Does a person who has worked so hard deserve to be dragged through the mud because of a few words said in anger and frustration? I don’t think so. I think deletion was the right thing to do the first time, the second time, and this time too!
If someone wants to make public their opinion, I think he or she should stand behind it. If someone sincerely feels afraid to speak out with a name attached, but still wants others to hear what he or she has to say, there is an established policy for anonymous posting.
If students don’t have any power to resolve an issue like this, than FIRST has lost all its meaning in my eyes. FIRST is about the students, so I think a few people who should have influence are the kids.
FIRST is definitely about the students. On the other hand, it is not run by the students, and I think that is an important point. We mentors are trying to make the experience an inspirational one. What we do is obviously influenced by those for whom we are doing it. However, when a problem occurs involving a specific person, I believe it is much better to bring a relatively small group of dedicated adults to bear on the problem than to expect “the kids” to act to resolve it.
The students do not – and should not – have the authority to appoint or remove official FIRST representatives. There is much more involved in such decisions than can be – or should be – dealt with in a forum where all participants are permitted to speak without regard for credentials, experience, or special knowledge.
Again, I’m not trying to belittle the concerns. I’m just trying to point out that there are more appropriate avenues for addressing them. I trust that the appropriate people are hearing the complaints and that appropriate action will take place. I say this not because I know for certain that it is true in this case, but because I have seen it happen in enough other cases for me to have faith in the way FIRST operates.
That’s easy. I can even give two explanations, either of which ought to be sufficient.
First, those accounts are pseudonymous rather than anonymous. They represent a specific known entity. They might be fictional people, but they have an established background.
Second, the intent of those accounts is not to hide the poster from the consequences of posting. On the contrary, the intent is to protect the people reading the posts from being influenced by the history and present affiliations of the person writing them.
Yes, it’s a double standard. One standard is for private individuals. The other standard is for public persona.
Dealing with posters that make 2nd accounts or show no affiliation to a team often carry with them a problem… and we at Chief Delphi inherit the problem.
Sometimes the person is hiding from their team because if their team leadership/sponsor knew their affiliation with them they would react toward the team and toward them. This is often the case when a youthful angry reaction to an event gets displayed without thought or concern. I have removed many, many posts at the request of the team leadership as the comments and content were issues that needed to stay inside the team and not in public forum.
As soon as I see a poster with no team # I send them a private e-mail asking why. If they do-not accept e-mail a very bright red flag goes up. I usually have their account banned because at that point there are issues that are not good for the community of FIRST. They are even trying to hide from us.
Sometimes I get a response back with a very good logical reason why… looking at the reason I make a decision to allow, ask them to reconsider their profile or in rare cases ban then. Usually when approached we can work out a compromise.
FIRST(no pun) and foremost is what is best for the community of FIRST.
Opinions, concerns expressed in the proper manner is the power of our community. Sharing our thoughts, expertise and opinions in the proper constructive way is growth and that is good for FIRST.
SOOOOOO… Please lets move on, move up and develop the FIRST Community to its greatest potential. We can all learn, grow and express ourselves to keep FIRST a great experience.
This has nothing to do with the person who made those posts. It has to do with the position he holds. We have the right to discuss public comments and views posted by a person in a decision making position. I have no desire to criticze that person, but I do think we have the right to question and discuss public comments made by such an important position.
Well it seems to me you **are **making it about that person. A public forum is not the place to be discussing matters such as this. If you feel there was an issue with something that went on, take it up via private message with either the ChiefDelphi administrators, or the person you are discussing.
No good can come of a public forum rallying around and “burning someone at the stake”. This is not saying that you shouldn’t be discussing this with someone, if you have a problem, please take it up with the appropriate people, in private.
Tom’s right here. Let’s not make this a personal attack on anyone, including the person who started this thread or anyone else. The issues at hand have been discussed and are continuing to be discussed in several threads including here and here. If you have concerns, air them out there, no need to hid behind an anonymous account. It’s ok to be critical of FIRST when done professionally. We can all learn something new. FIRST can always get better but it can only get there when the faults and their possible solutions are pointed out.
I think the most important post in that thread, sadly, wasn’t cached. It was made by Mike Aubrey, mentor of team 47, Chief Delphi, and forum moderator. Basically it said that the Chief Delphi forums are not only a medium for FIRST teams to discuss and interact, but they also carry not only the team name of FRC 47, but the name of a major corporation (Delphi).
As a result unprofessional conduct, flame wars, and personal attacks are avoided by the wonderful crew of moderators and webmasters. The comments weren’t deleted as an act of censorship or to “save face for FIRST”, but rather to keep the conduct on this forum clean and within guidelines.
As for the anonymous “double standard”, Brandon explained that in this post. Duplicate accounts are allowed if approved by the Chief Delphi moderating crew first.
I hate to be snide, but it seems clear to me it’s not ok. A well respected mentor was downright reamed by someone in a position of power for presenting their thoughts on what she saw with respect to refereeing, and what she thought could stand to improve.
It sure feels to me like anyone who questions the status quo is labeled a troublemaker nowadays.
First off, let me preface this post with I hate to resurrect this and put it back on top, but some things need to be said.
1. This should never have been posted in a public forum such as CD. There are other avenues. PM, email, phone etc. We as mentors and leaders need to be better stewards of this program called FIRST and not make personal attacks on anyone, referees, judges, other mentors.
