The official answer was that the DQ was issued because of actions at one of their events. It’s not unfair to then look at supporting evidence (online communications) when investigating if the DQ was just, especially when you are receiving pressure from that team to overrule it.
This is a highly irregular situation and as @Robo_Eng_13 has said the RECF isn’t sending a army of spies to investigate all the trouble makers. Some kids and adults screwed up, and they decided to keep digging by ranting online. Someone saw it and reported it. Good life lesson here.
Thank you for the clarification - much appreciated. Since you clarified that online speech was used in some capacity as a determination of/support of/ aid to disciplinary action, I think it would be a good idea to include this in the game manual next year. Just a statement expanding G1 that would alert teams that all online speech could be used to determine/support disciplinary action.
Again, this is not oversight. This was related material reported to RECF by outside sources. RECF is not going to devote ANY resources to overseeing online conduct. But if it is egregious enough to be directly referred to them from outside, that is a different matter.
RECF has the authority to issue any punishment they see fit when it comes to participation in their own organization. Overstepping their authority would be trying to issue detentions or arrest warrants.
It was pointed out before that demanding a strict word for word interpretation of rules is just asking for a line in the sand of “exactly how awful can i be before there are consequences?”. I believe there is some line in the rule book or the code of conduct that mentions the Ethos of the rules, not just the letter.
I don’t think there is any merit to an argument based on “I can be as awful as i want when i am not at a competition and they have no right to hold it against me.” They do.
Robo_Eng_13 Do you work for REC? I am wondering if you are an employee? Honest question, no snark intended. I’m not on the forums enough to know who is who. If you are an employee then it gives me great comfort to read what you are writing - that REC has no intentions to be the internet/private life police.
He doesn’t. It would just be a dumb use of resources for the RECF to Police the internet and there is no way they would sink their money and time into chasing internet trolls.
It’s already a full time job keeping up with what goes on here.
Being able to disrespect people running events online without consequences is in no way a right. Just don’t post anything online about an event that you wouldn’t say at the event itself. Problem solved
As TheColdedge said, i am not working for RECF. I was a competitor in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, and mentor for a team for 2016-2017, 2017-2018. and 2018-2019. And i work as a robotics engineer.
The statement that they are not using this as a precedent to oversee all online activity is just based on common sense and knowing the practical limitations of what CAN be done.
I believe 100% that RECF will not ever at any point devote even one intern to searching the internet for incriminating information. I DO expect that when information is referred to them by concerned members of their community, they will review it, in context, and act on it as they see appropriate.
If you post in these forums that RECF is a corrupt organization then you can expect to be sanctioned and deserve to be. Dan made it clear about that. He has rightfully demanded an apology and hasn’t received one. Until that happens, they are lucky that he even responds to them.
If I was Dan, I would permanently ban them from the RECF until I felt that they weren’t going to undermine the credibility of the competition or the organization.
Why? Well, would any of us participate in a competition that involved time and resources if the fix was in? Of course we wouldn’t. But when a team accuses the publcily of being corrupt, it undermines the whole competition for everyone.
There is also a certain amount of public image to be taken into account. The composition and behavior of the community is a huge deciding factor for a lot of people about whether they are willing to consider involvement. Having a public image of an angry mob of children making character accusations of the owners, organizers, partners, and volunteers of an organization will really quickly talk a lot of new parents, teachers, and companies from putting their support to the community and organization.
I am sure most people can think of a time they were interested in something, but the associated community and reputation was enough to keep them from ever digging deeper, even if it is a deceptive image. We’re told not to judge a book by its cover, but we also know, that is exactly what happens.
Important to note accuse with out a shred of evidence
If you have concrete evidence someones being dirty then you should report that privately to your coaches or regional manager. Not air it out on a forum.
