Nothing Mentioned About Swapping Seats Once Inside

chadgoin

Just do it and report back after. Guinea pig for us so we know for next time.

BLACK35

mace1229 said:

If I was that worried and had two memberships, I wouldn't bother to put i the lotto for both. They said they have more 10c seats than ever before and expect to fulfill most, if not all requests. 
Sounds like you would almost be guaranteed to win both pairs and be stuck with one that is now very difficult to share or pass on.

I agree with you 100% 
The wife and I are both 10C members, but only one of us is putting in for tickets. We don't want to get stuck with an extra pair.

Eddieredder

mace1229 said:

If I was that worried and had two memberships, I wouldn't bother to put i the lotto for both. They said they have more 10c seats than ever before and expect to fulfill most, if not all requests. 
Sounds like you would almost be guaranteed to win both pairs and be stuck with one that is now very difficult to share or pass on.

This is the part I disagree with. Its not that hard to share or pass on. Just less convenient. Old school. You will have to meet your friend in person and walk in with them. Its not that hard. Its Pearl Jam. You aren't ever going to get stuck with the tix. Especially for these shows. 

dankind

Who the hell wants to sit with his/her spouse? Don't you see enough of that asshole?

PJ_Soul

PJNB said:

MayDay10 said:

that could happen, but if an usher asks to see the "ticket" it could run into trouble I guess.

Let me explain why the past system made it unfair for some.  People who may have had good standing memberships would take a friend, spouse, etc in the past.  With the lottery, it made it beneficial to sign your 'partner' up as the ten club # didnt matter going for GA tickets, while the good seniority went for reserved.  People were certainly doubling their chances and $20 got another ball in the bucket.  These people need 1 pair of tickets and have increased their chances to obtaining a pair, and possibly even get an extra pair that could be traded for 10c seats to another show.

Others still had 1 entry.  

People who were members and would link up to try for tickets and might obtain an extra pair to share weren't necessarily a problem though... but each time there was a lottery, there was a noticeable trend of more and more people looking to trade extra pairs for extra pairs for other shows.... and finding plenty of takers.  Right here in the forum, facebook this was happening with regularity, and I would imagine some of these were being sold for more than face in other places.  Meanwhile, plenty of people were shut out of all shows.  People could have easily buddied-up and have multiple accounts they could manage to increase chances and tickets to skirt the system with ease.  10c Finally took notice and are trying a way to curb this.

Nothing changes with GA though. It is the reserved seats that are impacted due to not being able to send both tickets together as a sale. Also I understand the annoyance of people signing up everyone in their family to get better odds. I get how this is unfair to those that have no one specific they go to shows with or if they go solo but I strongly think it is ridiculous to say that 1 couple should only have one account or one pick per show. Each are paying members and especially ones that travel like myself are not abusing the system. Those that have hometown shows and have everyone in their family sign up for them ya that is dirty imo. 

Also I have seen plenty of posts on these boards where solo fans would make deals before hand with other solo fans that if either of them win they are taking the other bettering their odds. Have you never done this over the years and how is this any different then my situation except I live with my plus 1?

 

I agree It's not cool to suggest a couple should only have one membership. They are two individual adults. They each have their own separate rights and shouldn't be expected to basically function as one person. What if each wants to take their friend? Non-couples get to take a friend, and just because you're coupled up it doesn't mean you should lose that right. Treating a couple like one membership is literally telling then both that they HAVE to attend the show only with their partner/spouse. That is crazy talk.

SmallestOceans

dankind said:

Who the hell wants to sit with his/her spouse? Don't you see enough of that asshole?

We clearly need a swingers thread, i just don't want to get banned .

dankind

SmallestOceans said:

dankind said:

Who the hell wants to sit with his/her spouse? Don't you see enough of that asshole?

We clearly need a swingers thread, i just don't want to get banned .

Someone starts one every tour. They use the more euphemistic "lifestyle," I think.

lolobugg

 

dankind said:

SmallestOceans said:

dankind said:

Who the hell wants to sit with his/her spouse? Don't you see enough of that asshole?

We clearly need a swingers thread, i just don't want to get banned .

Someone starts one every tour. They use the more euphemistic "lifestyle," I think.

SWAPPING

High Fidelity 2000

wnh1977 said:

I can't find the post, but somebody mentioned that he and his wife are both members and they both always try to get tickets.  In the past if they both win, they would have friends (another couple) use their extra seats.  First off, I'm not sure how this is shady.  Two paying members are given 2 pairs of tickets.  They were concerned, under this new ticket policy, that they might not be able to sit next to their significant other.  However, I'm not seeing anything posted about not being able to swap seats once inside.  Is this correct?  