2. I have not read the thread except what was posted here. I do not know the call(s) that made the originator so upset. I don't care what the call was. We must remember the robot and the game are just tools to build the student. Yes, we are building and shaping young minds to operate in a world that is messed up, But let's do it the right way and make the magic happen without these distractions. If winning the game is so important that exchanges such as this were made, then the poster needs to be in another program.
3. I am going to tip my hand now and admit, yes, I am bias and have an agenda for this rant. I have known Dr. Browne for some 20 years, even before his days on a FIRST team. Even before FIRST was thought of. I cannot stand idly by while his character and integrity are being shot at. I can tell you that it is not in Aidan's character to tear apart anyone in a public forum. There are very few people in this world that I would trust my family with, Dr. Browne is one of them. His integrity is impeccable.
4. In my first conversation with Aidan after the game was revealed at SNHU, I asked why a game without any defense. He told me, that is what the teams wanted. Over the past 2 years the referees and the GDC were getting hammered with compaints about rough play, so the GDC decided to give the teams what they wanted, or what they thought they wanted, a game without defense. A game in which NO contact was allowed (outside the bumper zone.) So, I tell you this to illustrate that the GDC and the "makers of the magic" do listen and do care. Believe it or not, Dr. Browne is on your side.
I hope the original poster has calmed down enough to re read Aidans answer. A lot of times when we are upset and angy, the real meaning of a statement becoms cloudy and we read things into a statement that are just not there.
I want to second what Dana has written. Aiden has great passion for FIRST and FIRST teams. He was a mentor on a team and felt he could make a bigger difference contributing to the game design and reffing. Aiden has taken measures to make sure the refs are certified, which is a bigger step than any of his predessesors. He is trying to fix what he thought was broken. Although his original response to Madison was a bit harsh, please do not judge him by one post. He is a wonderful human being who has dedicated a significant part of his life spreading the mission of FIRST.
I have to agree with this one. What we dont tell rookie teams especially, is that not only do you have to build a robot to meet the game challenge, but you have to be able to handle “rough” play/defense that will try and prevent you from doing the game task(s). This was especially true last year. Only the most experienced drivers and robust robots were able to overcome with greater success robots that tried to stop them from scoring.
I have spoken with so many Hawaii rookie teams already that think all they have to worry about is trying to hurdle as if they were the only team on the field. They will be in for a rude awakening on the game speed, dynamics of 6 teams on the field, and defensive play.
I like the rule changes towards allowing teams to play the game.
BUT, this thread has several tangents and is beyond the nature of the game design. Its also about referees having adequate knowledge of the game, being consistent, and open to concerns graciously brought forth by teams both during the matches, competition and after. I have no strong opinions about either side, but only to say, its unfortunate when scores do not correctly reflect the scores it’s supposed to be. Whatever solutions come about to improve on this, we all want the same thing.
I look forward to watching and participating in regional matches during weeks 4-6 and lets be optimistic things will go well.
In my mind all of these people are VOLUNTEERING along with 99% of first adults and are taking time out of there lives to help us out. They are there for us and they are going to do the best job that they can. I think we need to give them a little slack now and then!
Trying to discuss whether Dr. Browne is a good man is pulling a staw man argument, doubled with an ad hominem fallacy.
The matter of the fact is that a man representing a big organization with such an ethical component has a responsibility to always think twice before he speaks on a public forum such as CD and more broadly, the internet in general.
Onto another matter. Chief Delphi is free to censor any information and cannot be held accountable by any member. You are free to leave or stay from this place.
I for one have not seen the post itself, and I doubt that half the people posting here have. I am just making a general statement based on what I hear.
Many people talk about not judging a book by its cover, but they also don’t give most new members of Chief Delphi a chance. Dr. Browne, no matter what he stands for or what he says, would have been negative repped by the community with ALL fires against. Although he is an “elite” member of the FIRST community his limited posts, that range from questions for the fields in Atlanta to a few posts like the one we are discussing, are very little to give most of us, whom have never had the opportunity and probably will not, an idea of what kind of person he is and judge him on that.
I know when I joined the Chief community, I was told EACH posts represents ME, my team, and my sponsors. I do not think that being a key member of the GDC gives him immunity from that.
Many of the people on Chief are being hypocrites on this issue. If it was anyone less ‘popular/important’ I can bet anything that the CD community would have shunned this person and made him scared to return.
Let us not forget that the game is a by-product of the goal. Regardless of what a ref said, get over it.
It is only a Game.Scholarships are not based on how well a team plays a game. Applications are.
No, I have not read, nor care to discuss the relevance to any individual, group, or organization.
Let’s focus on the goals here. Are the FIRST team members learning skills to help them outside of HS and perhaps land a lucrative scholarship or job? Y or N?
Are the FIRST members learning teamwork? Y or N?
Are FIRST members learning that sometimes they will disagree with the opinions of someone in their command chain, even if it is different from their employer or school policies? Y or N?
If the above is YES, Are we as mentors / instructors teaching the students the proper methods to approach the subject? Sure it’s a parent’s job, but kids listen to neighbors better. Y or N?
Let’s all move past this thread.
Personally, the Referee job performance at UCF in Florida was flawless. There was a last minute change to one of the rules that made perfect sense to me. The cross-over-the-line penalties were reduced.
It sometimes takes a week or two to get the discrepancies ironed out of the gray areas of the rules.
It’s not like we are playing baseball. It’s a new game.
jk) honestly, i think people are blowing this ref thing all outta proportion.