“*…my views do not reflect those of my team, employer, etc…”
*I’ve seen this sort of disclaimer pop up a few times lately (especially in fun political threads), and I felt it important to talk about. Even if your views aren’t stated positions of your team, they can have real consequences.
As a simple example, if you post something inflammatory or trollish, another team might pass up on picking your team as an alliance partner, even though you included a disclaimer. It’s probably true that the stated positions of your team differ from your own personal views, but the team ended up facing the consequences. The team is a part of your identity as much as you are a part of the team’s identity.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you can’t pick and choose which parts of your identity “actually matter” when you post online. Either own all of it or don’t post - the disclaimer does nothing.
I think people over estimate how far their CD posts really reach into the FRC world. If someone chooses to pass on a team because of what one of the members said on CD you probably wouldn’t want to be picked by them anyway.
And for those of you who think this only applies online… Welcome to the real world, where the clothes you wear can also send a message of being part of an organization, and shape everybody else’s view of that organization, regardless of whether or not you are actually part of that group. (Oh, and remember that employers like to take a look at social media feeds when they can.)
A person in a team shirt does something that somebody else doesn’t like… but is that just a random parent, a team member from some other team that traded for that shirt, or a student or mentor on the team? For purposes of perception, it doesn’t matter, that experience will color that other person’s view.
I’d also like everybody to remember something about this forum: You never know when you’ll run into another member in person, at competition or around it. I know, for a fact, that some of those encounters can shape online perception (and vice versa). I know… because I’ve had some of those encounters.
Folks, there’s this thing called “reputation”. No, not the Taylor Swift album. To quote Merriam-Webster’s…
Definition of reputation
1 a **: **overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general
b **: **recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability
has the reputation of being clever
2 **: **a place in public esteem or regard **: **good name
trying to protect his reputation
As an example of a reputation, I would say that, for example, 254 has a reputation for building quality robots year after year, that are powdercoated blue.
Reputations are notoriously easy to destroy, notoriously hard to build up. (Or is it that bad reputations are notoriously easy to obtain?) You want to have a good reputation. Having a bad reputation can make it difficult to get and keep a job–even if you’re a good worker a bad reputation for other things can hurt.
Remember whose shirt you’re wearing, and what team number is on your profile. If you’re anonymous, remember that that decision also affects how you are viewed (even if nobody knows what team you’re on, it can affect you personally).
Agreed. With the mentality that a single person’s post is going to determine an alliance, I’d find it hard to believe that the “negative” team would be passed up seven more times. It’s the quality of the bot and drivers that I have seen matter the most, not where those drivers or team members stand on an issue or what they say online.
I definitely agree with this and I have also dealt with this to some extent. In a group I’m with in college we pride ourselves on our reputation, which can be hard to manage with college-aged students. A lot of how that goes has to do with the representation we have with our spirit wear we receive. We get a lot for free but we have restrictions to places we can wear them.
That even extends to not wearing your spirit wear to bars. We weren’t allowed to wear our hats backwards for a number of years just for the way our staff thought it make us look. They want to keep our reputation out of the hands of whatever events an individual may do at a bar because of the effects it can have on an outside member.
This idea extends to teams, even though it may be on a different scale or level. I know I still am guilty of judging teams the way I see their members act outside of matches which changes my perspective of them.
I agree. Adding on to that, it’s important to note that each member of a team is their own individual person. Not every member will hold the same opinions about everything, and it would be foolish to dismiss a team because someone had the “wrong” opinion in this corner on the internet. I’ve seen some opinions I disagree with on here, and I even have some names in mind. But not a single one of those names is associated with a team to me, and I wouldn’t hold it against those teams for allowing their members to express themselves online.
I see that disclaimer thrown around in political threads a lot. I remember when people say something I disagree with, and every once in a while when I see that person on a different thread, I think to myself “That person disagrees with me on X topic.” It’s a bit of an intrusive thought, because in my front brain I know that what this person knows about strategy or gearboxes or whatever isn’t impacted by what they think about Colin Kaepernick. I think in that situation, the disclaimer serves as a reminder to not get caught up in it, that we can have a productive conversation without taking things personally.
When it comes to alliance selection, I would have a REAL hard time believing that Captains would pass on a team due to comments and reputation on an online forum such as this.
Team turnover is relatively short, and memory of online posts are even shorter when your goal is to win an event.