Could a ticket-winning husband and a ticket-winning wife get scanned in with their "guests" and then partner up with who they want to sit with (husband and wife use husband's seats, "guests" use wife's seats) once inside the venue?

Yeah should be fine.
My wife and I have done that as well. Sold her extra pair for face once we both won the ticket lotto. 

P-Town-P-Jam-Fan

Ultimately, if PJ was worried about the number of 10C memberships, they would make them 1 per household.  They like the revenue the FC memberships bring in, thus you can sign up everyone in your family for a 10C membership, pay the dues and enjoy the benefits.

As far as swapping once in side, unless you are walking around like a lost moron staring at your tickets while standing next to the usher, you should be fine.  They generally assist the clueless and if you look like you know what you are doing and where you are going, you'll be fine.  If the usher is taking their job too seriously, just go back to the concourse and go down a different aisle with a less-enthused gate keeper. 

mace1229

wnh1977 said:

I can't find the post, but somebody mentioned that he and his wife are both members and they both always try to get tickets.  In the past if they both win, they would have friends (another couple) use their extra seats.  First off, I'm not sure how this is shady.  Two paying members are given 2 pairs of tickets.  They were concerned, under this new ticket policy, that they might not be able to sit next to their significant other.  However, I'm not seeing anything posted about not being able to swap seats once inside.  Is this correct?  

Could a ticket-winning husband and a ticket-winning wife get scanned in with their "guests" and then partner up with who they want to sit with (husband and wife use husband's seats, "guests" use wife's seats) once inside the venue?

I don't know if i would go as far as calling it "shady." but it is clearly against the intentions and rules of 10c when there is never an intent to use the second pair of tickets, and is only ever going to be sold off. I have no problem with 2 memberships doubling your chances, or getting you better chances for 2 different shows. But it is a little annoying to see both win and immediately sell one pair off.  It isn't the increased chances, it is the intentional purchase of tickets that can;t even be used by the member. That's why some call it shady I think.
Like the past post said, it should be 1 per household per show if they really wanted to enforce that.

jazzbo26

MayDay10 said:

that could happen, but if an usher asks to see the "ticket" it could run into trouble I guess.

Speaking of this, I’m getting tired of going to shows and finding other people in my seats. I swear to god like the last 3 or 4 shows I’ve been to this has been the case. In the past I would just take the seats next to mine and when the person in those seats showed up I’d make the others move. But it’s always when the show has started, it’s dark, semi arguments have insued. The usher has to get involved with the damn flashlight. It’s just really disruptive and spoils the flow of the show. I mean how hard is it to make sure your in the right seat?

tweedyfanjen

jazzbo26 said:

MayDay10 said:

that could happen, but if an usher asks to see the "ticket" it could run into trouble I guess.

Speaking of this, I’m getting tired of going to shows and finding other people in my seats. I swear to god like the last 3 or 4 shows I’ve been to this has been the case. In the past I would just take the seats next to mine and when the person in those seats showed up I’d make the others move. But it’s always when the show has started, it’s dark, semi arguments have insued. The usher has to get involved with the damn flashlight. It’s just really disruptive and spoils the flow of the show. I mean how hard is it to make sure your in the right seat?

If someone's in your seats that you paid for, why wouldn't you ask them to move immediately? Maybe I'm a bitch, but that's what I do. 

Vedd Hedd

Let's look at it this way:

John and Judy are married.  They both try for tickets. One for GA, one for Reserved.  They both won, they both bring friends. 
They walk into the venue together.  John has the GA tickets, so he scans in with Judy.    Judy won the reserved tickets.  She gives her phone to their friend, and the friend scans in with the other friend.  Everyone gets in at the same time.    

Is that a violation?   this scenario doesnt apply to me, but it seems like it might apply to a few. 

Vedd Hedd

Vedd Hedd said:

Let's look at it this way:

John and Judy are married.  They both try for tickets. One for GA, one for Reserved.  They both won, they both bring friends. 
They walk into the venue together.  John has the GA tickets, so he scans in with Judy.    Judy won the reserved tickets.  She gives her phone to their friend, and the friend scans in with the other friend.  Everyone gets in at the same time.    

Is that a violation?   this scenario doesnt apply to me, but it seems like it might apply to a few. 

Edit: It seems this scenario was brought up, but hopefully this clarified it. 

Eddieredder

jazzbo26 said:

MayDay10 said:

that could happen, but if an usher asks to see the "ticket" it could run into trouble I guess.

