Listen....it LOOKS like it worked

ecdanc

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

  I see, so the relevant question is not who gets the tickets or why, but who is profiting from it. In that case I guess it’s true that our sympathies are not in alignment, residing as mine do with the workaday hustlers of the secondary market over the corporate fatcats at Ticketmaster. 

Apologies if I misunderstood: I assumed the extra money was going to the band, not to TM (which should be fired into the sun). I’m a little skeptical of your image of the proletarian scalpers, so in that case I’ll change my choice to equally shitty. 

I was making a joke, sorry if that didn’t come through. We’re pretty far afield of the original point I think. 

No worries. I can’t recall the original point, so you’re probably right. 

Actually wait, I don’t know if we’re done.

In my hypothetical, presumably the non-transferable shows would be played to small crowds composed exclusively of people who could pay $5K per ticket, while the other shows would be played to arenas full of a combination of people willing to pay $5K up front and people who paid let’s say $500 on the open market. If I’m understanding your responses right, in your eyes the two are basically equivalent in their “fairness”, rewarding as they both do people who were able to get into the show via an exercise of their economic might, and therefore we must move to some other criteria (like who’s profiting) in order to judge which one is more desirable. 

But if those two hypothetical cases are equivalent, doesn’t it follow that the two possibilities under actual consideration here (broadly speaking, A World With Scalpers and Face Value Only World) are also equivalent, rewarding as they both do people who were able to get into the show via an exercise of their economic might?

Baby is napping, so here goes:

You're using some logical sleight of hand here, which I appreciate (been known to do so myself), but I'm not buying. You've set up an exaggerated hypothetical with two unpalatable options, then claimed (since I don't like either option) that the hypothetical is homologous to the actual. It's not, except in the broadest terms--certainly not to the level of equivalency you suggest. 

I will grant, however, that your point about shifting the criteria is well made, which gestures toward a greater complexity than I was originally detailing (that's mostly laziness on my part: I usually don't give internet conversations the same attention I would in other venues). I was using "fairness" as a sort of catch-all term (I don't think I'm the first one who used the word, so I might have just been picking up others' language) for something more like "justness"--a broader view that might be labeled "how Dan thinks the world should work." That umbrella view contains both fairness as "who gets into the show" and who makes the profit (if there must be a profit--in my ideal world, there would be none), along with other things, I'm sure. 

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless). 

I fear the ground of our conversation is becoming a little blurry at this point, but I do admit I wasn't entirely clear on how I was evaluating things from the outset. At the same time, your hypothetical does not perfectly align with the actual because the act of exaggeration shifts significantly the "who gets in" calculus, whilst you simultaneously ignoring a broader matrix of evaluation. At the risk of sounding harsh, I'd add--regarding this last point--that I wonder if you're not purposely oversimplifying in an effort to "win," so to speak, rather than to have a genuine conversation. 

D-Rod

GreenDiseaseFree said:

Fellow 10Cs
while I share the anxiety, disappointment, frustration we all have gone through this last week or so regarding leg 1 of this tour: 10C request, verified fan sucking, public on sale with the goddamn blue man walking, or staying put, “2000+ in front of you”, and all the crap, I didn’t see anyone post something very interesting I noticed tonight:
As of this post, about 10 hours after the public on sale, ONLY New York and Denver are showing tickets on StubHub.
Specifically,  MSG only has 34 GA tickets posted, Denver only 4 tickets in GA
While there are over 300 total tickets for MSG listed (for now) that many or most of you deserve over the fucking dirtbags that steal and resell our much sought after tickets, can’t this be looked at as an actual overall victory?

339 total MSG tickets posted is a small number compared to the whole arena.
Zero postings for Baltimore
Zero postings for STL
Zero postings for Nashville (which I personally was shut out of in 10C, verified fan, and public sale)
Zero postings for OKC, Oakland
Anyway, while the resell market is not limited to StubHub, my point is, doesn’t this appear, at least at a first glance, this process worked for us all?

