Jump to content
Superscally

Community Service for Ticket

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

No I don't. It was just a notion that "people with a family would be penalized" I found quite baffling. Generally, having a family is a choice people make, they do it because they want to, and it's a positive in their lives.They would already consider themselves better off than they would be if they did not have a family. Presumably there's no-one here that has a family that would have chosen not to have one if it made getting Glastonbury tickets easier, right? Which is why it struck me as odd. Everyone's time is precious - but it's like me saying "oh I wouldn't like this system, I own loads of board games, and time spent volunteering would mean I would be spending less time playing board games". It's ridiculous, because clearly that's something I want to do and enjoy.

The original post was basically acting like family was some horrendous obligation that they would be penalised for having.  

When he said 'penalsied' he was clearly referring to penalised/disadvantaged in getting a ticket. Which would be unfair. He wasn't saying his family was a horrendous obligation was he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

See you seem to be taking this personally, when you shoudln't be. It was a well intentioned idea but people's criticisms of the initial post were valid so I think it's a bit odd to say you're 'genuinely disappointed' as if we're letting people down.

You have tried to say it wasn't competitive (although the first post clearly suggests it is), that it would definitely be useful to organisations (as some of us in this field have pointed out, its not that simple) and many have pointed out it would cost huge amounts to administer and regulate on the scale initially suggested (probably more money than the volunteer time is worth).

We're not against volunteering in the community at all, we're just pointing out its a flawed metric as to who gets to go to Glastonbury

My first post was just repeating a suggestion which I thought sounded good, but for some of the reasons pointed out, I was able to see why aspects wouldn't work. A partial implementation would definitely be doable and be workable, so I don't mind that staying out there and respect other people's opinion why they wouldn't be keen, but yeah, I still (and I'm sure others) feel like it has merit. I didn't take that personally, but there was a lot of snideness and overbearing responses from some people that I felt I have right to take umbrage with. You weren't one. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, just when they're a dick at the same time, they can do one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

No I don't. It was just a notion that "people with a family would be penalized" I found quite baffling. Generally, having a family is a choice people make, they do it because they want to, and it's a positive in their lives.They would already consider themselves better off than they would be if they did not have a family. Presumably there's no-one here that has a family that would have chosen not to have one if it made getting Glastonbury tickets easier, right? Which is why it struck me as odd. Everyone's time is precious - but it's like me saying "oh I wouldn't like this system, I own loads of board games, and time spent volunteering would mean I would be spending less time playing board games". It's ridiculous, because clearly that's something I want to do and enjoy.

The original post was basically acting like family was some horrendous obligation that they would be penalised for having.  

Do you have any idea how fucking long a game of Monopoly can take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, strummer77 said:

When he said 'penalsied' he was clearly referring to penalised/disadvantaged in getting a ticket. Which would be unfair. He wasn't saying his family was a horrendous obligation was he?

No more unfair than anyone else having things they would rather be spending their holiday time on.

8 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Do you have any idea how fucking long a game of Monopoly can take?

That's nothing, try Twilight Imperium...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all agree that the present method of ticketing is probably the best one so far ??

 

With it being so popular it is the most fair , my only tweak possibly would be  registrations have to be updated every year, but this maybe not cost effective ..I'm Ok with it as it is now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Community service for some, Glastonbury tickets for all!

**Waves tiny flag**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t be bothered to read the whole thread but....

It’s a fucking terrible idea.

Anybody trying to instigate a system which benefits themselves over others is a cockwomble.

Very un-Glastonbury-like. 

The current system is by far the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nikkic said:

It’s a fucking terrible idea.

except of course it's sort-of what happens already - if you do some 'community service' for the festival that benefits someone else (oxfam, etc) you get priority tickets. :P 

21 minutes ago, nikkic said:

The current system is by far the best.

yep, I agree. It's a reasonable compromise towards all angles of those wanting tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

yep, I agree. It's a reasonable compromise towards all angles of those wanting tickets.

