St. Louis - A Definite Practice in the Ideals of FIRST

Competition Regional Competitions
1

To be honest, our first regional as a team went…well, not as planned, but not necessarily bad. We toughed it out, like rookies should have to, and we had our ups and downs. But this regional was like none other that I had attended. This regional was a learning experience for me on engineering practices, teamwork, and upholding the meaning of FIRST. This regional was, most definately, a lesson on both what FIRST should and should not be.

What FIRST probably shouldn’t be:
During the practice matches on Thursday, we had no drive train at all. Our second model was still in the works, but not having a full field back home, we decided to place the robot on the top of the ramp and see how well our traction held. We told our fellow teams about this and ran up to place the robot. The first time, it held well.

The second time, we placed the robot on top of the ramp, and three different rookie teams loudly expressed anger and ‘booed’ our team off the field. Our team’s feelings were hurt by this more than any other act. Parents of rookie teams were standing in the bleachers and ‘booing’ our robot and our test. Many of our team members were embarassed, hurt, and most of all, disappointed. I never thought I would see the day that a group of parents would jeer another team’s robot. Personally, I couldn’t believe my ears. How do you say “Don’t worry about it” to a group of kids who were just literally just degraded? As a mentor, I felt helpless.

Another time, a team came up to us and our alliance partner and tried to strike a ‘deal’ for getting each team more qualifying points. Our driver was approached and was asked to participate in a match where all human players would lay out four stacks of four, all bins would try to be even between the different alliances, and the robots would all make each other room on the ramp at the end. This was a quick scheme to cheat the competitive system and gain each team a higher standing. Ourselves and our alliance partner declined and received a rude answer.

The only thing I could think during this entire scenario was, What Would Dean Do? He would do what was right for the entire alliance and decline this offer. He would do what was in the best interest of both the competition and gracious professionalism. Most of all, he would stand for the ideals of FIRST and the FIRST community. I think we made the right choice.

What FIRST should be:
The St. Louis regional was not only a lesson in life, but a tough one. After our team build seven different drive trains, starting on Thursday morning and ending on Saturday afternoon, we had nothing but gratitude for the teams that helped us continually. Team 45’s bot was torn apart into pieces when I came to ask Andy Baker for some help with our drive train. He immediately followed me to our pit, kneeled down and inspected the problem, and said, “How can I help?” This single act of gracious professionalism was incredible. Andy got us back on the right track, and we never passed him in the pits without a ‘Good luck!’ or 'If you need any help, call me." His unselfishness was greatly appreciated by us, just a mere little rookie team with no mentors, no money, and no drive train.

Team 447’s bot released some ‘magic smoke’ during some of their matches early on Friday. And yet, their engineers, knowing that we had no help, came over with a toolbox and some good ideas. They walked us through several of our drive trains, and were always there with an extra hand and some good words of encouragement. It meant a lot to our team, which by this point were more than just a little discouraged. When we finally got running on Saturday morning, they were cheering right with us. They never gave up on us, even when we were frustrated and tired of this whole drives mess.

Every time we needed a part, whether it be a flashlight, some rubber, or good old Duct Tape, teams 906, 476, 447, 1018, 45, and 1028 were right there with us. They checked up on us regularly and never let us give up for a moment. There was nothing more inspiring than those teams giving you a pat on the back and a couple inspiring words before a match. Their unselfish acts gave a team with a broken robot a true FIRST spirit.

These are personally acts that happened to our team. I am sure that other teams might have experienced the same. Our team was not the only robot that was down and out, but we did receive just enough engineering help to both fix the robot and give our kids some pride in their hard work. Many teams sacrificed to make this regional a better one for us, without so much as asking for a ‘thanks’.

It is these teams that uphold the real meaning of FIRST, as Dean Kamen intended it to be.

2

*Originally posted by amandabean *
**This regional was, most definately, a lesson on both what FIRST should and should not be. **

Well done to your team for persisting and also for not allowing those people who were jeering to bring your team down to their level.