Yes, I agree that anything posted on the VEX forum is completely under their jurisdiction. No argument there from me. Agree that things should be kept civil on this forum at all times. My question did not have to do with the posts on the VEX forum, or even the team in question. I’m in no way defending anyone being rude or unkind on the VEX forum. My question, just to be clear (again), was how communications outside of this forum and outside of official events will be handled in the future. And I was concerned about context due to an incident in my own life where an innocent comment I made on a closed FB group was screen shot (with my name on it!), put on a blog without my permission or knowledge and then used to bolster an agenda that I did not support. Sorry to be repetitive, but I want to make clear that I’m not entering the fray about the current CA DQ situation. My concerns centered on how social media posts (apart from the VEX forum) will be used in the future and what the rules will be regarding that. Anyway…approaching dead horse status here.
For what it's worth, this is my take on the matter:
This is the world we live in. This is the world students currently in an RECF program will grow up to live in. Specifically, I’m talking about a world where what you post online can, and at some point probably will, come back to bite you, in some capacity. It doesn’t matter if you’re posting in a supposedly ‘private’ part of the internet. Posting on the internet fixes your message in a tangible medium of expression and a virtually permanent archive. Those with access to your ‘private’ conversation may not really be your friends (especially if they’re just ‘internet friends’ that you don’t really know in person). Access rights to your ‘private’ forum may change at some point, with or without your approval, giving others access to your post that you would not have expected at the time of posting.
While context may be paramount to gleaning the true message behind your posted words, if that context is not imminently obvious to a layperson reading your post, then you should be prepared for the consequences of a prima facie interpretation of your post.
While the pursuit of clear limits to RECF’s incorporation of non-sanctioned forms of communication in their punishment decisions is meritorious, I would be concerned that such an approach would actually be a disservice to students in terms of preparing them for the real world.
I am not suggesting that RECF should devote resources to seeking out incriminating online posts. In fact, I agree with prior posts that such an effort would be an immense waste of time and resources, not to mention extremely impractical, and thus not likely to ever be implemented.
Instead, I am saying that RECF should (and already does, by my interpretation) reserve the right to use comments made outside of RECF-sanctioned fora in aiding judgement of punishments as they see fit.
Besides, within the scope of RECF’s power, even the most extreme punishments are minor in the grand scheme of life. Being banned from participation in middle/high school robotics tournaments is nothing compared to the potential ramifications of an employer finding an online post at odds with an arbitrary and often completely implicit code of conduct. Hence, I feel it is better to prepare students for this reality now, with clear guidelines for appropriate conduct (conveniently outlined in the new Code of Conduct) and punishments that will not ruin anyone’s lives, rather than leaving students to learn about unexpected consequences the hard way (after growing up).
I went to college back in the day and was a member of the Delta house. The problem here is that nobody has ever heard of double secret probation. Everyone would be better off if they just realized double secret probation was a reality. Consider it. It is real: Animal House (1/10) Movie CLIP - Double Secret Probation (1978) HD - YouTube And that was before Al Gore invented the internet and zeroes and ones lasted for ever.
"We expect the following behavior and ethical standards at all REC Foundation- sanctioned events:" Current code of conduct.
It is great to read everyone’s take on this. I guess what I am saying should probably be done in the future is to add that caveat to the code of conduct - that outside online sources can and will be used in potential disciplinary situations - so that this new parameter is expressly enumerated as a possibility and is therefore understood by students etc. Currently the code of conduct makes no mention of online speech but only makes mention of REC Foundation sanctioned events. It is of course correct that the REC as a private entity can absolutely make whatever rules they deem fit. No argument there. I simply think that that all rules that are applied should be expressly enumerated in writing so that there is no confusion as to what the rules are. I agree that we should always all be excellent to each other. However, human emotion being what it is ( particularly at the teenage level) means that sometimes humans get angry or sad or frustrated. Also no argument from me that students need to learn to behave properly in all situations, including online and that teaching them this early is valuable. How that is done and when and what methods are used to teach those lessons is up for discussion, I would think. But I’m an old lady and most likely see some things differently due to that circumstance. Perhaps I view the teaching of students more from a grandmotherly perspective at this point in my life. Idk. Most likely I would have been more hard nosed 20 years ago given the same topic.