This is the classic
tragedy of the commons problem - we have a scarce resource over which we compete but there is no means of allocating that scarce resource amongst ourselves. That leads to conflict that is not easily resolved.
The reasons why seats are saved are generally rationale and important:
- Adult mentors must be able to monitor the minor students in their charge.
- Scouts, who are participants in the action on the field and in the metacompetition in the tournament, need good views of the field and to be in close proximity to each other run scouting systems.
- Teammates and supporters prefer fellow companionship.
The current rule doesn't recognize any of those imperative needs. In fact, I have not seen a clear rationale for the existing rule.
The solution is the one used in so many similar situations before--create a seat allocation process that meets these imperatives. I suggest allocating two blocks to each team, one for scouts (and that will vary by team--we need 12), and another for other team members. The first block should be set up in an area with a good view of the field (not in the bottom rows based on watching how other teams set up). Teams might be willing to trade block locations for certain considerations (e.g., first pick of the first alliance
) The second is much more discretionary.
BTW, I also like the idea of the VIP lanyards. We really do need to be mindful of who we are interacting with--it's a reality of gaining funding for FRC.