I guess there should be some printed material on the philosophy of FIRST, written in simple english, to hand out to new FIRST participants each year with a place on the bottom for them to sign that they pledge to uphold the values of FIRST. Also I think that we should hand all spectators a pamphlet with the FIRST philosophy and some rules of behavior as they arrive at competitions.

As to teams seeking to inflate their scores by working out deals with their opponents, maybe the above would help, but I think it is also time to do away with a system of scoring that would reward such behavior with high scores. As Dean says, a society gets what it celebrates. It is time to do away with a scoring system which rewards the winner for giving the looser points during a match. It doesn’t occur in sports in this country, and it certainly doesn’t occur in industry. It is also causing oddities in the elimination rounds if both teams win a match. As an example, here are some scores from the St. Louis Semi Finals. Based on the scores, who do you think should advance from this semi-final round, blue or red?

Alliance	Team	SCORE

__Elim SF2.1
_ _Blue 525 _ 71 Cedar Falls HS
_ _Blue 16 71 Baxter & Mt. Home HS
_ _Red _ 877 _ 10 NASA/Cub Robotics
_ _Red _ 1178 10 Ursuline/DeSmet
_
__Elim SF2.2
_ _Blue 525 _ 30 Cedar Falls HS
_ _Blue _ 16 30 Baxter & Mt. Home HS
_ _Red _ 877 64 NASA/Cub Robotics
_ _Red _ 1178 64 Ursuline/DeSmet

Here is how it looks with Qualifying Points:

Alliance Team SCORE QP

__Elim SF2.1
_ _Blue 525 71 91 Cedar Falls HS
_ _Blue 16 71 91 Baxter & Mt. Home HS
_ _Red _ 877 10 10 NASA/Cub Robotics
_ _Red 1178 10 10 Ursuline/DeSmet
_
__Elim SF2.2
_ _Blue 525 30 30 Cedar Falls HS
_ _Blue 16 30 30 Baxter & Mt. Home HS
_ _Red 877 64 124 NASA/Cub Robotics
_ _Red 1178 64 124 Ursuline/DeSmet

The red team advanced. That is contrary to the way life works. I do understand that we don’t want experienced teams to demolish the rookies and demoralize them, but the current system is akin to letting your child win at Monopoly so he won’t cry. I say let’s get real. We should find other ways to help rookies do better. This year’s kit of parts was excellent in that regard.

Speaking of a society getting what it celebrates, we need to celebrate the teams who helped out other teams in the pits. They need to be honored for representing the best of FIRST, especially those teams who were having their own problems like Team 45. Congratulations on showing what gracious professionalism is all about.

3

*Originally posted by DougHogg *
**I guess there should be some printed material on the philosophy of FIRST, written in simple english, to hand out to new FIRST participants each year with a place on the bottom for them to sign that they pledge to uphold the values of FIRST. **

Check out this from Redhead Jokes’ signature. Thats all I could think of when I read your post.

4

This is a good thread. Thanks, Amanda.

Two things I’d like to add:

  1. The Prank Monkeys, Team 1020, exhibited both gracious professionalism and grace under pressure at the St. Louis regional. They had an ambitious strategy for a rookie team, and struggled mightily to make it work. And while this was happening several of them spent time helping other teams, and one even volunteered with the FIRST crew (thanks, Neil!)

  2. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that FIRST should change its scoring philosophy. The component of QP/EP score based on the opponents’ raw point total is what gives the game most of its variety and challenge. If each alliance got points based only on its own score, the game would be too easy. In the St Louis SF2 example that DougHogg cited above, Red advanced and that is as it should be – all teams knew the scoring rules beforehand, and should have planned and played accordingly. That is how life works.:slight_smile:

5

I just want to point out that the info FIRST has on the St. Louis elims is incorrect. The blue alliance in SF2.2 was 525 and 356. And if we’d just driven off the ramp, we’d have advanced. I agree that +2(Losers score) can make some odd things happen. But it was our bad call that cost us the semi-finals, not the scoring rules. The plan all along was to lose big if we were going to lose. We just goofed in the last half second of the match.

-Joel

6

Now, my question is:

Where were the FIRST staff and the referees while team 1020 was being booed? Why weren’t these parents and students shown the door?

