[Siri]

Several of these predictions are taking me back to the practical question, which is: why do people break these on-paper "stand rules"? This isn't theoretical; we have hard evidence to consider here, if only to demarcate the reasons why it won't apply. (Or my preference, propose ways to ensure it doesn't.)

There is at least one such "stand rule" that's been on the books for well over a decade. We know that ubiquitous self-enforcement of it does not work. We know that peer enforcement does not stop violations. We certainly know that writing it down doesn't end it--I can find this as early as 2003, when the Admin Manual said: "Teams are not allowed to save seating space." This had its own Table of Contents line under GP, one of only 4 topics to do so. It is a longstanding, official, publicized, well-known rule. So far as I know, it was not tacitly much less actively encouraged in the past. Others try to enforce it on these grounds, and yet endemic violations have been routinely bemoaned for over a decade.

This is not to say there wouldn't be more seat saving without these measures--certainly there would be--or that nothing has ever improved the problem. And there are many differences between saving seats and paper airplanes. Tons of differences (some inhibiting and some facilitating); I'm not arguing that. Nor do I wish to shoot down predictions. But I would argue that if, like anything, we find ourselves predicting a new behavior that contradicts longstanding actions on a related one, we at least acknowledge as much and examine theories as to the difference. We're a lot more likely to develop a successful implementation plan for this if we contend with that reality. As much as I'd like to just say that this is a good step, the last thing I want to do is waste the first Champs where this on the books by establishing that the practiced norms don't change much even when it's on the books.