The majority of the tickets “look” to be in the hands of the Faithfull, and that, to me anyway, shows that this whole thing might just have worked the way it’s was intended. 

I have to obviously note to myself that in a week, this post may backfire on me, but I fucking hate scalpers, I hate TM even more for “feeing” the shit out of reasonable concert tickets, and just overall being dicks, but I cannot help but feel like the band and this process did in fact work more for us than against us.
Am I missing something at this time and ranted for no reason?

Total agree.  Tix went into the hands of the faithful . 

nicknyr15

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

  I see, so the relevant question is not who gets the tickets or why, but who is profiting from it. In that case I guess it’s true that our sympathies are not in alignment, residing as mine do with the workaday hustlers of the secondary market over the corporate fatcats at Ticketmaster. 

Apologies if I misunderstood: I assumed the extra money was going to the band, not to TM (which should be fired into the sun). I’m a little skeptical of your image of the proletarian scalpers, so in that case I’ll change my choice to equally shitty. 

I was making a joke, sorry if that didn’t come through. We’re pretty far afield of the original point I think. 

No worries. I can’t recall the original point, so you’re probably right. 

Actually wait, I don’t know if we’re done.

In my hypothetical, presumably the non-transferable shows would be played to small crowds composed exclusively of people who could pay $5K per ticket, while the other shows would be played to arenas full of a combination of people willing to pay $5K up front and people who paid let’s say $500 on the open market. If I’m understanding your responses right, in your eyes the two are basically equivalent in their “fairness”, rewarding as they both do people who were able to get into the show via an exercise of their economic might, and therefore we must move to some other criteria (like who’s profiting) in order to judge which one is more desirable. 

But if those two hypothetical cases are equivalent, doesn’t it follow that the two possibilities under actual consideration here (broadly speaking, A World With Scalpers and Face Value Only World) are also equivalent, rewarding as they both do people who were able to get into the show via an exercise of their economic might?

Baby is napping, so here goes:

You're using some logical sleight of hand here, which I appreciate (been known to do so myself), but I'm not buying. You've set up an exaggerated hypothetical with two unpalatable options, then claimed (since I don't like either option) that the hypothetical is homologous to the actual. It's not, except in the broadest terms--certainly not to the level of equivalency you suggest. 

I will grant, however, that your point about shifting the criteria is well made, which gestures toward a greater complexity than I was originally detailing (that's mostly laziness on my part: I usually don't give internet conversations the same attention I would in other venues). I was using "fairness" as a sort of catch-all term (I don't think I'm the first one who used the word, so I might have just been picking up others' language) for something more like "justness"--a broader view that might be labeled "how Dan thinks the world should work." That umbrella view contains both fairness as "who gets into the show" and who makes the profit (if there must be a profit--in my ideal world, there would be none), along with other things, I'm sure. 

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless). 

I fear the ground of our conversation is becoming a little blurry at this point, but I do admit I wasn't entirely clear on how I was evaluating things from the outset. At the same time, your hypothetical does not perfectly align with the actual because the act of exaggeration shifts significantly the "who gets in" calculus, whilst you simultaneously ignoring a broader matrix of evaluation. At the risk of sounding harsh, I'd add--regarding this last point--that I wonder if you're not purposely oversimplifying in an effort to "win," so to speak, rather than to have a genuine conversation. 

Guys how about moving this to private messages. 

Foriginal Sin

on2legs said:

Foriginal Sin said:

To be fair, some of us use the secondary market pretty much exclusively because of time spent waiting/searching/stressing for tickets sucks. You pay more with zero stress. 

I have a bunch of friends asking if I can find them tickets because Phoenix sold out so fast. They’re pretty much screwed. And they’re fans, not fanatics, but fans. 

Maybe in the future they can figure out a algorithm and work with stubhub or Ticketmaster’s secondary site that markup is only X% of face value. 

Better than change the system to a new algorithm... suggest to your friends that they invest $20 in the fan club.  I'm thinking they pretty much would have been guaranteed great seats for face value for the show in Phoenix had they joined.

