FRC rules around seating need to change.

[nrgy_blast]

The biggest issue here isn't team vs team seat saving (first come first serve, we all know that you probably shouldn't jump into the middle of a large team section just because someone left to use the restroom). It's when a team blocks members of the general public from coming in to see what's going on. Whether an 'un-tagged' exec from a large company looking to "see what it's all about", parents or relatives showing up on Saturday to check out the action or an unsuspecting passer-by that just happened onto one of our tournaments, we need to show these people what FIRST is all about!

Welcome people into our crowd, don't show them how petty we can be about who is going to sit where to watch a match. If you leave your seat(s) unattended, don't expect them to be there when you get back, especially when people unbound by the general rules show up and need a spot to park on Saturday!

[GreyingJay]

Maybe there should be saving of a reasonable number of seats. There seem to be legitimate needs for minimum seating (scouting). Maybe each team gets to claim X number of seats using lanyards or labels or some such, but only in contiguous sections. Or something.

I've always interpreted the no-seat-saving rule as going both ways. No, you're not allowed to reserve seats for your team. Yes, that means I'm allowed to pop right in and sit in the middle of your "saved" block, and there's nothing you can do to stop me. But no, I won't do that unless I absolutely have to. I will be respectful of your desire to "save" a block of seats for your team scouts or parents, within reason, and when possible, if you are respectful of my need to take one of "your" seats if nothing else is available.

I would hope that every team would abide by this unwritten rule and agree with it, but clearly that's not happening.

My own story: I was lucky to be able to attend Worlds last year and I too, along with a few of my freshman students, was pushed away from a set of legitimately empty (as-yet-untaken) seats by an overenthusiastic mentor/parent from another team desiring to claim them for their team. Like, almost literally pushed, this mentor/parent shoved their way through. I made some comment to my team members like "Let's go find somewhere else guys, OUR team is graciously professional". My kids called me out on being passive aggressive but what can you do.

[Greg Needel]

Let me start out by saying I don't have the total answer to this, but it is something that FIRST needs to address. Over the years I have seen numerous terrible things happen as a result of trying to save seats including but not limited to : making kids cry, making adults argue, making adults cry, strategies involved in blocking access to exits and entrances, injuries from running, inadvertent tripping, etc. All just to try and get better seats.


Here are some sacrificial (beat them up all you want) ideas on things that could be done to help.

• Control which doors will be open at what times and make an easy system of a zig zag line like amusement parks for entry through a single entry.
• Tickets/assigned seats - teams put in the number of seats that each team needs and then a lottery happens to assign blocks of tickets. If teams want to swap tickets later so be it.
• Auction or raffle the best seats for charity - big team that wants good seats let them pay for them.
• Dedicated areas for x number of students per team (scouts) in the best section.
• Sections for active playing teams only (they do this at championship and it could be done at regional events also)
• Have sections dedicated to teams that want to win the spirit award and those who don't

I think generally this issue stems from the fact that teams take FRC events at different levels of seriousness. For some getting prime seats is about having the best spots for scouts which means better data and better event results. For others they just want good seats to see their robot play on the field. Both of these are fine, but they create situations where people act inappropriately, which in my opinion sets the tone of the event and defines the experience of many teams. (nobody wants to start their event by getting yelled at by the local power house team who feels like you are in the way).

I don't have a solution for this but how many years are we going to let people's experiences at event be influenced by something small and crappy like saving seats before it changes.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

I think generally this issue stems from the fact that teams take FRC events at different levels of seriousness. For some getting prime seats is about having the best spots for scouts which means better data and better event results. For others they just want good seats to see their robot play on the field. Both of these are fine, but they create situations where people act inappropriately, which in my opinion sets the tone of the event and defines the experience of many teams. (nobody wants to start their event by getting yelled at by the local power house team who feels like you are in the way).

There's also the case which I heard was the ugliest this year, and that was getting seats for opening and closing ceremonies. These were cases where the teams who were involved were not on the playing field or stage, yet there were people defending their seats like a herd of hyenas defending a watering hole.

