Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

Unfortunately, I believe that this will be just another unenforceable, penalty-less rule issued by FIRST (just like the no saving seats rule) with no one given the responsibility of enforcing it.

Personally, I believe that FIRST is going about this the wrong way. I think they should encourage the paper airplane ... make it a contest at the champs ... and give them a spot to do this (maybe that will encourage them to do it at the designated spot rather than during Deans speech :ahh: )

JMHO

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

I actually think that--should it actually be necessary--this one is enforceable, and has some teeth.

Enforceable: If it's noticed that there are paper airplanes (etc.) in the air, someone notes where they're coming from. It is then announced over the PA that "Will the team(s) in Section XYZ please stop throwing paper airplanes and clean up the mess" down here. (Team numbers used if they can be determined from long range.) Send a couple crowd-control volunteers (or venue staff) up there.

The Teeth: If a second announcement is needed, invoke the Civility Rule (last year's T6). After that... well, I can't say that I've ever seen that rule be enforced past the discussion stage, because usually the discussion clears it up.

That might be a bit drastic, but it should work...

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

While I believe you are right that is could be enforced, I do not believe it will be enforced.

... and if they could have used T6 before, and chose not to, what makes you believe that they will use T6 now? (... mumbles something about expecting a different result from the same action...)


FIRST has never enforced, nor had punishment for, rules in the stands. I do not believe they will start now. Hence my suggestion of giving those that would fly paper airplanes a place to do it without disturbing the others.


If they truly wanted to enforce the rules in the stands, then I believe they should start with sending the Chairman's award judges out into the stands and see who is breaking the rules that have 'no penalty' (such as saving seats) and disqualifying those that do break the rules from winning chairman's.

again JMHO

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

A half a dozen people with binoculars, plus a few carefully pointed video cameras should allow for enforcement. if Frank is reading this thread, I really urge him to think about and publicize some mechanism for enforcement so folks take it more seriously.

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

In addition to my worry of whether and how HQ will attempt to enforce the rule, I'm also concerned with the difficulty of actually determining origin. This would depend heavily on the lighting at the time and how many people are still throwing. Having been on the receiving end of some absolutely unreal "extreme littering" events on Einstein before, it's downright overwhelming in the dark. And from the stands in the dark, particularly with the critical mass of "everyone's doing it", I expect it feels pretty invincible to the participants. The number of crowd controllers it'd take wouldn't be as many as for saving seats, but it wouldn't be a trivial commitment if teams ignore it as much as they do saving seats. (I hope the visibility of airplanes would stop that, but I've been hoping that for a long time.) On the other hand, if those crowd controllers are judges, the ratio might drop some...

In addition to announcing and enforcing the rule, I still suggest some carrot with this ostensible stick. In addition to the logistical difficulties of that stick, I've found very little that compares to taking kids who've run on full afterburner for days and just had awesome, life-changing runs at key positions in qual/elim matches...and then boxing them into seats for hours to squint down at long speeches and scattered matches. For a number of personalities/temperaments I've worked with over the years, everything seems boring at that point. I've seen kids who would normally play video games or chat for hours go absolutely stir crazy. Sanctioning a specific event that lets people walk off some energy and try a paper airplane contest would seem nice. And perhaps more importantly, let us know when it is, so we know how long we can walk around without missing anything even if we don't go to the contest. (Schedule control and announcing has gotten better lately, but I always want to throw this in.)

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

There was a paper airplane that flew across Einstein during a match, and missed falling on the field by only a few feet of elevation: https://youtu.be/4d2VW_mkJ3c?t=54

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

While I certainly am aware of the difference between having a rule and enforcing a rule, this is a definite "phase change". FIRST has for the first time, (as far as I am aware) outlawed throwing paper airplanes (and other things). Assuming that the word gets out (meaning that, in addition to the blog, they provide suitable signage or other warning so that everyone who attends events will have seen), this will probably eliminate about 80-90% of the airplanes, before any active enforcement. If FIRST can find a good corps of enforcers to give first offenders a stern warning, and escort second offenders from the premises, this will very quickly become a "we've always done it this way" rule.

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

How about we rely on peer pressure?
If a paper airplane is spotted, everything stops. Speeches stop or matches are stopped and are replayed.
This will lengthen the time everyone is in the stands and no one wants that :rolleyes:
You can't throw a plane without someone noticing and that person will be asked to stop by his/her peers.

It is all enforceable if mentors would be mentors and take responsibility for their team members. Now I am not saying that all mentors don't take responsibility but we have all seen it first hand, where either the mentor/s are either oblivious to what is going on around them, or they just don't think it is their job to monitor the students. I can tell you with absolute certainty that stuff like that won't fly on the team I am a part of.

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

Several of these predictions are taking me back to the practical question, which is: why do people break these on-paper "stand rules"? This isn't theoretical; we have hard evidence to consider here, if only to demarcate the reasons why it won't apply. (Or my preference, propose ways to ensure it doesn't.)

There is at least one such "stand rule" that's been on the books for well over a decade. We know that ubiquitous self-enforcement of it does not work. We know that peer enforcement does not stop violations. We certainly know that writing it down doesn't end it--I can find this as early as 2003, when the Admin Manual said: "Teams are not allowed to save seating space." This had its own Table of Contents line under GP, one of only 4 topics to do so. It is a longstanding, official, publicized, well-known rule. So far as I know, it was not tacitly much less actively encouraged in the past. Others try to enforce it on these grounds, and yet endemic violations have been routinely bemoaned for over a decade.

This is not to say there wouldn't be more seat saving without these measures--certainly there would be--or that nothing has ever improved the problem. And there are many differences between saving seats and paper airplanes. Tons of differences (some inhibiting and some facilitating); I'm not arguing that. Nor do I wish to shoot down predictions. But I would argue that if, like anything, we find ourselves predicting a new behavior that contradicts longstanding actions on a related one, we at least acknowledge as much and examine theories as to the difference. We're a lot more likely to develop a successful implementation plan for this if we contend with that reality. As much as I'd like to just say that this is a good step, the last thing I want to do is waste the first Champs where this on the books by establishing that the practiced norms don't change much even when it's on the books.

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

Pun intended?

At our Vex IQ tournaments, we remind coaches that they are responsible for their students. This should go without saying for FRC as well, but might be worth making explicit. Is this communicated to FRC teams currently?

Let's just keep reminding teams about not throwing planes, and let the "tradition" die out over the next few years.

-Mike

Lol, happy accident.

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

What is really wrong with seat saving? Does the general population of Chief not care about teams being unable to sit together when pit crews have to sit on the opposite side of the stands if they have to stay in the pits between division elims and Einstein packing up while the stands fill (and their team waits)? Or is the real problem with large swaths of the stands being roped off by a team when only a few members are there?

Re: [FRC BLOG] This isn't a Robot, Housing, and Throwing Things
 

I would take issue with 5 students saving 10 seats each across 5 rows, especially if they are actively preventing people from sitting.

At the same time I have no problem if 5 students are sitting and holding a seat or two next to them, especially if they tell you someone will be coming back, but welcome you to use it until they do.

Both are technically against the rules, but one is far more reasonable, and shows some Gracious Professionalism.