This thread has gotten so off topic . . .
This is in response to an earlier post about the suspicion of bias in judged awards in instances where a home team often wins, while at other competitions they do not.
There are a couple of likely explanations for this that i think should be considered.
-
The home team has been mentored by the judges and therefore has made their notebook in line with what they know those particular judges are looking for. I can say, we do not consider our own teams for judged awards at our home competitions, but we tend to compare notebooks to our home teamâs notebook, both to later give them directions for their own improvement, as well as using them as a standard to measure other teams against, because we are the most familiar with them and how we have mentored them to work.
-
Some judges go above and beyond and may take things in to account that others do not. While having a purely objective rubric and judging criteria is a nice thought, it is not ever likely to happen. In the same way different people learn better in different ways, different people will also consider different things to be the ideal balances between words and pictures, or any other interpretation of criteria. Adding on to that, some judges may look at the notebook, the interview, the skills scores, and the match scores, and rank the teams on this alone. Some may go around the competition, see a team with all criteria only a bit over average but going out of their way to assist newer teams, even their competitors, and decide that that combined with everything else is enough to earn them a higher preference on awards.
So, while the distribution of awards may seem inconsistent or even suspicious, it is rarely malicious and usually innocent.
The topic of the thread was ways to make RECF and competitions better, more fair, and more predictable in judgement from the perspective of competitors. That can be a more formalized escalation process for different degrees of punishment, and it can also be improvements or a better understanding of the judging process for notebooks. Both are instances where competition staff (volunteers) have insight that teams often do not, where decisions are being made that the teams often disagree with, where accusations of bias have been made, and where demands for more transparency are common.
That is a fair interpretation; however i feel SOME of the comments regarding this subjects would be better placed in fosters thread (link above)
While Damage due to carelessness is my top concern.
The last team to openly post excerpts of their note book (online and regularly) had that used against them after they received the highest honor at the world championship. They got publicly drug through the mud and more than one person used what they shared for free against them. The next year to my disappointment they did not post online again.
So yes, I am not a fan of making everyoneâs note book available for public viewing.
The perception of injustice or bias comes from the idea, implanted by adults onto children, that winning is the point of robotics. It is not. Winning is a by-product of a successful and repeatable engineering process. RECF knows this, which is one of the reasons why the changed the knockout tournament rules to one and done, to de-emphasize winning and emphasize the process.
Very well said! VRC is a competition, but the competition is not the main goal of VRC. When you read the Game Manual, the introduction talks about how our society is affected by a lack of STEM students. The goal of the VEX Robotics Competition is to solve the STEM problem, not to give us trophies. The awards are motivating us to learn more about STEM, not divide us because of a rule interpretation.
Getting back to the some of the broader topics that began this thread, I have a question/comment. Please donât jump on me for asking it. I rarely ever post on this forum - I think my last post was over a year ago. But I do see some ideas being discussed that cause me some concern. I am concerned that groups are mislabeled and then held to standards that really do not apply to their group category. Iâm thinking specifically about the concept of ârepresentingâ an entity/organization/business. In my mind, the staff/employees of an organization/business certainly represent their companies/organizations. Other categories that could be said to represent VEX/REC would be EPâs and volunteers. However, it seems like teams/students fall into a unique category. Certainly while they are at an official event, they can be said to be representing VEX/REC and are under the jurisdiction of VEX/REC rules etc. But in a larger sense, teams/students are also customers of REC/VEX. They purchase product solely (with few exceptions) from VEX, and they attend tournaments for which they pay fees to REC/and/or the EP. As I think this over further, this analogy comes to mind: Letâs say that we have a McDonalds customer. He/she buys products from McDonalds. Certainly while this customer is on McDonaldâs premises he/she must abide by the rules set down by McDonalds. However, this customer cannot truly be said to be a representative of McDonalds in any formal sense, so if and when the customer leaves the McDonaldâs premises it would be surprising for McDonalds to assert some kind of authority over that customer simply bc the customer had purchased a hamburger from them and had been on their premises while using the McDonaldâs product. I do not wish in any way to cast any kind of aspersions on anyone in anyway. But it seems to me that the authority VEX/REC legitimately has over students while they are participating in an official VEX/REC event most likely ends once that student leaves the premises. I really donât see how it is possible or even wise for studentsâ behavior in all aspects of their lives to be subject to the governance or oversight of an independent youth activity league/organization. This, as