"AGREED, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS EVEN WORSE. WE AGREE THAT ANY POLL HERE OR ON ANOTHER WEBSITE IS NOT A VALID SAMPLE BASE. AND THIS LEAVES US WITH ONLY THE ANECTDOTAL EVIDENCE FROM VARIOUS POSTS AND CONVERSATIONS– SOME SUPPORTING THE LOTTERY, SOME AGAINST.
AND NOBODY CAN DRAW ANY FIRM CONCLUSIONS FROM ANECTDOTALS. SO YOUR, OR MY, CONJECTURE ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE SUPPORT OR DON’T SUPPORT IS JUST MEANINGLESS BLATHER. – AND I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE QUOTES ON THAT ONE (-:"
Not 100% firm scientific conclusions, no but that doesn't eliminate all conclusions. The absence of scientific analysis doesn't render all results and anecdotes menaingless. In fact, most qualitative research is anecdotal because, unless repeated many times, it will always lack testable reliability. That doesn't mean that the conclusions are not valid or don't have something to offer us, though. The opposite is true for quantitative studies - they often have higher reliability, but lower validity. The point is that all studies have flaws. I've read hundreds of scientific studies over my career and not one is flawlessly designed. Yet, conclusions can still be drawn from these. That's because we make arguments and claims with relative amounts of confidence that are rarely, if ever, 100%.
In this case, the poll are flawed, true. However that doesn't mean that they are completely useless. As the only measures available, they suggest to me that public opinion is heavily (85%) against the current system. Probably closer to 40% are for some kind of lottery, but 60% prefer a first come first served system. Now, these results are not fool proof and are not made with 100% confidence. But that doesn't make them useless.
"YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. IN ONE BREATH YOU SAY 15% SUPPORT, IN ANOTHER BREATH YOU NOTE THAT “THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF VALIDITY ISSUES” AND YOU “WON’T ARGUE THAT THIS IS A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE” EVEN WORSE, YOU NOTE 15% SUPPORT BUT IN THE POLL HERE IT’S CLOSER TO 40%."
That's because the poll here lumps together numerous potential lottery systems, some of which, depending on their operation, may be more fair than others. The compromise of 3/4 first come and 1/4 lottery would be MORE acceptable to me. Given that we have a second poll (link in the other thread), that disperses the lottery options, we can more accurately tell that support for the current lottery system is closer to 15%, substancially lower than the 40% seen when you lump lottery options together. With respect to validity issues, again, doesn't make the results completely useless. It never does.
"ONE FACT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON – THE INTERFERENCE POLL DATA IS RUNNING ABOUT 60-40 AGAINST, SO HOW CAN YOU INFER 15% SUPPORT? BECAUSE THE VALIDITY ISSUES THAT YOU DULY NOTE SKEW THINGS THE DIRECTION YOU DESIRE? BECAUSE THE PUBLIC OPINION THAT YOU READ SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION? I HOPE YOU ARE MORE CAREFUL WITH YOUR OWN RESEARCH FINDINGS."
It's clear to me that you haven't had a chance to look at the other poll. That's where the '15% support' is derived from a different poll set up for which a link is available in another thread. That poll contains about 4 different lottery options, including the current one. 15% or less support the current system in that poll. That's where the 15% comes from. Without being to cheeky, I would like to suggest that you be more thorough in your search for my sources before critiquing my findings.
"TRUE, BUT PEOPLE CAN STILL SEE STAR WARS SOMETIME IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. AND ANOTHER BUS WILL EVENTURALY COME BY, OR YOU CAN GRAB A CAB. I THINK YOUR MISSING THE POINT ON THE SUPPLY SIDE OF THIS EQUATION. SUPPLY AND DEMAND DOES NOT MEASURE FAIRNESS, FAIRNESS IS SUBJECTIVE. IN THIS CASE, THE BAND HAS CHOSEN A LOTTERY TO RESOLVE A VERY UNIQUE HIGH DEMAND / LOW SUPPLY EQUATION BY INTRODUCING A LOTTERY. THEY APPARENTLY BELIEVE A LOTTERY IS THE MOST FAIR CONSIDERING THE FANS AND THEIR OWN GOALS."