I think FIRST needs to get it’s act together, stop preaching, and start ENFORCING these codes of conduct. It makes me vey sad to see teams doing that sort of thing without fear of punishment. They should have been penalized: I think a ban from attending the nationals ought to do it.

7

*Originally posted by Joel Glidden *
**I just want to point out that the info FIRST has on the St. Louis elims is incorrect. The blue alliance in SF2.2 was 525 and 356. And if we’d just driven off the ramp, we’d have advanced. I agree that +2(Losers score) can make some odd things happen. But it was our bad call that cost us the semi-finals, not the scoring rules. The plan all along was to lose big if we were going to lose. We just goofed in the last half second of the match.

-Joel **

Thanks for clarifying what happened.

Actually that kind of sums up my objection to the existing scoring rules. Here we had a situation where a team had to purposefully “lose big if we were going to lose.”

Question: What does the audience think when they see a robot deliberately drive off the ramp to lower their score? Are they going to understand that? Doubt it.

Question2: Where in life do we find a team winning by doing worse in a competition?

*Originally posted by Richard *
**
2) I strongly disagree with the suggestion that FIRST should change its scoring philosophy. The component of QP/EP score based on the opponents’ raw point total is what gives the game most of its variety and challenge. If each alliance got points based only on its own score, the game would be too easy. In the St Louis SF2 example that DougHogg cited above, Red advanced and that is as it should be – all teams knew the scoring rules beforehand, and should have planned and played accordingly. That is how life works.:slight_smile: **

I get your point on that. I think you are right when you say the scoring adds variety and challenge. Maybe there is another way to achieve that without a team having to deliberately reduce their own score to win (thus confusing anyone watching on the NASA channel among other problems). For example, maybe a team’s final score could be linked to how well both robots on their team do? Anyway, I guess it is time for me to put my money where my mouth is and design a game, per FIRST’s challenge.

*Originally posted by Brandon Martus *
**Check out this from Redhead Jokes’ signature. Thats all I could think of when I read your post. **

Very cool! I hadn’t seen Team 294’s Gracious Professionalism Poster before. Good job, Team 294. See you in Phoenix!

8

I like the idea of a scoring objective that can only be achieved by having both robots in an alliance contribute – this would improve the game in two ways that come to mind immediately:

  1. it would remove one element of pure luck in qualifying alliance draws, making it unlikely that a less capable team could get a high QP rank simply by drawing a succession of strong partners, and

  2. it could provide an alternative element of challenge and variety, so that the scorched-earth strategy that many people have found so distasteful at regionals this weekend could be eliminated.

Maybe I’ll try my hand at a new game design, too.

9

I was one of the event volunteers and was standing right in front of the team that booed you. Believe me, I was totally shocked at their actions. A few of them continued even after I turned around and gave them dirty looks (twice). But I will say this, one or two of the people on their team looked embarrassed to be associated with them and I don’t recall seeing any mentors in the group. Hopefully, they will get their act together in the future. The way I see it, FIRST is not about the poor sportsmanship that these kids exhibited.

Even though I was with a veteran team, I am a rookie mentor and this was my first year. What I learned at this year’s event is that there is a LOT MORE to the “competition” than the final standings. Our team was really impressed with the incredible courage shown by the PrankMonkeys. Your team has a lot to be proud of; I thought your robot design was good (almost great) and your outfits were absolutely fantastic! I especially liked the monkey faces :slight_smile: Your contributions to the event and your presents did not go unnoticed.

Hope to see you again.

Will Adams, Engineering Mentor
2003 St. Louis Regional Score Keeper
Adidars, Team 476

10

I found it really dumb when our team (940) got yelled at because one of our team members and one of team 939’s team members didnt have protective glass’s on. And the lady that yelled at us didnt have protective glass’s on herself. Is’nt that a double standard when your getting yelled at by a person who has been doing the same mistake? I guess saftey doesnt apply to FIRST’s staff members

11

Well, you DO need to have safety glasses on as stated in the rules. The rulebook every team receives does not mention FIRST staffers needed to wear safety glasses.

