when friend turns scalper

[jkisha]

Tempest in a tea-pot here.

[capjbadger]

First, the total salaries paid each year is listed in the Afterburn report (latest: http://afterburn.burningman.com/10/financial_chart.html). Salaries for everyone on the payroll at anytime totaled $7,283,000 in 2010.

I'd still like to know why the salary total jumped 4 million dollars between 2009 and 2010.
While I suspect it might have a lot to do with the extra work to change the org to a non-profit, it'd be nice to hear it from the horse's (hat's?) mouth...

-Badger

[portaplaya]

I'd still like to know why the salary total jumped 4 million dollars between 2009 and 2010.
While I suspect it might have a lot to do with the extra work to change the org to a non-profit, it'd be nice to hear it from the horse's (hat's?) mouth...

-Badger

Did you send an e-mail asking anyone? They are pretty good about giving answers when someone actually gets around to asking. True, it is occasionally not a useful answer, but if you haven't even asked you may be failing in your job of holding them accounting to you.

[jkisha]

Why care? It's none of your business anyway.

[capjbadger]

I'd still like to know why the salary total jumped 4 million dollars between 2009 and 2010.
While I suspect it might have a lot to do with the extra work to change the org to a non-profit, it'd be nice to hear it from the horse's (hat's?) mouth...

-Badger

Did you send an e-mail asking anyone? They are pretty good about giving answers when someone actually gets around to asking. True, it is occasionally not a useful answer, but if you haven't even asked you may be failing in your job of holding them accounting to you.

Not yet. Frankly they're slammed with work right now. I was never one for pissing into a headwind.
I'll ask after this year's event winds down.

-badger

[capjbadger]

Why care? It's none of your business anyway.

Yeah I know. I'm just curious.

-Badger

[This Woman]

If they had awards for burnier than thou threads, this one would win hands down.

Ace is right about the ticket situation bringing out the worst in people...in more ways than scalping. This would-be scalper may have issues, but dishonesty doesn't appear to be one of them. What's more,m she's not passive-aggressively plotting to destroy a person's burn because she doesn't agree with them. She's not ripping apart a fellow houseguest to people who cannot hear houseguest defense. And folks, she's not gloating about how righteous she is, and how she would never be otherwise.

Bad form.

[portaplaya]

If they had awards for burnier than thou threads, this one would win hands down.

Ace is right about the ticket situation bringing out the worst in people...in more ways than scalping. This would-be scalper may have issues, but dishonesty doesn't appear to be one of them. What's more,m she's not passive-aggressively plotting to destroy a person's burn because she doesn't agree with them. She's not ripping apart a fellow houseguest to people who cannot hear houseguest defense. And folks, she's not gloating about how righteous she is, and how she would never be otherwise.

Bad form.

And she's providing a defense for this house-guest when she gets new information. And she's been pretty clear to the would-be-scalper that she does not approve.

In fact, she turned to this community (initially) for guidance in how to deal with this situation. Since this would-be-scalper still remains anonymous (assuming they even exist), I don't see what she is doing wrong on this forum.

I will agree that the call-up of the free ticket giver is both "making all parties informed" and also sabotaging someone's burn. I would disagree that the would-be-scalper is being honest with either the newbie ticket buyer or the free ticket giver.

[This Woman]

I would disagree that the would-be-scalper is being honest with either the newbie ticket buyer or the free ticket giver.

In what way is it dishonest? Perhaps I missed something. She mocked the buyers, which is distasteful to me, but that's just my opinion? But it sounded to me like they each had an offer and an acceptance with all parties intending to fulfill their agreed upon obligations. What was dishonest? If she gave them a bullshit story about why she needed their tickets that would be dishonest. But it's not dishonest to to simply make the agreed upon exchange without explanation.

Does one really need to know if the homeless dude is going to buy a beer with your dollar or a meal? If one is worried about it, don't give the dollar. Same thing here. And ALL involved parties were - at least up until the interference point - satisfied with the deals. An observer to the dealings took issue.

[portaplaya]

I would disagree that the would-be-scalper is being honest with either the newbie ticket buyer or the free ticket giver.

In what way is it dishonest? Perhaps I missed something. She mocked the buyers, which is distasteful to me, but that's just my opinion? But it sounded to me like they each had an offer and an acceptance with all parties intending to fulfill their agreed upon obligations. What was dishonest? If she gave them a bullshit story about why she needed their tickets that would be dishonest. But it's not dishonest to to simply make the agreed upon exchange without explanation.

Does one really need to know if the homeless dude is going to buy a beer with your dollar or a meal? If one is worried about it, don't give the dollar. Same thing here. And ALL involved parties were - at least up until the interference point - satisfied with the deals. An observer to the dealings took issue.

Now I am going out on a limb here, but if I give someone a ticket for free (for a ride, in this case), I would only do so with the agreement that they not sell that ticket to another person for some amount of money. And certainly not for more than face value. I certainly think that selling your existing ticket and then accepting the free ticket as a replacement would be morally the same. Thus, if I made that agreement with someone explicitly or implicitly, and the would-be-scalper acted against that understanding without telling me, I would find that deceptive.