I agree but I reserve the right to change my mind if I don’t get tickets. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 9:21 PM, strummer77 said:

The festival is a holiday and a break for thousands of people - it's essentially a holiday. You shouldn't have to earn your right or be 'more worthy' of going.

It's an idea that would be a nightmare to manage and administer and would possibly exclude certain people. It's a terrible idea.

Nailed it for me. An absolutely ridiculous pile of steaming shit of an idea. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nikkic said:

It’s a fucking terrible idea.

 

4 minutes ago, gherkin8r said:

An absolutely ridiculous pile of steaming shit of an idea. 

 

Put you down as maybe's? :)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Winslow Leach said:

Some right little Thatcherite sociopaths showing their colours in this thread.

In what way? Do go on? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nikkic said:

Can’t be bothered to read the whole thread but....

It’s a fucking terrible idea.

Anybody trying to instigate a system which benefits themselves over others is a cockwomble.

Very un-Glastonbury-like. 

The current system is by far the best. 

That wasn't the intention. If you actually read the thread you'll realise it stemmed from a suggestion that could be an incentive to get people to engage positively in the community. The initial way it was put to me that I thought on face value was a cool idea wasn't workable, as some pointed out, but it's not much different to the system that exists for stewarding, but the work is done before the festival, to allow appropriate charities to benefit, but allow you to do the whole festival. There's nothing wrong with that idea at all apart from the fact that some people have got in into their head that this is some sly scheme. Yes, charity work would be better if everyone did it for nothing, but a miniscule proportion of the population do that. There is nothing wrong with a means to encourage a few more. Because people are so focussed on the original wording which was typed as a suggestion for discussion, before comments deteriorated into those that say a lot more about the people who made them than they realise, I've reworded it to one that takes into account the good suggestions that were made by those who were able to articulate properly...

Edited by Superscally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a weird one.i was going to say that maybe people could 'work' for a subsidised ticket as 300quid is a fair chunk however you dress it up with so much to do- you can only be in one place at a time. In my head this sounded reasonable but then it starts going down the route of -whats the cut off point- whos subsidising who- and almost like a 'voluntary work for benefits ' vibe which would be absolutely hideous. So much so not even this government had bought it in even though there were whispers a few years ago.

I guess ultimately voluntary is voluntary and any reward system takes away from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, danmarks said:

Its a weird one.i was going to say that maybe people could 'work' for a subsidised ticket as 300quid is a fair chunk however you dress it up with so much to do- you can only be in one place at a time. In my head this sounded reasonable but then it starts going down the route of -whats the cut off point- whos subsidising who- and almost like a 'voluntary work for benefits ' vibe which would be absolutely hideous. So much so not even this government had bought it in even though there were whispers a few years ago.

I guess ultimately voluntary is voluntary and any reward system takes away from that.

Again Dan, that wasn't my intention. Yes there is a benefit, or if you made it a lottery, a potential benefit, for those involved. However, from what was a throwaway comment from a pal that I put on here for discussion, it's changed to something that isn't a compulsory thing, but merely an alternative path for those who cared enough to pursue. Hopefully there won't be any more confusion. I wouldn't want organisations to pay for the ticket either, that'd still be on the punter, so it wouldn't be a burden. All it is, is another route, like competitions, but with a positive effect that would hopefully inspire beyond the week on the farm. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system does lean into this sort of thinking a bit. It's not as black and white as people think.

Essentially, the question is "how much should the ticket sale system reward *effort?"

1. At the far end of that scale is that you have a London Marathon-esque lottery. If you want a ticket, you put your name in the bucket (with a group of up to say 12 people) and you're picked you get a chance to buy a ticket. If not you don't. Certain things would have to be in place for that system to work, but it would work, it is a viable option. One the festival choose not to use.

2. The next step is the standard current ticket sale: here we start rewarding effort. If you're in a group of four and four of you are trying for tickets, you're four times more likely to get one than if just one of your group bothers. If you want to go in a group smaller than four you're slightly disadvantaged, but again you can be rewarded by finding other pairs/singletons to join up with. You can also outright ask/pay other people to help you try for tickets.