12

I would also like to commend the PrankMonekys on their awesome job of handling pressure during the 3 days of comp. I helped their programmer, sorry didn’t get his name, work on their autonmous, and it was a blast. They did so well with what they had.

GOOD JOB GUYS

Scott
Guy with 8 million buttons on his hat
Team 935

13

well amanda, this is the first im hearing of the results of the st.louis regional. first off, good job. i knew you could make a team happen. congratulations to all of the prankmonkeys for just getting everything together to make a team, let alone compete.

i am glad to hear that all of the other teams, rookie or not, were willing to help you. 906, 476, 447, 1018, 45, and 1028, thank you for exhibiting what f.i.r.s.t is all about.

now, on to the unsportsmanlike conduct during the matches. first off, in the spirit of the game, why would you EVER want to strike a deal with the other teams to inflate your individual score? to me, this defeats the purpose of even competing. this isnt what f.i.r.s.t is all about and everybody knows it. when teams get to the point where they are trying to make deals with other teams to inflate each teams individual score, then f.i.r.s.t competition has hit a low point.

as for the team or teams that were ‘booing’ you guys, forget them. personally, i believe that they should be exposed and used as an example for everybody else. they should be sacrificed on the alter of gracious professionalism, if you will. some might not feel the way that i do, maybe thats because i know members that are part of the prankmonkeys, but in any case i believe that the team or teams involved should apologize for their behavior. i would feel the same way i do now no matter what team was involved. i have never heard a team truly get ‘booed’ at, so these actions by other teams suprises me.

on a lighter note, congratulations to the prankmonkeysfor their showing at the st.louis regional!!

14

*Originally posted by MikeFromTeam71 *
**now, on to the unsportsmanlike conduct during the matches. first off, in the spirit of the game, why would you EVER want to strike a deal with the other teams to inflate your individual score? to me, this defeats the purpose of even competing. this isnt what f.i.r.s.t is all about and everybody knows it. when teams get to the point where they are trying to make deals with other teams to inflate each teams individual score, then f.i.r.s.t competition has hit a low point. **

I have to disagree with this. The game is presented as a set of rules. It is up to the teams to figure out how to play the game. What is wrong, especially in the spirit of gracious professionalism, to work out a plan such that the losing alliance gets 100 qualifying points while the winning alliance gets over 300? If FIRST didn’t want this to happen, the qualifying points would look something like the number of points scored by the winning alliance.

We saw examples of teams pushing boxes onto the opposing alliances side to boost up their score. How is this any different than making an agreement up front to not zero out each other’s stacks? Was it unsportsmanlike to leave scoring points on the opposing teams side? Did the spirit of FIRST command us to knock down the stacks on the other side when their robots couldn’t cross the ramp?

Goofy scoring systems are a part of the FIRST competition. If you want it to be a competition, then teams are going to have different strategies for maximizing their scores. Unsportsman like? I don’t see it that way. If FIRST wanted the scoring to be Alliance RED against Alliance Blue, with no cooperation, they would set the qualifying points to be only their alliance points, with no adders for the opposing alliance. If they wanted it to be ruthless, they would award you the difference in scores.

The set of rules encourages cooperation, even between opposing alliances.

15

*Originally posted by Norm M. *
**I have to disagree with this. The game is presented as a set of rules. It is up to the teams to figure out how to play the game. What is wrong, especially in the spirit of gracious professionalism, to work out a plan such that the losing alliance gets 100 qualifying points while the winning alliance gets over 300? If FIRST didn’t want this to happen, the qualifying points would look something like the number of points scored by the winning alliance.

We saw examples of teams pushing boxes onto the opposing alliances side to boost up their score. How is this any different than making an agreement up front to not zero out each other’s stacks? Was it unsportsmanlike to leave scoring points on the opposing teams side? Did the spirit of FIRST command us to knock down the stacks on the other side when their robots couldn’t cross the ramp?

Goofy scoring systems are a part of the FIRST competition. If you want it to be a competition, then teams are going to have different strategies for maximizing their scores. Unsportsman like? I don’t see it that way. If FIRST wanted the scoring to be Alliance RED against Alliance Blue, with no cooperation, they would set the qualifying points to be only their alliance points, with no adders for the opposing alliance. If they wanted it to be ruthless, they would award you the difference in scores.