Deception by omission is just as dishonest as lying directly.

But we don't know what the actual verbal agreement was, do we? I suspect that part of these "agreed upon obligations" was to not sell the free ticket (or implicitly one that you already possess) for a profit. In fact, if it came to light that the would-be-scalper's actions were leaked to the gifter, only the gifter is really in a position to determine if the would-be-scalper is acting dishonestly or not. Apparently the roommate made a call so that the gifter could make this determination.

Why is that not okay?

[silkkat813]

This Woman: sorry if you don't agree with me for being upset about this. I was very disappointed about someone I thought I knew. If she told me she was not gonna go to the burn cause she wanted to see her husband, I would have been sad. But to make a profit off of some newbies made me mad instead. And then the claim she NEEDED to see him to stay faithful made me feel sorry for their relationship. Their marriage is new.

I didn't give names. I didn't give locations except to where gifters wanted a ride from. The topic of the tickets selling out and scalpers has been a topic amongst me and my Burner friends. We didn't expect one of our friends to do this. I told her the one day how I felt. I avoided saying anything else while in the home because the home owner asked me to wait until she moved out. If I see her over the next few weeks, I will bring it up to her in person.

Am I trying to ruin her burn? When she was gonna give up going anyway to make a profit? How about the person who could have went with this deal instead? Yes, maybe a more "burnier" person. Maybe someone who would volunteer and give back to the city. Maybe someone who is working on that project that people will talk about for years to come. I am not trying to decide who gets the deal. I just wanted the people gifting the tickets to be aware of why this person didn't have tickets to go. I know if I was gifting tickets, I would want to know why. Turns out they have had a few offers. I found them a possible ride. And if you think I am a bitch for being happy she doesn't get to go after scalping her tickets, then so be it.

Do I think I am more burner? Not sure what that means. Do I prefer my friends to have certain morals? Yes. I don't tolerate racist or homophobic friends. I encourage all my friends to recycle and passive-agressively mock them if they don't. I don't like people that take advantage of others for selfish reasons. Do I think I am a better person for not tolerating what I think is wrong? I guess we could get into a debate of what is ethically wrong and right. I like helping out people and helping out people makes me think I am better than those that prefer to take advantage. Helping out people makes me like myself. It is my prozac.

One thing I've learned about this forum is there is never gonna be 100% agreement. But thanks ePlaya for letting me vent. I think sharing space with her made it more frustrating. I feel I've done what I could by offering the Gifters a ride share. Now I only have 2 1/2 weeks and lots of sewing still. Hope everyone has a good Burn.

[This Woman]

PortaPlaya: You’re describing conditions that you would insist upon to give away a ticket, and it would be deceitful to do what this housemate is doing under those circumstances. But there has been no implicit certainty about individual ticket sales for you to assume.

The LLC, Org or whatever (pay attention! It’s been that way since Friday) encourages people to sell tickets only for face value, and discourages professional scalping via other means, some noted in this thread. I don’t think that implies anything in the way of individual ticket holders/seekers transactions, and you shouldn’t assume that the person you are dealing with has the same certainties that you have. Make it a condition of the sale/giveaway if you don’t want it to be resold, or even just ask their intentions.

Deception by omission is just as dishonest as lying directly.

I agree with that statement on it’s own, but I don’t see how this relates to it. If I fuck around on my bf and don’t tell him that is deception by omission. I have broken a contract that we had together. If I take a ticket for the price of giving a space in my camp, and then give that space in my camp I have fulfilled my duties without deception.

I suspect that part of these "agreed upon obligations" was to not sell the free ticket (or implicitly one that you already possess) for a profit.

That's just a guess.

Why is that not okay?

In my opinion, it is not okay because

It assumes without provocation that the involved parties, of which she was not one, are incapable of making transactions without her interference.
It assumes without provocation that the woman making these arrangements is deceitful.

I am not immune to moral outrage and I expect I’ll get a similar dressing down next time I let myself get wound up. Thank God my friends don’t feel the need to dump my ass for every little transgression. I would just ask Sikka to consider the possibility that this might be none of her business and not worth bringing drama down on so many (boyfriends, husbands, anonymous ticket seekers)…perhaps not even worth dumping a friend who’s now fallen off her imaginary pedestal.

[silkkat813]

I would just ask Sikka to consider the possibility that this might be none of her business and not worth bringing drama down on so many (boyfriends, husbands, anonymous ticket seekers)…perhaps not even worth dumping a friend who’s now fallen off her imaginary pedestal.

Sorry but I don't like to sit by and watch people being screwed over. And I read this recently on a Burner regional group which makes me believe I was still right in informing the Gifters of other options:

Then you checked various online venues for tickets (ie. ebay, craigslist, ticketstub, ect.) only to find out that scalpers have gone mad, mad, mad. Well, dont forget YOU have the power not them. Hold firm, people. Stand your ground. NEVER pay more than face value + fees for any BM ticket EVER. Please pass this on. Spread the word. Remind people that you dont sell a BM ticket for more than face value. Force the greed to stop. We can do it if we band together.

