we are planning another round of improvements for the 2024 soccer rubrics for the judged categories and overall rankings. A draft will be published in this thread some time in December. I am already creating this thread now so we can link to it from the rules to make sure teams coming to the international tournament know about the judged categories.
Other teams’ posters and other materials published by teams can be accessed here: GitHub - robocup-junior/awesome-rcj-soccer: A curated list of resources relevant to RoboCupJunior Soccer
The 2023 awards rubrics and the thinking behind why they are set up that way can be found here.
Feel free to leave any feedback on the draft here when it is published.
David for the Soccer League Committee
Hello and have a good time
I don’t know if the proposal I posted here was seen by the committee or not. I think it would be good if you take a look.
Thank you all.
As promised, here is the draft of the 2024 awards criteria as a published Google Doc and as a pdf.
The process of identifying teams for recognition has been simplified. We settled on this algorithm after running the numbers through several scenarios of team rankings and judged scores. Please feel free to do your own calculations to see if there are any concerns we may have missed. There is also a glossary to help decipher the use of specific terms.
Another big change is doing away with all but the poster rubrics. The focus is now on the expectations of what teams should do to be considered for recognition. If this is found to be favorable, our plan is to add resources to help teams prepare; you see the beginnings of one of these resources with the appendix of allowable interview questions. We’d also like to provide guidelines on what design documentation should be. Please leave feedback and suggestions on what is presented and what else we may include to help teams prepare.
Finally, we’re considering allowing teams to nominate others that may exceed expectations in the leadership & outreach criteria and give peer feedback especially on posters. Please let us know your thoughts/questions/concerns on including peer feedback/nominations in the judging process.
Looking forward to a lively discussion! Thanks.
Hi @javadrah. We did read through the document you prepared and gave it consideration in the draft of awards that was just published; I hope you’ll see there are many agreements between us in the new award criteria.
I read the draft and in my opinion it is a huge improvement towards the previous one. It is well written and easy to understand and highlights the criteria for becoming an successful team at the Robocup competition.
Hi all. We’ve written a draft of the first appendix on design documentation. Please feel free to take a look and leave feedback. Hope this helps!
Link to published draft of Appendix A - Design Document and the pdf version.
(P.S. Thanks @Elias! - glad you liked it)
Firstly, this resource will be valuable for both new and experienced teams to meet the required standards.
Additionally, it may be beneficial to mention LaTeX as a tool for easily producing professional-looking documentation. If you are looking for an example of technical documentation written in LaTeX, I recommend the one produced by my former team last year: here. Please note that while it does not meet all the required points, it demonstrates what is easily achievable with LaTeX.
In my opinion, it should not be necessary to publish all CAD data. The focus should be on explaining why you approached the problem in a particular way, rather than another. Other teams can use your explanation to find a suitable solution for themselves without copying previous teams completely. Based on my experience over the last few years, teams are usually willing to share their experiences and discuss their designs and approaches.
This is just my opinion. I would love to hear other opinions on this topic.