Once again, they’re not fanatics. A person shouldn’t have to spend even more money just to have an opportunity to get a ticket. If they want to pay a scalper and can afford it so be it. The people on these boards spend thousands on a sheet of paper that is stored behind other sheets of paper to be framed and hung “eventually.” It’s the same premise 

pjhawks

is there any other product you buy but the seller has the right to deny what you get to do with said purchase after the transaction is complete? Why do tickets get this power? 

F Me In The Brain

pjhawks said:

is there any other product you buy but the seller has the right to deny what you get to do with said purchase after the transaction is complete? Why do tickets get this power? 

Bath salts?
Mattress tags?

tdawe

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

ecdanc

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

Because fewer people can afford $5000 than $100, so the number of "some people" in that scenario is greater. The larger that group, the greater the unfairness. 

ecdanc

pjhawks said:

is there any other product you buy but the seller has the right to deny what you get to do with said purchase after the transaction is complete? Why do tickets get this power? 

Essentially all intellectual property, if I'm not mistaken. 

tdawe

pjhawks said:

is there any other product you buy but the seller has the right to deny what you get to do with said purchase after the transaction is complete? Why do tickets get this power? 

Yeah there are lots, but the key thing to understand is that the ticket is not really a “product” like, well, bath salts or mattresses. It’s a temporary license to enter someone else’s property at a specific time. When you bought it you didn’t take ownership of anything (from a legal perspective) like you would with the bath salts, you essentially bought a package of rights and restrictions (including restrictions on resale) that were clearly laid out to you before you made the purchase. 

tdawe

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

Because fewer people can afford $5000 than $100, so the number of "some people" in that scenario is greater. The larger that group, the greater the unfairness. 

Ok fair enough. Maybe less principled than I was hoping for, but fair enough. 

on2legs

Foriginal Sin said:

on2legs said:

Foriginal Sin said:

To be fair, some of us use the secondary market pretty much exclusively because of time spent waiting/searching/stressing for tickets sucks. You pay more with zero stress. 

I have a bunch of friends asking if I can find them tickets because Phoenix sold out so fast. They’re pretty much screwed. And they’re fans, not fanatics, but fans. 

Maybe in the future they can figure out a algorithm and work with stubhub or Ticketmaster’s secondary site that markup is only X% of face value. 

Better than change the system to a new algorithm... suggest to your friends that they invest $20 in the fan club.  I'm thinking they pretty much would have been guaranteed great seats for face value for the show in Phoenix had they joined.

Once again, they’re not fanatics. A person shouldn’t have to spend even more money just to have an opportunity to get a ticket. If they want to pay a scalper and can afford it so be it. The people on these boards spend thousands on a sheet of paper that is stored behind other sheets of paper to be framed and hung “eventually.” It’s the same premise 

That makes no sense.  They won’t spend $20 + the face value of a fan club ticket but they will spend 3x or 4x face value from a scalper on the secondary market?!??

Like it or not... the system has changed (and mostly for the better).  It’s not going back. People need to adapt or get used to sitting at home. 

ecdanc

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

Because fewer people can afford $5000 than $100, so the number of "some people" in that scenario is greater. The larger that group, the greater the unfairness. 

Ok fair enough. Maybe less principled than I was hoping for, but fair enough. 

I’ll bite: why “less principled?”

tdawe

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

Because fewer people can afford $5000 than $100, so the number of "some people" in that scenario is greater. The larger that group, the greater the unfairness. 

Ok fair enough. Maybe less principled than I was hoping for, but fair enough. 

I’ll bite: why “less principled?”

Because when I suggested this morning that you and I shared the same “sympathies” here that is what I meant - that we’d both prefer systems to the extent that they maximize access for the greatest group of fans possible. You pushed back on that, and I was intrigued by “I'd never even entertain the notion that the market or supply and demand are reconcilable with fairness” and interested in interrogating that notion in this context, with someone who clearly has thought deeply about these things. Now here we are back where we started, but like I said...fair enough. 

