FRC rules around seating need to change.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by gblake

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[EricH]

I think the basic "agreement" should be something like this:

--You CAN save seats, in a block or a line, but only enough for your team members who are present AND likely to sit down during the event (that is, pit crew and drive team don't necessarily count).
--Other persons (adjacent teams' members and/or non-team folks) can sit in any open seat, particularly if they ask.
--If someone leaves the stands to go to restroom or lunch, they should be able to sit within, or next to, their team's saved area.

And the big portion of this: Have the bodies in the seats. Most effective way to save a seat is to sit in it. Translation, 2-3 people shouldn't be saving 40 seats, it should be 20-30 people saving 40 seats (ballpark numbers). If you've got the former, see my second item above.


I've got no problem with saving seats for team members so the team can sit together. I've got a problem with not allowing people whose team wasn't able to save enough seats to join you and sit near their team.

And I'll go on record that one of the MN teams on Galileo is a great example of this (can't remember who offhand, or I'd call 'em out better). They readily allowed small groups of our team members to take their empty seats when our section was full up. I want to say I recall Buzz doing the same thing a couple of times.

[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.

[Citrus Dad]

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.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

snip.

What I just took from your post was

1. It's OK to break the rules because everyone else does it. (a very dangerous precedent to set to a bunch of high school students)

And

2. A persons opinion only matters if they put a team affiliation on their profile. Forgive my sarcasm but Did I miss the memo when you got the power to decide who's opinion was valid?

[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.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

To be clear, I'm only talking about the scouts here. I've been very clear about this throughout, and it's disappointing if you are now trying to change the focal point of the discussion as you concede my primary and only point. I strongly urge teams that have lots of parents or are not scouting but participating in the larger community event to find seating elsewhere ion the arena away from the competition environment. I have clearly supported a program that reserves seats only for scouts and that the remainder of the team members should be left to find seating through other channels. I'm agnostic on how seating arrangement occurs for those other team members and supporters.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

To be clear, I'm only talking about the scouts here. I've been very clear about this throughout, and

No you haven't been clear about this throughout, in particular in your first reaction to my post about the general topic of saving seats.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

it's disappointing if you are now trying to change the focal point of the discussion as you concede my primary and only point.

You are welcome to be disappointed if you want, but if you go back and read carefully, you might notice that this isn't correct.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

Blake

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by gblake

No you haven't been clear about this throughout, in particular in your first reaction to my post about the general topic of saving seats.

You are welcome to be disappointed if you want, but if you go back and read carefully, you might notice that this isn't correct.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

Blake

No you are not.

Citrusdad your posts have been increasingly concerning.

Off from that subtopic.
After some thinking about the whole thing I realized that is was kind of messed up that FIRST did not provide better seats for volunteers during large events at championships. IE Opening Ceremonies, and Einstein/Closing Ceremonies. The volunteer section was up in the nosebleeds. Shouldn't volunteers seating be put at a higher priority then teams? I do not think many teams would object to there being a volunteer section on the lower level near the sections they reserve for teams on Einstein.

[grstex]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

You want to continue along with the same base scouting system you've been using. He was asking you to adapt so that you no longer need to save seats (which is against the current rules) or build a system that is more flexible with the positioning of your scouts, yet HE'S the one ending innovation?

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

We largely do that already. Much of the issue is that scouts actually need breaks and will leave. We've had people than come sit in those empty seats and assert ownership. In addition, certain scouts often have multiple roles at the beginning of the day and putting their butt in a seat isn't the highest priority among those activities.

If scouting and scout positions are so important, then why not have a few students on standby as "backup scouts" who sit in the seats of your main scouts while they're taking a break? Signal/text your backup, they take your seat, you get a break.

This next bit isn't directed at you personally:
Across several related threads there are multiple reports of people getting "pushed or shoved" over "saved seats." This burns me up. Shoving people while in a theatre/stadium seating setting is not just un-GP, its not just rude, its flat out DANGEROUS! People losing their balance and falling down several steps can very easily lead to a serious head injury and a trip to the hospital! NO! NO! NO!

I don't think we need a rule change. I just think we need more awareness. Perhaps next year's game can be named "There's no saving seats!" The endgame can be musical chairs!