The set of rules encourages cooperation, even between opposing alliances. **

I get what you are saying. That is why we have to get the rules changed for next year. It is supposed to be a competition, not play acting. What if all 4 teams from every match got together and decided on what everyone should do so that they all get the highest possible points. That wouldn’t be a competition, it would be a play, with 4 actors in every match. So it is time to alter the rules, so that collaboration between opponents is not a temptation. We just have to arrange the rules so they don’t reward such actions.

What do they call it when 2 boxers get together to decide how the match will be run. They call it “fixing the fight”.

Let’s not get into fixing our FIRST matches. After all, the spectators think that they are watching a competition. Some of the matches are on TV. Let’s not fake it. We just need to come up with some new scoring patterns that will result in interesting matches without tempting people to fix the match.

As to how people should behave given the current scoring, every team should strategize with their partners on how to optimize the score, but not get into making deals with their opponents. After all, how would you feel if the New York Yankees starting working out deals with other teams for everyone to get lots of home runs to make the crowd happy or something. That would be fake. Let’s not go that way. We want an honest competition. It’s a GAME. There needs to be opponents. Otherwise we are all wasting our time. NO OPPONENTS = NO GAME = WASTE OF TIME.

16

First, thank you to all of you posting with such wonderful comments on our team. It means a lot to the team and myself, personally. Our experience in St. Louis was definately the best that I could have hoped for in the team’s best interests, and a lot of that was due to the different teams that came by to give us a hand and some moral support.

*Originally posted by Norm M. *
**I have to disagree with this. The game is presented as a set of rules. It is up to the teams to figure out how to play the game. What is wrong, especially in the spirit of gracious professionalism, to work out a plan such that the losing alliance gets 100 qualifying points while the winning alliance gets over 300? If FIRST didn’t want this to happen, the qualifying points would look something like the number of points scored by the winning alliance.

If they wanted it to be ruthless, they would award you the difference in scores.

The set of rules encourages cooperation, even between opposing alliances. **

What happened in St. Louis is not the same as you are suggesting. A parent, not a driver or student, from a different team approached both ours and team 1210’s drivers and talked them into a ‘set of rules’.

That basically consisted of them saying that all human players would stack in a certain area and a certain way, that the drivers would not knock down each other’s stacks, and that the robots would all be on the ramp at a certain given time. If one team’s stack was knocked over, all bets were off.

Both our driver and 1210’s driver were uncomfortable with this, and they approached me. I told them that as rookies, they should make a judgement as to what gracious professionalism held within the rules of FIRST play. They both agreed to approach the other team’s mentor, and when they told him that they didn’t want to go along with plans, they were given rude comments and then ignored.

What I was suggesting was that this behavior, while extreme and not common for a regular FIRST regional by any means, was not within the standards of gracious professionalism. This is obvious to anyone involved with the FIRST community. These drivers, both rookies, were embarassed and almost forced into a situation that would apparently ‘cheat the system’.

Now, by ‘cheat the system’, I don’t mean cheating FIRST’s rules. FIRST is sometimes very lenient with their gray areas and scoring rules, and this leads to debate about their actual meaning. My intention was to point out that this way of scheming was not necessarily benefitting any team. It was just another way of boosting QP’s, when our team wasn’t even trying for anything but MOVING at that point.

Now, in agreement, we had several teams come by and ask us what our strategies were for different matches. Sometimes these were alliance partners, sometimes these were opponents, and neither time did we refuse information or blow them off. If we weren’t running, we told them we weren’t running. If our autonomous wasn’t working, we told them. There’s no reason to hide or refuse to divulge information to different teams - chances are that if they end up countering your attack after you tell them what it is, they would have been just as able to counter you if you hadn’t told them your strategy.

17

I noticed that most of the REALLY high-scoring rounds were rookie vs. rookie or four moderately good robots going at it. There were some really low-scoring matches in the finals, with the better robots competing.

Team 1098 had a good robot or they got really lucky…they got over 300 QP’s after flipping onto their back halfway through one of the rounds!