[Aidan S.]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

An allocation method isn't a lottery--it's systematic. If the formula is well known, teams will shift their needs. Also, setting up a trading system where teams can trade their seating requirements will solve the problem of differing needs.

A possible way to implement this could be giving teams each a block of seats (say the average size of a team, around 25) and allowing them to book them in advance, like a sporting event. There will be a pool of extra tickets left over, and teams can indicate how many extras they want/require, and then the organizers of the event can allocate them accordingly. This system is akin to purchasing your seats in advance.

You're attitude is great if other teams also had that approach. Unfortunately, that's not the case, as we encountered with several large teams this year. The problem seemed to be the worst with the parents who didn't really have any other role than to spectate or cheer (students were generally more accommodating). It's time to consider splitting up the larger teams at the competition if that's what it takes. It's already inconvenient moving in an out of the stands past these large groups. As far as adhering to FIRST rules, there is no seat saving under current rules, so none of these teams are adhering to the rules.

I have rarely come across a student who is unaware of the rules with respect to seats, but I think all teams should make the effort to educate all spectators that will be joining them on the rules, so there is no confusion or conflict.

Since when is the race for the seats another aspect of the competition? FIRST's stated policy is clearly and obviously trying to discourage this.

They are trying to discourage a free-for-all from ensuing at events. Nobody wants the opening few moments of a day to look like a scene out of a black Friday sale at a shopping mall. If the teams all entered in a calm fashion, and picked their seats based on the order they lined up in, there would be no issue. the problem stems from people trying to cut in front of others who lined up before them.

No team has a 100 person scouting system--those teams would split into a scouting section and a spirit/spectating section. I think an initial allocation of 10 seats per team should be sufficient. As I mentioned above, the allocations could be tradable so smaller teams could give up their seats to teams that need more.

I agree with the idea of a trading system, I think that if it can be implemented for an entire team, there wouldn't be a need for a strictly scouting section.

Spirit is important for promoting the event, but it isn't important to specific function of a team. Our scouts cheered, but they didn't spend time dancing or fun activities. They were scouting mostly. I'm sorry, but I saw several large teams pursuing the spirit award where most of the members weren't scouting (and in at least one case it was the parents who were spending most of the effort on chasing the spirit award.) I think the spirit award is a fun way to promote the event, but those working on that don't need to be integrated with the scouts. I don't see cheerleaders sitting the press box at a football game with the coaches.

I think that if we do go to an allocation system, it would be relatively easy to create a "quiet zone" in the stands and allow teams to request seats in that area for whatever purposes they desire. Let the teams decide if they want to send their scouts there or keep them with the larger group.

I don't think its as easy as you might think to distinguish spectators and team members. However, FIRST probably can give spectators tickets for the special section.

I was referring to general spectators, who ware unaffiliated with teams. I'd assume that these individuals would not be team clothing from a team at the regional, so it would be relatively easy to distinguish them from the rest. I agree that giving them tickets or visitor's passes would be an easier way to distinguish them.

The point of these posts is that the current system is NOT working. We're trying to propose a better solution. The tragedy of the commons is common, but there's also good solutions. But it means disrupting those who are comfortable with the current system, and they are always the most resistant. As I mentioned above, there's a means of setting up a clearinghouse to trade seat allocations so differing requirements can be accommodated. (And each team could bring a receipt showing that they made the trade.) The bottom line is that not everyone does understand the current rules and those rules are (un)enforced in uneven ways. The fact is that the current rules are impractical due to the extensive scouting that has developed.

There are issues with the current system, I don't disagree. And, like with every solution, there will be people who are for and against it. If there were a way to implement this seat allocation method so that it occurs online before the event, that it would cut down on the work of volunteers and teams needing to coordinate trades on the already hectic days during an event.


Aside: I would like to clarify a point that I brought up earlier. Our team sends our entire group to get in line for seats at an event together early, except the drive team and pit crew. They join us when the doors open to the stadium, and usually go to work in the pits immediately. All the people who would be using seats in the stadium are in line together, and there is no saving of seats by any member of our team. I apologise if my earlier point may have been misleading.