Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
FIRST is not a monolithic entity. Of course I'm talking about changing its rules. I'm talking to FIRST here indirectly and also directly. And the only way to get a discussion going about changing its rules is to have a discussion on CD. Your are trying to shut down this discussion by saying "because FIRST said so." That is not a productive line of discussion. That's why I'm responding to you--you're responsible for your thoughts and opinions.
If you read my proposal, I thought that there should be several groups, one of them getting priority seating. But my point is that scouts are competitors who deserve the same respect as the drive team. You said that teams should build scouting systems that don't require sitting together. And I am telling you that will end innovation in technical development of scouting systems. Do you have experience in managing scouting systems that gives you enough background to refute this point? Please provide evidence that your scouting system has been successfully implemented. I think we've demonstrated that ours works.
And yes, all of the successful teams that I've encountered who scout at Champs violate this rule. Every single one of them. I'd be interested to hear any counterexamples you can provide. Obviously I can't provide a list of rule breakers, but I'll start by pointing out every #1 and #2 alliance captain on Einstein saves seats for their scouts. I think the #7 alliance captain does too. (I sat with their #1 pick and know they were saving seats.)
And if you want to really solve the problem you identified as a tour guide, then you want to solve the tragedy of the commons problem. When everyone knows what the rights are to their seats so they don't have to fight over them. Everyone will become more civil. Right now is recipe for conflict.
You're acting like everyone started driving 55 in 1973 when they changed the speed limit. Instead it turned everyone into a lawbreaker. When rules and laws fail, as they are now, it's time to change the rules.
(BTW California's water problems are rooted in the same refusal to acknowledge that scarce resources need to be explicitly allocated.)
And if you're with FRC right now, then put your affiliation on your profile. Right now you have no standing in the discussion because you have no real stake. Past affiliation doesn't count.