a general principle, seems to my admittedly small mind, to be something that will be very hard to police and is in fact a dangerous path to begin walking down. I guess I would say, where would we draw the line between a studentâs private life and their ârepresenting RECâ life? For example, if I should happen to see a student from a VEX team arguing over their fast food order rudely in a public restaurant a few weeks after a tournament, am I to alert VEX that a student who represents VEX/REC should be sanctioned with a G1? Where do we draw the line for what is the legitimate business of a youth robotics league and what is over reach into the private lives of students? Just to be clear, I do not know anything at all about the CA DQâs. I donât know the team. I donât know the EP. I have no particular opinion on this specific DQ case. But I do see some things being discussed/recommended here and other forums that I believe would lead places that are not defensible or wise. And I donât believe that most adults would be comfortable if the community volleyball/golf/tennis/badminton league they themselves are part of wanted to police the entirety of their lives with the possibility of sanctions for infractions committed apart from and away from the volleyball/golf/tennis/badminton premises. In my opinion, Robotics competition amounts to a youth sports league. It is not a school, nor an employer, nor in some cases even a school based team for these students so comparisons based on what employerâs policies or school policies assert really are not, to my mind, applicable. So again, I am in no way accusing anyone of anything. Iâm not calling anyone out. Iâm not trying to do anything at all but think through this issue. I do think that the idea of delving into studentsâ private lives needs to be discussed and the ramifications carefully considered, along with acknowledging ways that such delving could be wielded as a weapon or abused. I just think that the larger privacy issues here are troubling. Again - I am NOT accusing anyone of anything.
I just think of this like a club you are paying dues to.
They can sanction you from the club activities at anytime for behavior they find offensive or against the clubs policies.
edit: Itâs not as if Vex is refusing to sell them robot parts. That would be equivalent to your analogy.
I think that is a very astute observation. I would be inclined to agree with your assessment.
If the student is at an RECF sponsored / affiliated event, it is appropriate to subject them to RECF oversight.
If the student is using a VEX / RECF resource (this forum or the Q&A), it also seems reasonable to subject them to RECF oversight.
I agree that RECF enforcing behavior in other venues truly opens a Pandoraâs Box.
Of note, in the VRC-TP game manual, G1 begins:
<G1> Treat everyone with respect. All Teams are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful
and professional manner while competing in VEX Robotics Competition events.
(Remainder of rule omitted for brevity)
Also, the REC Code of Conduct contains the following:
We expect the following behavior and ethical standards at all REC Foundation sanctioned events:
(Remainder omitted for brevity)
Based on the above citations, rule G1 cannot be legitimately applied to behavior that takes place outside of an RECF sanctioned event.
Wayne
I think you miss the mark by quite a bit.
When the student, as a participant, is actively involved with RECF, and speaking on a public forum with RECF as the center of their discussion, they are subject to RECF code of conduct, and appropriate punishment for their violations. This does not mean that random passersby have any obligation to report them. This does not mean that private conversations in private settings are anything other than private. This does not mean that a participant canât throw a tantrum over the price of drones at Walmart without looking over their shoulder. When a participant is clearly and deliberately identifying themselves as associated with the VRC, speaking or acting in public, including online, and has RECF, VRC, EPâs, or Volunteers as their focus, they ARE representing the RECF community and are held to the same standards as holding a microphone on stage at worlds.
If a person cheats on their Spanish test, they probably wonât be banned from McDonaldâs. If a person publishes a video of themselves dressed as a McDonaldâs employee and standing on a street corner screaming racial slurs, they may very well be banned from doing further business with a company,
- Clear association with the organization.
- Public forum.
- Related subject matter.
- Severity of actions.
Just by way of explanation, I think of it like this: If I were to join local tennis club and pay my dues, I would be a member. If that was where the story ended, then I would simply be a member of a club. I still donât think that paying dues to be a members entitles the club to jurisdiction over my private life when I am not on their premises.
However, if that club also required me to purchase my tennis equipment from them, or their affiliates, this then creates a two tiered relationship - I am now a member and also a customer. So both types of relationships have to be addressed. I simply donât think that most customers of most businesses would be comfortable with those businesses then delving into their personal lives. I donât think McDonalds has a right to delve into my personal life due to the fact that I bought a hamburger from them. So I think either relationship - club member or customer - does not automatically convey permission to examine the member or customers private life away from the club or business. If in fact the club or business intends to examine customersâ and membersâ private lives, really, to be fair the customer or club member will need to be advised of this circumstance up front and will need to agree to that oversight of their private life.