I find that there are situations where OP’s point is more relevant. The posts that come to mind are those talking about your or another team. If you’re willing to boast about your own team or bash another team publicly, it stands to reason you have no qualms about doing the same privately, at which point who knows who’s listening and agreeing with you? There’s a specific example of the former that I can think of that made several people think less of the affiliated team, even if only in the short term. Even in other cases, you never know who’s looking at what you say, or for what reason.
That being said, I do feel the phrase has become a bit cliched within the FRC community. People have it in their signatures at this point. I’m not sure how much it’s really doing to impact what I think about your input.
Mostly just be careful what you say and don’t do anything stupid enough that it brings your affiliations into question and generally things work out.
The FIRST community is diverse. I’m going to talk politics here, but only as an example. We’re diverse in many ways. Students on my team run the political gambit and have varied views.
If I’m going to weigh into a political discussion on CD, especially a contentious one, I may well use that disclaimer, not to attempt to influence the reader’s perception of me, but to be clear that while my political views may be the same as some of the students on my team, they are certainly not the same as all the members of my team. It would be unfair for me to speak on a forum, identified by my team number (in the header of each post), and not make clear that this view may be contrary to that of some of my team.
Additionally, in this example, our team is apolitical in it’s function. We’re not a political organization, and to imply that the views I personally express are those of the team as an organization would be improper.
Alternatively I would have a 2nd CD account without a team tagged, but that’s not permitted by the forum rules - thus everything we say is associated with our team, but not everything we all say is the official position of our team.
Finally, if a CD community member, who knows of these rules, reads our posts and thinks that everything they read without that disclaimer represents the official views of that team, I think we have a different problem.
With social media such a prevalent part of our lives nowadays it is very easy too have team members go rouge and do things online that make the team look bad. As I said before to a student “too many people have worked too long and too hard for many many year building this team’s reputation up to have you tear it all down with a moment of reckless selfishness.”
Virginia Regional a few years ago, wearing my team sweatshirt that has my last name printed on the front. Stopped by a team pit and one of the adults says “Hey, you’re notmattlythgoe on ChiefDelphi!”.
While I won’t let 1 post define a team, each and every post and interaction with that team goes into forming my opinion of that team.
There are teams that can say “we’ve got this fixed” and I will believe them without seeing it … because of their reputation.
There are also teams that if they say “We’ve got this foxed” I need to see it … again because of reputation.
One last thing … whenever you are working for a team, you represent that team. People will attach your reputation to that team. They will judge that team by your actions (and posts), regardless of any ‘this is my opinion, and not that of my team’.
A good reputation is difficult to gain, and easily destroyed.
It amuses (and kind of embarrasses me ) when people identify my team as Koko Ed’s team when I really don’t do all that much for them (outside of button making support).
As a primary mentor I occasionally speak for my team. Most often I do not, especially on CD. Occasionally when discussing policy it is important to distinguish the between the 2. For example my opinion on how we pick the drive team might vary from team policy. The disclaimer does not excuse bad behavior such as rudeness or derogatory remarks. At events the behavior of individuals reflect directly on the team. Especially for the soft awards, but it also can be a tie breaker for the more technical awards. As for as pick lists are concerned. Drive team behavior is a criteria for pick order.
Given my username and my appearance (6’ 8" tall with red hair) people tend to pick me out of a crowd and figure out who I am on CD. I’ve never posted anything that I regret and I’ve never placed a disclaimer on one of my posts, so that’s not a big concern for me. I have, however, had some people come up to me in person and say that they hate my account on CD. They said something about my predictions for MN events never including their team. I thought that was pretty amusing.
I don’t think I would factor in what people say on CD into alliance selection decisions, but posts on CD definitely help me figure out who I’m rooting for to have success. That said, people say some pretty dumb things on Chief Delphi…
This is a bit closer to what I wanted to convey. What even are the official views of a team? The mission statement on their website? To me, the interactions with the team’s members are much more meaningful and telling of the organization as a whole. In positive ways too, not just negative.
As far as I see it, when a person chooses to put their team number on their profile, there is an unspoken agreement that the said person is representative of their team. Hence, a person’s actions on a dedicated board like Chief Delphi may be the only insight that other people have on their team, so in all cases it is important to be the best representative of your team.
With my experience on Chief Delphi, I don’t necessarily remember usernames or people, but I definitely would remember team numbers. With this in mind, individuals need to choose their words carefully lest they badly damage the view of their team.
Furthermore, team culture has a huge impact on this. The actions or even thoughts of a person can strongly indicate the type of culture a team tries to create. Thus, a person’s views really are a reflection of the team as a whole.