3. Seetickets can sell the tickets faster than they do currently. They could set it up so they are all gone in around 2 minutes. They don't. They limit the number of purchasers on purpose, to stretch the sale out to an hour. Again, this rewards effort - do you keep going after five minutes, or just give up and decide it's not worth it. Additionally, if you have contacted other friends going, they can try for you too if they get through early. Again, effort is rewarded. [There was an argument some years back that this system favoured larger groups, but it's simple enough now to find online groups to join for smaller groups anyway that this is less of a factor]. So this is the system we have now.

4. You could easily drag the sale out longer. Make it take 3 or even 6 hours. I would imagine this is the option most people on this board would take. Make it a bit more annoying to get tickets but not require us to leave our homes. This was trialed accidentally one past year!

5. You then get to the "queue up outside HMV" system. I'm not actually sure how practical this is for something where demand this high - you'd have queue jumpers, people saving spaces for mates, and if you could buy more than one ticket, it would still reward effort, but one person in a group making a big effort, rather than all of them making a smaller one.

6. From here, it's not a big leap to, if you're going to asking for 12 hours of someone's time to get a ticket, maybe that person could be doing something more constructive than standing in a queue for 12 hours. So you have the volunteer option. 

None of these are fundamentally different approaches - most people here are opposed to a lottery system, where everyone gets an equal chance. Most people want to be rewarded for putting effort it. A volunteering system just takes it to the extreme end of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The current system does lean into this sort of thinking a bit. It's not as black and white as people think.

Essentially, the question is "how much should the ticket sale system reward *effort?"

1. At the far end of that scale is that you have a London Marathon-esque lottery. If you want a ticket, you put your name in the bucket (with a group of up to say 12 people) and you're picked you get a chance to buy a ticket. If not you don't. Certain things would have to be in place for that system to work, but it would work, it is a viable option. One the festival choose not to use.

2. The next step is the standard current ticket sale: here we start rewarding effort. If you're in a group of four and four of you are trying for tickets, you're four times more likely to get one than if just one of your group bothers. If you want to go in a group smaller than four you're slightly disadvantaged, but again you can be rewarded by finding other pairs/singletons to join up with. You can also outright ask/pay other people to help you try for tickets.

3. Seetickets can sell the tickets faster than they do currently. They could set it up so they are all gone in around 2 minutes. They don't. They limit the number of purchasers on purpose, to stretch the sale out to an hour. Again, this rewards effort - do you keep going after five minutes, or just give up and decide it's not worth it. Additionally, if you have contacted other friends going, they can try for you too if they get through early. Again, effort is rewarded. [There was an argument some years back that this system favoured larger groups, but it's simple enough now to find online groups to join for smaller groups anyway that this is less of a factor]. So this is the system we have now.

4. You could easily drag the sale out longer. Make it take 3 or even 6 hours. I would imagine this is the option most people on this board would take. Make it a bit more annoying to get tickets but not require us to leave our homes. This was trialed accidentally one past year!

5. You then get to the "queue up outside HMV" system. I'm not actually sure how practical this is for something where demand this high - you'd have queue jumpers, people saving spaces for mates, and if you could buy more than one ticket, it would still reward effort, but one person in a group making a big effort, rather than all of them making a smaller one.

6. From here, it's not a big leap to, if you're going to asking for 12 hours of someone's time to get a ticket, maybe that person could be doing something more constructive than standing in a queue for 12 hours. So you have the volunteer option. 

None of these are fundamentally different approaches - most people here are opposed to a lottery system, where everyone gets an equal chance. Most people want to be rewarded for putting effort it. A volunteering system just takes it to the extreme end of that.

How is it not really obviously that 2 or 3 are the only not stupid options here? We're essentially buying gig tickets we dont need to over complicate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, priest17 said:

How is it not really obviously that 2 or 3 are the only not stupid options here? We're essentially buying gig tickets we dont need to over complicate this.

The only reason we spend so much time debating this festival to the nth degree is that it isn't just a gig. It's a way of life for many, a focal point of the years for many times more. It also has a fairly unique ethos and is a force for good in many ways. I don't think it's a quantum leap to suggest we could be a bit different and maybe even useful in the ticket buying process. I do get your point and respect it, but just think (personally) that this would be cool as a "thing".