I’m being sincere here. 

igotid88

Gern Blansten said:

igotid88 said:

OceansJenny said:

https://events.ticketsmate.com/ResultsTicket.php?evtid=4358923&_ga=2.235722817.1934835916.1579934857-527558409.1579934857#open

Scalpers selling tickets by including the TM login in the sale.

Hope 10c finds them out. And releases those tickete

Those aren't 10c though....we don't know where we sit yet

It might be if they only put in for GA for example and won. So they know they're getting GA. Was GA sold in the General Public?

ecdanc

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

Because fewer people can afford $5000 than $100, so the number of "some people" in that scenario is greater. The larger that group, the greater the unfairness. 

Ok fair enough. Maybe less principled than I was hoping for, but fair enough. 

I’ll bite: why “less principled?”

Because when I suggested this morning that you and I shared the same “sympathies” here that is what I meant - that we’d both prefer systems to the extent that they maximize access for the greatest group of fans possible. You pushed back on that, and I was intrigued by “I'd never even entertain the notion that the market or supply and demand are reconcilable with fairness” and interested in interrogating that notion in this context, with someone who clearly has thought deeply about these things. Now here we are back where we started, but like I said...fair enough. 

I’m being sincere here. 

Still not sure I understand (honestly—not being snarky). The principle underlying my positions—all of them—is “capitalism is bad.” From that perspective, I’d say I’m being thoroughly principled. 

tdawe

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

tdawe said:

ecdanc said:

So, to return to the hypothetical vs. the actual, let's pretend for a moment we have a 10-point unjustness scale. I can't choose in your hypothetical because both options are say, a 6. I score them a 6, because both contain elements of the "who gets in" fairness with the "who makes money" part. For the actual, the secondary market option might be a 5 or a 6 for precisely the same reasons as the hypothetical, while the everything-is-face-value world is like a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice (that some people can't afford tickets regardless).

Agreed that "fairness" isn't a great word, I don't care what we call it. Justness. Goodness. Whatever. And I am trying to have a real conversation, to interrogate the position you're staking out, because I think it's interesting. If it's not interesting to you, or bothersome, you can feel free to ignore and we'll all move on. But I have one more question, which I am genuinely interested in your answer to, because you seem to have smart answers for these things that I haven't necessarily thought of yet:

If the actual "everything-is-$100" world is a 1, because it includes only the baseline injustice that some people can't afford tickets, on what theory of justness/fairness/goodness is the hypothetical "everything-is-$5,000" world not a 1?

Because fewer people can afford $5000 than $100, so the number of "some people" in that scenario is greater. The larger that group, the greater the unfairness. 

Ok fair enough. Maybe less principled than I was hoping for, but fair enough. 

I’ll bite: why “less principled?”

Because when I suggested this morning that you and I shared the same “sympathies” here that is what I meant - that we’d both prefer systems to the extent that they maximize access for the greatest group of fans possible. You pushed back on that, and I was intrigued by “I'd never even entertain the notion that the market or supply and demand are reconcilable with fairness” and interested in interrogating that notion in this context, with someone who clearly has thought deeply about these things. Now here we are back where we started, but like I said...fair enough. 

I’m being sincere here. 

Still not sure I understand (honestly—not being snarky). The principle underlying my positions—all of them—is “capitalism is bad.” From that perspective, I’d say I’m being thoroughly principled. 

Ok

BennyLaRue

Hey! Hey! Stop it before you guys hurt something.

tdawe

BennyLaRue said:

Hey! Hey! Stop it before you guys hurt something.

I was just trying to sniff his butt. 

pjhawks

F Me In The Brain said:

pjhawks said:

is there any other product you buy but the seller has the right to deny what you get to do with said purchase after the transaction is complete? Why do tickets get this power? 

Bath salts?
Mattress tags?

Wait I can’t resell a mattress?