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Leave it to CD to let discussion of seat saving blow completely out of proportion. Everyone is just throwing out what they think the rules should be so I'll try and change the discussion for a bit. Is there any particular reason why having reserved seating for scouts is such a bad idea? Please don't answer with anecdotes of how the rules are now such as "come early and your scouts will have good seats". I'm saying if the rules were changed for this, would it be for the better or for worse and why?

Edit: Also only referring to championships with regards to this hypothetical rule change.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Leave it to CD to let discussion of seat saving blow completely out of proportion. Everyone is just throwing out what they think the rules should be so I'll try and change the discussion for a bit. Is there any particular reason why having reserved seating for scouts is such a bad idea? Please don't answer with anecdotes of how the rules are now such as "come early and your scouts will have good seats". I'm saying if the rules were changed for this, would it be for the better or for worse and why?

As much as I do like the idea it is extra work. I have also talked to some scouts from different teams and many have different preferences of where they like to sit. Here is my proposal that requires no more volunteers but still gets the job done.

Teams will get 7 team stickers (The removable kind) which they can stick to any seat they want and designate it as reserved. They would still probably have to arrive early to get the best seats but it would only be a single day of that. If a team has more then 7 scouts they either can forfeit the stickers. Ask for stickers from teams who are not using them or sit without the luxury of being able to save the seats. Some people may argue for more then 7 but here is the reason for the number. 1 person per robot plus a lead scout. If a team has a ton more scouters they can be in a different section and the lead scouter can bounce between the 2 sections to congregate data. Also any more then 7 per team can get out of hand quickly. At an event like worlds 7 per team is 4,200 saved seats and at a typical regional that's 420 seats. The last bit is during elims, and ceremonies the stickers are inactive and people can sit in the seat.

[Whatever]

This is kind of tangential but I was kind of surprised at how many people would walk the aisles, get out of their seats, etc during matches. The etiquette at baseball games is to wait until between at bats. Seems like there is enough time between matches to move around that the sight lines should stay clear during matches.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by grstex

If scouting and scout positions are so important, then why not have a few students on standby as "backup scouts" who sit in the seats of your main scouts while they're taking a break? Signal/text your backup, they take your seat, you get a break.

We do already employ this in the stands more or less. Everyone at the event has a job to do and if you aren't doing something in the pits or presenting you are in the stands ready to be one of our 8 scouts every match. So we don't have much coming and going in the stands with the main exception of the non-drive team pit crew.

I feel the need to clarify what we do as a team in the stands to "save seats". Almost all of our team except the pit crew arrives at the venue an hour or more early so they are some of the first people in the door. When they get in they find a good spot in the stands and fill into a block of seats leaving a few scattered seats open, usually in the middle of whatever rows we are occupying as well as a few on the end of the row(s). Most people generally feel weird about sitting down in the middle of a group of people but are fine sitting on the end for a while to watch some matches. If someone wants to sit down with us we won't tell them no unless whoever was sitting there will be right back, most people are fine with that. This gives us at least some ability to sit as a group with a few of us coming and going periodically while not being rude about it. For lunch we will cycle the group out about half or a third at a time to keep the block of seats mostly occupied in order to discourage people from taking over the seats and protect the tablets and computers we use for scouting. While it may not overtly be saving seats, it is technically saving seats. So far herd mentality has been the best approach that we have come up with.

[evanperryg]

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.
...
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.

I agree with you fully, right up until the last paragraph. As I've stated, some rules are meant to be broken. Ultimately, FRC culture has evolved in a way that makes it inherently work against the grain of the current seating rules, and that's fine. In fact, it's good, as the current culture allows teams to be together in the stands. I can't imagine how much less spirited we would be if we were all split apart, and I can't imagine how annoying it would be to hand out scouting stuff across 2 or 3 different sections.

Where I have a problem is the last few sentences. If he's involved with FRC, then he has a stake in the issue, regardless of what team he is on. Although i believe this is what you meant to say, asking him to specify what team he is with goes beyond the fundamental "yes/no" question. The question of whether he is involved with an FRC team is relevant, considering this discussion carries implications for the teams, but what team he is affiliated with has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I disagree that past affiliation "doesn't count." Let's be honest, it's not like the seat-saving issue is a new thing. If he was affiliated with a team, and has past experiences with seat-saving while involved with that team, then he has the right to share those experiences and build an argument out of them. Perhaps those arguments shouldn't be phrased in the present-tense, but they are valid nonetheless.