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

The current system does lean into this sort of thinking a bit. It's not as black and white as people think.

Essentially, the question is "how much should the ticket sale system reward *effort?"

1. At the far end of that scale is that you have a London Marathon-esque lottery. If you want a ticket, you put your name in the bucket (with a group of up to say 12 people) and you're picked you get a chance to buy a ticket. If not you don't. Certain things would have to be in place for that system to work, but it would work, it is a viable option. One the festival choose not to use.

2. The next step is the standard current ticket sale: here we start rewarding effort. If you're in a group of four and four of you are trying for tickets, you're four times more likely to get one than if just one of your group bothers. If you want to go in a group smaller than four you're slightly disadvantaged, but again you can be rewarded by finding other pairs/singletons to join up with. You can also outright ask/pay other people to help you try for tickets.

3. Seetickets can sell the tickets faster than they do currently. They could set it up so they are all gone in around 2 minutes. They don't. They limit the number of purchasers on purpose, to stretch the sale out to an hour. Again, this rewards effort - do you keep going after five minutes, or just give up and decide it's not worth it. Additionally, if you have contacted other friends going, they can try for you too if they get through early. Again, effort is rewarded. [There was an argument some years back that this system favoured larger groups, but it's simple enough now to find online groups to join for smaller groups anyway that this is less of a factor]. So this is the system we have now.

4. You could easily drag the sale out longer. Make it take 3 or even 6 hours. I would imagine this is the option most people on this board would take. Make it a bit more annoying to get tickets but not require us to leave our homes. This was trialed accidentally one past year!

5. You then get to the "queue up outside HMV" system. I'm not actually sure how practical this is for something where demand this high - you'd have queue jumpers, people saving spaces for mates, and if you could buy more than one ticket, it would still reward effort, but one person in a group making a big effort, rather than all of them making a smaller one.

6. From here, it's not a big leap to, if you're going to asking for 12 hours of someone's time to get a ticket, maybe that person could be doing something more constructive than standing in a queue for 12 hours. So you have the volunteer option. 

None of these are fundamentally different approaches - most people here are opposed to a lottery system, where everyone gets an equal chance. Most people want to be rewarded for putting effort it. A volunteering system just takes it to the extreme end of that.

I think I love you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Superscally said:

The only reason we spend so much time debating this festival to the nth degree is that it isn't just a gig. It's a way of life for many, a focal point of the years for many times more. It also has a fairly unique ethos and is a force for good in many ways. I don't think it's a quantum leap to suggest we could be a bit different and maybe even useful in the ticket buying process. I do get your point and respect it, but just think (personally) that this would be cool as a "thing".

That's fair enough, I guess we just land on different sides of this debate. I'm on here every day so it clearly means more to me than a gig in a field so I get that, but to newbies that's pretty much what they're signing up for and, to me, its massively important we keep a flow of them coming in every year so everyone gets a go and the place stays fresh, even if its at my expense some years. So anything that might put people off giving it your first go, whether because the system is complicated or you just don't get why you should do it for this festival when there's plenty of other festivals out there, seems like a bad idea to me (again, personally).

I like you lot but if it was just us at the farm it'd be pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, priest17 said:

That's fair enough, I guess we just land on different sides of this debate. I'm on here every day so it clearly means more to me than a gig in a field so I get that, but to newbies that's pretty much what they're signing up for and, to me, its massively important we keep a flow of them coming in every year so everyone gets a go and the place stays fresh, even if its at my expense some years. So anything that might put people off giving it your first go, whether because the system is complicated or you just don't get why you should do it for this festival when there's plenty of other festivals out there, seems like a bad idea to me (again, personally).

I like you lot but if it was just us at the farm it'd be pants.

What if Nick Cave, the National and Beans on Toast headlined? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Superscally said:

What if Nick Cave, the National and Beans on Toast headlined? 

Wot? Even in fantasy eFests Glastonbury we still have to have one shite headliner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...