[gblake]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Yes, you did.

1) Are you the sole arbiter of "Adult mentors can monitor students in whatever sized groupings the adults care to use"? That's a non-answer. You MUST leave the discretion of that grouping to the mentors in charge, not to YOUR definitions. Many mentors want to keep their charges together in a certain location. You have to leave them the tools to accomplish the task, not proscribe them for you own selfish need to sit where you want.

Of course I'm not the sole arbiter ... For FIRST events, for this topic, FIRST is. That's why I read FIRST's rules and follow them.

Adult mentors can prepare for events so long as they know in advance the rules that will be in effect at those events. The current rules say no saving seats. Adult mentors should plan accordingly. That's not my definition. That's the rule. Yell at FIRST, not me. Tell FIRST what they "MUST" do, not me.

And please... The world won't stop spinning if a group has to split into two or three smaller groups; particularly if the group planned in advance for that contingency.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

2) How do you accommodate large teams that can't find a sufficiently large contiguous block of seats that will accommodate all of the students? It's not possible to do this without saving seats.

They either sit someplace where there are enough seats to satisfy their desire to stay in one group (probably not ringside or on the 50 yard line), or they split up. See #1 above.

If it's not possible to do it without saving seats, then it's *not* possible. Those teams should plan accordingly; or plan (through their actions) to show FIRST and everyone else at the event that they don't care about following this particular FIRST rule. I would be curious to learn what reason they might have for asserting that the rule doesn't apply to them.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

3) So you believe that scouting systems are entirely superfluous to the FRC experience? In other words the only important people on FRC teams are the pit crew and the drive team and everyone else be $@#$@#$@#$@#? The reality is that all of the successful teams have complex scouting systems that require close proximity. Why you would want to end technological innovation and the associated educational benefits that it creates simply because you want to be able to sit where ever you want sounds incredibly selfish.

I neither wrote that scouting systems were superfluous; nor used any strings of special characters in my post; nor wrote that I wanted to end technical innovation, nor ... That is all just over-the-top exaggeration.

I wrote that teams need to take into account FIRST's rules (all of them) when selecting a scouting system to use. I have done FRC scouting from places throughout a stadium and I know enough about what scouts need to do. Until FIRST changes FIRST's rules, scouts should follow FIRST's rules.

What you wrote here almost sounds like you are telling us that all successful (on the field success) teams use scouting methods that depend on ignoring/violating a FIRST rule in order to create their success. Surely that isn't true.

FIRST's rule, not mine is that seats may not be saved. I presume they did that to create a welcoming environment in the stands where all people employ their most gracious and professional demeanor. How we got from there to discussing my alleged selfishness is a bit mysterious.

Are we saying that if I walk into an event at 8:00 AM, see 5 people "saving" 30 seats in a nice part of the stands for people who will arrive at at maybe 8:30 or 9:00 or later, that I am being selfish (and the other folks are being gracious and professional???) if I choose to sit in one of those 30 seats for the either the next few minutes or the next few hours???? And that by doing so, I and other like me become responsible for the collapse of FRC scouting???? Again, that's a bit over-the-top.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And you still haven't addressed my first point: tragedy of the commons problems are only solvable through rational resource allocations. They are never solved through "lets be nice." We have to address this straight up.

There *is* a rational resource allocation in place. It satisfies, or is the chosen best compromise for, all requirements/constraints FIRST places on their events. That allocation is "one person who is present" = "one seat". FIRST codified it in their rules. If you want to suggest a different rational allocation, talk to FIRST.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

BTW, I see that you are in FTC, not FRC. You don't even have standing on this particular issue because these issues of scouting and team size aren't relevant to FTC.

This is the most egregious, over-the-top comment of the bunch. In my STEM robotics time, I have been an FRC/FTC/VRC mentor, an FRC/FTC/VRC/SeaPerch tournament volunteer, a VRC tournament organizer, and an FRC/FTC/VRC/FLL spectator. Is that enough standing for you?

I have also been the tour guide responsible for ensuring that the VPs of a $40B revenue /year company decided FRC was worth sponsoring. Luckily on that day we didn't encounter anyone yelling at, pushing, obstructing, or otherwise harassing someone that they didn't want sitting in one of their saved seats.

Sheesh.