4 ms·

Charging a nominal fee to enter the raffle might. Like how all raffles work by definition.

by tshaddox 4y ago

kwhitefoot 4y ago
Just make the ticket personal and non-transferable. No need to disadvantage the poor to make it 'fair'.
- throwaway049 4y ago
  Glastonbury Festival does non-transferable by having a long period to register interest and upload a photo of yourself, then if you snag a ticket your photo gets printed on it and checked at the entrance. Their primary problem was resellers - it's still a scramble when the ticket sale begins.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Good to fight against resellers but bad for normal users - some people might get sick, or have something else come up, and not being able to give a ticket to a friend is a bad experience.
    - Thiez 4y ago
      OTOH since this scheme eliminates scalpers tickets may be significantly cheaper, which is a good experience. I imagine it is a net positive.
    - throwaway049 4y ago
      True. But the scalper problem was so large before that they didn't have a better option.
    - kwhitefoot 4y ago
      Glastonbury will refund the ticket minus an administration fee if you genuinely can't go because of circumstances beyond your control. https://glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GLASTONBURY-GA-SUMMARY-2020-260919.pdf https://glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...
    - account42 4y ago
      Why should your friend get to go rather than someone who has been waiting all that time?
actionfromafar 4y ago
That might help a little but rich people will just eat the cost of thousands of fees.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  IF the money was going to maintain the park, then "$10 for a chance to get in, or $10,000 to buy your way in" sounds relatively unobjectionable. It's not like the current Congress is likely to raise taxes on the rich.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Compared to how it is now, it would be better, which is a low bar. But perfect is the enemy of good, so if a price tag $10,000 meant some rich bought their way in and a good chunk of normal people got in anyway, that's effectively a tax on rich people, so I'm for it. (Of course, you'd spin it differently so rich people can pose as doing something for the environment and whatnot.)
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Yep. "Special VIP access for Mount Gibbs tier and higher-tier 'Yosemite Club' Members...exclusive events...". The usual classy-looking plaques & such around the park, informing mere mortals of the names of the park's uber-green benefactors. Side benefit - when Congress is doing its annual budget fight, the National Parks Service can remind certain members that lots of donation-giving wealthy people care a lot about the National Parks.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Of course, lots of private and non-profit organizations have memberships, subscriptions, VIP tickets that let bigger spenders at least cut in line. It seems a bit more distasteful when the government does it though, of course, it happens in all sorts of more subtle ways. Generally speaking, so long as the general public still has reasonable access, it seems mostly harmless so long as the incremental funds go to the organization.
giantg2 4y ago
That's covered in the article.
throw9away6 4y ago
Why not just make it a reverse auction at that point? That’s the end state anyway

Charging a nominal fee to enter the raffle might. Like how all raffles work by definition.

kwhitefoot 4y ago

Just make the ticket personal and non-transferable. No need to disadvantage the poor to make it 'fair'.

throwaway049 4y ago
Glastonbury Festival does non-transferable by having a long period to register interest and upload a photo of yourself, then if you snag a ticket your photo gets printed on it and checked at the entrance. Their primary problem was resellers - it's still a scramble when the ticket sale begins.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Good to fight against resellers but bad for normal users - some people might get sick, or have something else come up, and not being able to give a ticket to a friend is a bad experience.
  - Thiez 4y ago
    OTOH since this scheme eliminates scalpers tickets may be significantly cheaper, which is a good experience. I imagine it is a net positive.
  - throwaway049 4y ago
    True. But the scalper problem was so large before that they didn't have a better option.
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    Glastonbury will refund the ticket minus an administration fee if you genuinely can't go because of circumstances beyond your control. https://glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GLASTONBURY-GA-SUMMARY-2020-260919.pdf https://glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...
  - account42 4y ago
    Why should your friend get to go rather than someone who has been waiting all that time?

actionfromafar 4y ago

That might help a little but rich people will just eat the cost of thousands of fees.

bell-cot 4y ago
IF the money was going to maintain the park, then "$10 for a chance to get in, or $10,000 to buy your way in" sounds relatively unobjectionable. It's not like the current Congress is likely to raise taxes on the rich.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Compared to how it is now, it would be better, which is a low bar. But perfect is the enemy of good, so if a price tag $10,000 meant some rich bought their way in and a good chunk of normal people got in anyway, that's effectively a tax on rich people, so I'm for it. (Of course, you'd spin it differently so rich people can pose as doing something for the environment and whatnot.)
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Yep. "Special VIP access for Mount Gibbs tier and higher-tier 'Yosemite Club' Members...exclusive events...". The usual classy-looking plaques & such around the park, informing mere mortals of the names of the park's uber-green benefactors. Side benefit - when Congress is doing its annual budget fight, the National Parks Service can remind certain members that lots of donation-giving wealthy people care a lot about the National Parks.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Of course, lots of private and non-profit organizations have memberships, subscriptions, VIP tickets that let bigger spenders at least cut in line. It seems a bit more distasteful when the government does it though, of course, it happens in all sorts of more subtle ways. Generally speaking, so long as the general public still has reasonable access, it seems mostly harmless so long as the incremental funds go to the organization.

giantg2 4y ago

That's covered in the article.

throw9away6 4y ago

Why not just make it a reverse auction at that point? That’s the end state anyway