[SM987]

We'll start another thread for this, but we're developing a series of PSA's which we hope will be used to humorously educate attendees at FIRST events about this issue, as well as others.

As others have mentioned in this thread, the vast majority of people are reasonable. Communication is key. There are some attendees that are hellbent and it simply isn't worth the effort, but these are the rare exception. I think ignorance of the rule is far more common than people maliciously "offending".

I know our team typically has 10-15 guests (family friends, parents, school board officials etc.) that may be at their first FIRST event. In a perfect world, we have time to explain the etiquette, but it doesn't always work that way.

[GreyingJay]

Another option, tangential to this issue: give guests special colored lanyards and instruct ALL teams to treat these people as VIPs. (Maybe they do this already, I don't know.)

Even when all teams are at their best behaviour they're going to walk into a stadium full of banners, loud cheering, colored T-shirts everywhere and they're just not going to know where is it "ok" to sit. To have team members welcome them into the fold, invite them to sit down and explain what's going on would be the ideal scenario, as some of you already do.

[gblake]

Who is going to carry the sentiments (quality and quantity) expressed here to the correct ears within FIRST?

Does anyone already connected to the correct lines of communication want to volunteer to do it?

Blake

[Chris Mounts]

Although I agree that the saving of seats is a huge problem, we had to arrive at MSC over 1.5 hours early to get alright seats, we need to look at the situation from the seat savers perspective as well. The adult mentors are responsible for the students at these events. This is a difficult job made almost impossible if we have students spread out over an entire stadium. We have a rather small team compared to many. I can't imagine the issues that huge teams have with keeping track of all the students.

With that said their are several 'regulars' who aggressively save seats. These teams are typically large,+30 students.They know who they are because they come prepared with things like team colored blankets to cover rows of seats. This is unacceptable and puts others in a bad situation. Walking into that section and asking them to remove their blanket is very likely to lead to a confrontation. I'm not sure how to deal with this.

If someone was being paid to run these events it would clearly be their job to take care of it but it is extremely unfair to ask a volunteer who is already giving so much to go get in an argument with people who should know better. I guess it falls to all of us to protect GP even if it is uncomfortable.

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by gblake

Who is going to carry the sentiments (quality and quantity) expressed here to the correct ears within FIRST?

Does anyone already connected to the correct lines of communication want to volunteer to do it?

Blake

One route would be to fill out the survey, and put comments about the seating in there.

[Citrus Dad]

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. We really do need to be mindful of who we are interacting with--it's a reality of gaining funding for FRC.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

BTW, I also like the idea of the VIP lanyards. We really do need to be mindful of who we are interacting with--it's a reality of gaining funding for FRC.

I know, let's badge everyone at the event! Nothing can go wrong there right?

[GBK]

[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.

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.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Another option, tangential to this issue: give guests special colored lanyards and instruct ALL teams to treat these people as VIPs. (Maybe they do this already, I don't know.)

At Championship, this happens already. Badges of invited guests say "INVITED GUEST".

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

At Championship, this happens already. Badges of invited guests say "INVITED GUEST".

Most invited guests from what I observed were either VIPS or people affiliated with FIRST already.

Normal guests who just come by because they heard of a robotics competition have badges without anything under it from what I observed.

I also found some teams had tons of mentors with invited guest badges. Allowing them to stand field side during matches on the dome floor. Anyone know how that works?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

...

Setting aside whether or not those are imperatives, and whether or not the current rule needs to recognize them; the current rule does accommodate all three just fine, so long as the venue is an appropriate one.

- Adult mentors can monitor students in whatever sized groupings the adults care to use.
--- Adult mentors will be wise to adapt the size of student groups they monitor to be compatible with the available blocks of open seats.
- People (teammates and supporters) wishing to sit together can move as far away from the field as is necessary to find a large enough block(s) of open seats.
- Scouts who wish to use a scouting system that is incompatible with the current FIRST rules, will be wise to choose a more appropriate scouting system.

If event planners are forced into using a venue that won't have enough usable seats (expected attendance, plus some extras), the event planners should put in place special rules/plans that will produce reasonable compromises; otherwise the current rule seems fine to me.

Did I overlook anything?

Blake