A possible way to make the lottery more equitable - thoughts

2»

Comments

  • RedMosquito22
    RedMosquito22 Posts: 8,158
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

    Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.

    I'm pretty sure people who want to attend more than one show won't think it's fair.
    Member 164xxx

    8/15/92, 9/28/96, 8/28/98, 8/29/98, 9/18/98, 8/3/00, 8/9/00, 8/10/00, 8/23/00, 8/25/00, 9/1/00, 9/2/00, 4/28/03, 6/18/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 10/1/04, 10/3/05, 6/19/08, 10/27/09, 10/31/09, 5/21/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 10/21/13

    More to Come....
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    RedMosquito22 wrote:
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

    Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.

    I'm pretty sure people who want to attend more than one show won't think it's fair.

    It's about taking care of everyone. Give everyone guarenteed ONE show, then lottery the rest.
  • pjsteelerfan
    pjsteelerfan Maryland Posts: 9,905
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

    Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.

    And what happens when they can't guarantee everyone that wants NYC as their show, and demand far exceeds supply?
    ...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    pjsteelerfan wrote:
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

    Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.

    And what happens when they can't guarantee everyone that wants NYC as their show, and demand far exceeds supply?

    That's where you keep the priority option.
  • pjsteelerfan
    pjsteelerfan Maryland Posts: 9,905
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    pjsteelerfan wrote:
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

    Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.

    And what happens when they can't guarantee everyone that wants NYC as their show, and demand far exceeds supply?

    That's where you keep the priority option.

    So all the people that lost the priority option for the guaranteed seats are just out of luck then?
    ...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
  • Zod
    Zod Posts: 11,072
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    RedMosquito22 wrote:
    backseatLover12 wrote:
    Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

    Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.

    I'm pretty sure people who want to attend more than one show won't think it's fair.

    It's about taking care of everyone. Give everyone guarenteed ONE show, then lottery the rest.

    You cant' guarantee one show. There weren't enough tickets. That's one of the reasons so many people are mad. The lottery did try and give people a solid shot at going to their first preference. In many instances there weren't enough tickets to go to 2nd preferences.

    I really don't think one pair person would have significant change in outcome. There weren't enough tickets to go around, people got shafted. No change in system will solve that, and there's not enough tickets to guarantee everyone a pair.
  • frisbiec
    frisbiec Seattle, WA Posts: 114
    But lets bring it back to the initial solution I made with some tweaks. Everyone that wants to enter gets the same number of entries. For simplicity's sake, you get the same number of entries as tour dates, you could break it down by leg if need be. If I want to go to Seattle and only Seattle, I can put all 12-24 entries into that one show. If I want to spread it amongst several shows, I can do that too. This would be truly fair for everyone as everyone has an equal number of entries as well as some choice.

    How can anyone argue that this setup would not be anymore complex than the current setup and would be fair to all members?

    Could people be shut out . . . possibly, but you couldn't argue that everyone did not have the same chance.
    Remove yourself from comfort . . . all progress involves risk

Categories