[quote=Citrus Dad;1583975]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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad
We really do need to be mindful of who we are interacting with--it's a reality of gaining funding for FRC.
|
I ran into this at MSC an older couple came in that seemed to know little about what was going on. They sat with us and I explained enough about the game for them to be happy with what they were seeing. They watched several matches and were on their way. The next day we saw the woman at opening ceremonies with a mic in her hand. She was the representative of one of the major sponsors of the event.