Speaking of this, I’m getting tired of going to shows and finding other people in my seats. I swear to god like the last 3 or 4 shows I’ve been to this has been the case. In the past I would just take the seats next to mine and when the person in those seats showed up I’d make the others move. But it’s always when the show has started, it’s dark, semi arguments have insued. The usher has to get involved with the damn flashlight. It’s just really disruptive and spoils the flow of the show. I mean how hard is it to make sure your in the right seat?

Happens all the time. People make mistakes. Easily cleared up once you take a look at their seats. 

I have zero tolerance for those who are just trying to get a better seat.

Taking the seats next to yours that when someone is in your seats adds to the problem. Always take your seats. 

mace1229

Vedd Hedd said:

Let's look at it this way:

John and Judy are married.  They both try for tickets. One for GA, one for Reserved.  They both won, they both bring friends. 
They walk into the venue together.  John has the GA tickets, so he scans in with Judy.    Judy won the reserved tickets.  She gives her phone to their friend, and the friend scans in with the other friend.  Everyone gets in at the same time.    

Is that a violation?   this scenario doesnt apply to me, but it seems like it might apply to a few. 

I look at it this way. What is the intent of the rule, and would this or any scenario follow the intent?
The intent is to make sure 10c members get tickets first with a guest, and to try and prevent them from reselling it.
That sounds like it follows the intent pretty well. Even if the couple swapped so they stayed together, I would imagine in most cases they would have stayed as group of 4 in that scenario (assuming they really were "friends" and not some stranger they sold them to).
What does not follow the intention is buying 4 tickets and then selling 2 to strangers (even at face value). And I've seen plenty of 10c tickets for sale way above face value, so lets not pretend every couple with the extra tickets sells them on Lost Dogs for what they paid. If someone is buying 4 tickets with the intention of only using 2, that isn't following the spirit of the rule.  Hence a violation in my opinion.
Now I don't get all bent out of shape about it, but since it was asked that is my opinion.

Eddieredder

Vedd Hedd said:

Let's look at it this way:

John and Judy are married.  They both try for tickets. One for GA, one for Reserved.  They both won, they both bring friends. 
They walk into the venue together.  John has the GA tickets, so he scans in with Judy.    Judy won the reserved tickets.  She gives her phone to their friend, and the friend scans in with the other friend.  Everyone gets in at the same time.    

Is that a violation?   this scenario doesnt apply to me, but it seems like it might apply to a few. 

This is where I think people are overthinking things. Whether its a violation or not.........that is going to be hard to enforce. I wouldn't worry about it. If John and Judy are giving their extras to other fans or friends I don't have a problem with this at all. 

tempo_n_groove

Take a screen shot of the ticket and text it to the other person you'd like to trade with.

Problem solved.

Eddieredder

mace1229 said:

Vedd Hedd said:

Let's look at it this way:

John and Judy are married.  They both try for tickets. One for GA, one for Reserved.  They both won, they both bring friends. 
They walk into the venue together.  John has the GA tickets, so he scans in with Judy.    Judy won the reserved tickets.  She gives her phone to their friend, and the friend scans in with the other friend.  Everyone gets in at the same time.    

Is that a violation?   this scenario doesnt apply to me, but it seems like it might apply to a few. 

I look at it this way. What is the intent of the rule, and would this or any scenario follow the intent?
The intent is to make sure 10c members get tickets first with a guest, and to try and prevent them from reselling it.
That sounds like it follows the intent pretty well. Even if the couple swapped so they stayed together, I would imagine in most cases they would have stayed as group of 4 in that scenario (assuming they really were "friends" and not some stranger they sold them to).
What does not follow the intention is buying 4 tickets and then selling 2 to strangers (even at face value). And I've seen plenty of 10c tickets for sale way above face value, so lets not pretend every couple with the extra tickets sells them on Lost Dogs for what they paid. If someone is buying 4 tickets with the intention of only using 2, that isn't following the spirit of the rule.  Hence a violation in my opinion.
Now I don't get all bent out of shape about it, but since it was asked that is my opinion.

If you buy four with the intention of selling two for profit you are scum. Nothing illegal about it. Perfectly within your rights. Ethically wrong. Thats a clear violation.

Hard to prove intent though. An usher isn't going to waste time being the judge and jury with 50k people running around. Good intentions, or bad, whether they swapped or stayed together.... how are you ever going to prove what they are doing ? Impossible to disprove "friendship" or "relationships". There is absolutely no way of knowing.