[gblake]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

So much putting words into my mouth, so many unfounded assertions, and so much self-centered blindness, I'm not going to bother. Both of our positions are evident. What I wrote earlier was enough for me to describe my opinion.

While the above paragraph is plenty blunt; with it, I'm ending my half of this particular back and forth because evanerryg is right.

In the bigger picture:

Some of us seem to think it's right to tell everyone in line behind a seat-saver to take worse seats (than they would otherwise be in) so that the seat-saver may claim seats for people who haven't arrived yet at a first-come first-served event. I have been, and always will be, dumbfounded by that line of reasoning.

Others among us seem to disagree.

I don't think many people would object to FIRST creating a few enclaves for scouts to use, but we really aren't talking about the scouts here, are we? We are really talking about the much larger population(s) of non-scouts. Let's not get lost in the scouting weed patch. It's one tree, and isn't the forest.