While I certainly agree that a personâs privacy should not be breached in order to enforce the code of conduct, I donât believe that has been suggested. But it may just be a matter of semantics. It was stated that the RECF did not search for posts or social media but were provided that material by a third party. I feel that if this information was available to a third party, it was not private. On the other hand, if I write in my diary awful things about the RECF, refs, and judges at a tournament, I would expect that to stay private.
I also think of a relevant example from my home state, Virginia, when a group of individuals dressed in khakis and holding tiki torches marched in Charlotesville. Some ended up losing their jobs. They could argue that they were doing that on their private time. In some cases, it is very hard to determine where public and private cross. However, I have to believe that RECF is not looking to investigate the private lives of all student participants. Any of this would come into play for very egregious breaches using, what they would consider, publicly available information. At least I would hope so.
Again, I donât know anything about the specifics of the CA DQ nor the teams, nor the EP. Iâm not familiar with tiki torches and khakis or what that refers to, but that sounds like it was a very public/extreme act, so it seems different than the circumstances that have been discussed on this thread.
Also, students in robotics competitions are not employees, so I donât feel comfortable equating adults who lost their jobs due to( what sounds to be) a public action, with students who are part of a youth league. When an employee enters into a working relationship with an employer/company they have usually signed an employment contract in which it is expressly stated what is expected of them and that they represent the employer/company etc. Employment is a different circumstance than youth activities.
To me, the overarching issue remains - what is the proper jurisdiction for a youth sports/extracurricular activity? Precedent can be set unwittingly and then it is hard to turn back the consequences that flow from that unwitting precedence. Any delving (even by 3rd parties who then turn their findings over to others) into the private lives of students needs to be considered very carefully.
The tiki torches and khakis referred to the Alt Right March in Charlottesville in 2017.
Oh. I see. Thank you.
In a world where more and more a personâs words and actions can come back to bite them weeks, months, years, and decades later, it is never too early to teach students that their words and actions have consequences. Better that those consequences be the loss of a chance to compete than the loss of a job or imprisonment.
Again, key points.
-
Clear affiliation with the organization. They are not being tracked for what they do in their spare time, only judged for their actions in the context of their participation.
-
Public forum. Not your diary. Not one on one conversations with your parents. Anything you post on the internet is public forum at this point.
-
Subect matter. If they are talking about which teachers they hate at school, not really RECFâs problem. When they are making accusations or pointing fingers at event staff, that IS RECFâs business.
-
Severity. No one is being punished for critisizing RECFâs decisions. Anomaly would have a tag on his toe if that were the case. Making accusations of deliberately targeting certain teams for disproportionate punishment or of unethical behavior in a position of authority is pretty serious.
Itâs not that Iâm ignoring your points. I just donât want to come off as arguing with everyone on here who responds to what I posted bc again, I donât have a dog in this fight as far as the CA DQ goes. I donât know enough about it to have an opinion. However, from what I have read, the forum in question was not a public forum - a public forum being one in which you donât have to be a member to read the posts, if I understand it properly. To my mind, a private forum means one in which you have to apply for admission, be granted an account, and is not available publicly to those not holding a membership. I agree that students need to learn that âthe internet is foreverâ which is why I instruct my students to refrain from contentious conversations online. On the other hand, I do think there is a difference bw a public forum (like this one) and a private forum. Why do I think that? Bc around 2 years ago, I made a comment in a closed FB group that was copied and then put, without my permission, on a public blog. I felt very invaded. I did not know the person who had copied my comment nor had I given permission for my comment to be posted outside of the closed FB group. There was nothing wrong with my comment, but it was being used to support an agenda that I was not asked if I wanted to support. I did learn an valuable lesson, which is why I rarely post anything anymore anywhere. This brings me to another concern due to that experience. Context is important. If comments are screen shot isolated from their context and the other comments that preceded it, things can look very different than intended by the author. I donât know if that is what happened in the circumstance (CA DQ issue) at hand. But it is a danger whenever comments are passed on in isolation.
Context is everything. I remember that incident and can completely understand why you are saying what you are saying.
Thank you so much! Hugs and more hugs to you for understanding! It is a frightening thing to be represented in a way that is not accurate and is without consent. I think Iâm very sensitive about this entire subject due to that experience, to be totally transparent.