FRC rules around seating need to change.

[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.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

You're solution is unreasonable and even unworkable. You're saying that if teams can't get their entire group there in line at 5 am they are FOL and they should expect that to stay together they will as a group have to get up and move, as a group, to another large block of seats (that most likely doesn't exist elsewhere within view of the field). In other words, only small teams are rewarded by remaining small so that they can continue to sit together.

That doesn't sound like a recipe for "making it loud."

It is reasonable and it is workable. There is prima facie evidence all over the place. Many teams, both large and small, follow the no saving seats rule, and things work out OK for them.

You personally might not like the rule, but FIRST believes it is reasonable (they published it), and FIRST believes that it is workable.

I agree with them.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

I think there is a different scenario on Einstein than at a regional field. Einstein reminds me of Disney or the Macy's parade where people get into place hours early to watch an event, but stay for the event. Whereas at a regional, there is more coming and going.

The volunteer crowd control job description includes:
Prohibit teams from "saving" blocks of seats

Now this is hard! But there is someone to complain to if a team isn't letting you sit. Then the crowd control person can support you in your being allowed to sit. (I've done crowd control. People are "creative" in what they say.)

At the NYC regional, I volunteer as crowd control or safety glasses and go sit with the team I mentor for our matches. Which means I show up right before or a match before ours and then leave the seat. I'm not in the seat all day. And I frequently sit in a seat near our team's seats that has other team's "stuff" marking it. Sometimes this goes ok. Sometimes the team informs me it is there seat. I usually say I'll be gone before their teammate comes back and it is fine. One time, a lady wouldn't let me sit. She had tons of bags on the seat so I picked up the bags and sat down. Turns out she had her leg up on the seat and I sat on her foot. Eek.

[XaulZan11]

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 haven't been to Champs since 2014, but has it become that impossible to find 6-10 decent seats together?

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I haven't been to Champs since 2014, but has it become that impossible to find 6-10 decent seats together?

During eliminations on more competitive divisions and Einstein, yes.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by gblake

It is reasonable and it is workable. There is prima facie evidence all over the place. Many teams, both large and small, follow the no saving seats rule, and things work out OK for them.

You personally might not like the rule, but FIRST believes it is reasonable (they published it), and FIRST believes that it is workable.

I agree with them.

I disagree with your observation completely. I see many more teams saving seats in the central viewing area around each field than not. I see the same thing at the Regionals we attend. I also see a lot of flexibility from almost all of the teams. It's only an issue at the beginning of the day, and when the stands are completely packed during playoffs.

Whether FIRST believes its reasonable is probably irrelevant because they clearly haven't given much thought to the consequences. And given the complete lack of enforcement they reveal that they believe that it's unworkable.

Notably, FIRST saves seats for Einstein teams during the final. If they lived by their words, they would allow any and all teams to sit where ever they wanted during Einstein. Clearly they even recognize that the no saving seat rule is unworkable.

So, again give me a rationale as to why its a good policy other than a tautology that FIRST thinks its a good policy?

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I disagree with your observation completely. I see many more teams saving seats in the central viewing area around each field than not. I see the same thing at the Regionals we attend. I also see a lot of flexibility from almost all of the teams. It's only an issue at the beginning of the day, and when the stands are completely packed during playoffs.

Whether FIRST believes its reasonable is probably irrelevant because they clearly haven't given much thought to the consequences. And given the complete lack of enforcement they reveal that they believe that it's unworkable.

Notably, FIRST saves seats for Einstein teams during the final. If they lived by their words, they would allow any and all teams to sit where ever they wanted during Einstein. Clearly they even recognize that the no saving seat rule is unworkable.

So, again give me a rationale as to why its a good policy other than a tautology that FIRST thinks its a good policy?

Your general argument this whole time has been based around scouts needing seats which I understand. However, this is all thrown out the window come eliminations as scouting is over.

First reserving seats for teams on Einstein is awesome. Its that little special treat teams get for making it. I do not think anyone has a problem with that. Being the team that you are on I am sure you have enjoyed those seats year after year.

I started this thread because I believe some sort of action needs to be taken. However, I disagree that the rule is unworkable. With clear enforcement and harsher repercussions I am sure most issues would be more easily resolved.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Your general argument this whole time has been based around scouts needing seats which I understand. However, this is all thrown out the window come eliminations as scouting is over.

Teams do scout during eliminations. Even Einstien.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

...

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

...

Originally Posted by gblake

...

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Teams do scout during eliminations. Even Einstien.

Why? Seems frivolous outside of a strategist making observations.

Anyway, more on topic:
We've saved seats. Thursday morning at Archimedes, we had a bus of 60-something kids get caught in nasty traffic, and it was nearly an hour and a half behind. We marked out an area with people and scouting items, and explained our situation calmly and graciously to other teams. They understood, and were happy to oblige. There was one team who needed a few seats for scouters, and we gladly gave them the 8 seats they needed. It wasn't a problem for us, I ended up talking to them for quite a while and learned a lot about them. Did we "break the rules?" Yeah, I guess. Does it matter? Not at all, because it was handled professionally by us, and the teams around us. They were very understanding of our situation, and we were understanding of their situation. When people are nice to each other, they don't necessarily need rules to guide their behavior.

TL;dr: If we were all graciously professional to each other, this whole thing would work a lot better.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Why? Seems frivolous outside of a strategist making observations.

[tangent] You do want to know what your alliance and your opponents are capable of. Also potential opponents. If you can see that X is vulnerable to defense, and to the tune of Y, while Z barely slows you down, all of that is good to know.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Why? Seems frivolous outside of a strategist making observations.

Anyway, more on topic:
We've saved seats. Thursday morning at Archimedes, we had a bus of 60-something kids get caught in nasty traffic, and it was nearly an hour and a half behind. We marked out an area with people and scouting items, and explained our situation calmly and graciously to other teams. They understood, and were happy to oblige. There was one team who needed a few seats for scouters, and we gladly gave them the 8 seats they needed. It wasn't a problem for us, I ended up talking to them for quite a while and learned a lot about them. Did we "break the rules?" Yeah, I guess. Does it matter? Not at all, because it was handled professionally by us, and the teams around us. They were very understanding of our situation, and we were understanding of their situation. When people are nice to each other, they don't necessarily need rules to guide their behavior.

TL;dr: If we were all graciously professional to each other, this whole thing would work a lot better.

Where your post differs from a lot of others is you allowed the 8 scouts to sit there. There is a big difference between saying that that seat is reserved and asking if you could keep that seat.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Why? Seems frivolous outside of a strategist making observations.

Data can help make strategic decisions during Einstein. Not the same type of scouting that you would do during qualifications where you're trying to gain an overall understanding of a robot's performance, but recording specific numbers or trends that are important to your strategy. For example, when I was sitting with 469 as an alumnus during Einstein 2014, there were students measuring average cycle time during all the Einstein matches and relaying those numbers down to the strategy team on the field.

[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.