This is a contradiction. Fairness is subjective, but so is the definition of 'resolution'. Some principle of fairness has to be identified in order to determine and implement something you can call a 'resolution'.
The next bus you describe will not get you to work on time and I may not have the opportunity to see the movie for the next few weeks. At certain times for certain products and services, ther is high demand (higher than supply) and that ratio doesn't change the principles of fariness associated with first come first served.
Again, their goals were expressed to us in an e-mail and my point is that the limited amount we can draw from these lackluster polls suggests that this has not been a success.
Again, many products and services (including the ones I mentioned) are in high demand at particular times on particular days for particular reasons. Popular movies may be there the next day, but I may not be able to attend then. If I don't get to the show I want to go to early enough, it may be sold out or my girlfriend may not get the seat next to me. That's life and that's fair to me. Lotteries have never determined access because they're not fair to those who are willing to make the sacrifices to be there early to gewt what they want. Merit is the key. We have shows in my business at which clients may purchase works of art. If the show opens at 8:30 am, the first person in line gets to enter and make the first selection, even for works of art that are in extremely high demand (and low supply). That person would surely feel cheated if we let the last person in first to make the same selection.
There are plenty of high demand/ low supply examples to draw from, none of which use lotteries to decide access principles and all of which use first come first served because they know it's fair. There are no shortage of examples at movie theatres on opening nights, at malls around christmas, at bus stops during rush hour and at restaurants on holidays.
"IN CLOSING, DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT ANY OF YOUR ANALOGIES ARE AS SEVERE AS THE DESIRE TO GET INTO THE ELLIPSE ON ONE NIGHT IN ONE TOWN?"
MOVIES? COME ON, THERE ARE MANY MANY OPTIONS ON THE SUPPLY SIDE – YOU CAN’T REALISTICALLY ARGUE THAT YOU CAN ONLY SEE STAR WARS ON ONLY ONE SPECIFIC NIGHT AND BE SATISFIED.
I tried to make it as clear as I could before that I think notions of supply/demand miss the point. There is no argument (at least not that I have heard) which suggests that what is fair is determined by the size of the descrepancy between supply and demand.
I AGREE THAT LOTTERIES ARE NOT NORMALLY USED TO SOLVE HIGH DEMAND / LOW SUPPLY. PRICE DOES THAT, BUT IN THIS CASE PRICE IS AN OPTION THAT’S EVEN LESS FAIR – WHAT, BUY YOUR WAY INTO THE ELLIPSE OR AUCTION OFF THE WRISTBANDS?
THIS PLACE WOULD BE LIT UP LIKE A NUCLEAR CHRISTMAS TREE AND SERVERS WOULD BE CRASHING ALL DAY LONG IF THAT HAPPENED.
"BTW, YOU ARE GOING TO BE REALLY BUMMED IF AND WHEN SOME MOVIE THEATRE IN A LARGE METROPOLITAN AREA DOES THE FIRST EVER LOTTERY FOR OPENING NIGHT OF “REVENGE OF THE SITH” – AND IT COULD HAPPEN."
I hope not and given that first come first served is generally regarded in all facets of society (even in the manner U2 sells tickets!!) as fair, I doubt you will see that.
I don't think selling entry wristbands is ok but there are many simple solutions to that problem, includong random colouring.
I think this policy was probably just misguided. I truly believe the intention was good, but the outcome is not.
Regards again,
Jon
Las night (the one night I actually can't get there early) I go just before they start. Now if this lottery is suppose to be fair how come they didn't even have the computers on at this time? WTF? was the ellipse already full thanks to all the celeberities and VIP? Not that I was actually thinking I was going to get in but it would have been nice to at least gotten the chance. Anyway still a good view from the back of the floor. You can pretty much see the whole thing and it wasn't as crowded as I thought it would be.