[portaplaya]

This Woman, you wouldn't happen to be the would-be-scalper, would you?

[jkisha]

Excuse me, but you aren't much better than she is. You don't like what she did? You feel it is the kind of behavior that would end the friendship? Well, then simply end the friendship. You don't need to talk to her about it. You don't need to teach her whatever lesson you seem to want to teach her. You don't need to post on and on about her. JUST END YOUR FUCKING FRIENDSHIP WITH HER AND BE DONE WITH IT. END OF STORY. Life is much too short for her bullshit and you're proving yourself to be not much better in handling interpersonal relationships.

I would just ask Sikka to consider the possibility that this might be none of her business and not worth bringing drama down on so many (boyfriends, husbands, anonymous ticket seekers)…perhaps not even worth dumping a friend who’s now fallen off her imaginary pedestal.

Sorry but I don't like to sit by and watch people being screwed over. And I read this recently on a Burner regional group which makes me believe I was still right in informing the Gifters of other options:

Then you checked various online venues for tickets (ie. ebay, craigslist, ticketstub, ect.) only to find out that scalpers have gone mad, mad, mad. Well, dont forget YOU have the power not them. Hold firm, people. Stand your ground. NEVER pay more than face value + fees for any BM ticket EVER. Please pass this on. Spread the word. Remind people that you dont sell a BM ticket for more than face value. Force the greed to stop. We can do it if we band together.

[This Woman]

Hi Sikka,

We have to actually like our friends, I get it. By all means dump her ass if you cannot stomach someone who has committed a scalping in your circle, seriously. But you might also remind yourself that you – as a friend – come with your own unique and annoying set of imperfections that your friends just live with. They’ll argue with you probably, but they don’t try to change you and they don’t take a moral bat to you. It’s the price of being a friend to Sikka, and a price they are happy to pay. We all suck a little bit in our own special way, you, me and your scalping houseguest are all vile individuals and marvelous individuals as well.

Am I trying to ruin her burn? When she was gonna give up going anyway to make a profit?

Can I assume that's a yes?

How about the person who could have went with this deal instead? Yes, maybe a more "burnier" person. Maybe someone who would volunteer and give back to the city.

I disagree, but I think you are in the majority with that attitude. I'd take the mixed bag it is over hand-picked, burner-approved masses every time.

And if you think I am a bitch for being happy she doesn't get to go after scalping her tickets, then so be it.

I don’t think you’re a bitch.

I don't like people that take advantage of others for selfish reasons.

But isn’t everything you’ve done over the scalping thing done for selfish reasons? YOU didn’t like that she was taking advantage of newbies (as you saw it). YOU didn’t like what she said about her faithfulness or lack thereof. So you took action. And may I ask if you have yet told her that you called those people?

[atomosk]

You know a lot is being made of scalping and about how those people paying the scalper's price and the scalpers themselves are not welcome at the event because they don't embody the burner spirit. This burnier-than-thou spirit is really annoying and frankly naive. I am annoyed that I can't get a face value ticket and I want to blame people selling their own property for profit, but really they're to blame primarily after myself. What's frustrating about all the discussion about weather it's ok to profit from owning a Burning Man ticket (which is the only thing that entitles anyone to attend) is that all the other ways people have profited from burning man for years are ignored. For the record, those ways are as follows:

$400+ camp fees. These might get you a meal plan and a shower, a common area and if you're lucky a port-a-potty. You're probably going to eat $30 worth of food, could buy your own shower, and that common shade structure has been used the last 6 years. If there's a larger project it's probably funded by kickstarter and the placement probably isn't that great. You are basically buying someone a ticket for the privilege of camping with them.

RV rentals. It might seem like a perfectly legit deal to pay $500 for a bed in a nice RV, but the owner is still profiting off of you. They were going to bring that RV out anyhow and really you could have had just as swell a time in a tent. You're helping them pay for the RV. You could try getting your own, but costs for cheap rat infested RVs and campers went up 400% last month.

Speaking of which, bikes, clothing, MRIs, and everything you need out there is suddenly at a premium price. Because the demands are higher now and their supply is limited.

Tickets have always been sold higher than face value. This is just the first year they've consistently been sold at higher than the gate price.

All throughout the year people throw parties whilst tossing the BM logo on their fliers, or naming their parties with some burner lingo or advertising that they'll bring in the burner crowd to venues that expect they can capitalize on the association however false. It should not be cool to profit through illegal use of the logo in advertising, but this happens all the time.

Just my thought on the matter. Burning Man has never appeared a uniform experiment where everyone unites under a common set of principals. It has always had a large element of exploitation. It does change every year and those scalpers will be indistinguishable from anyone else out there, and it's all business as usual when the event's over.

[portaplaya]

But we don't know what the actual verbal agreement was, do we? I suspect that part of these "agreed upon obligations" was to not sell the free ticket (or implicitly one that you already possess) for a profit. In fact, if it came to light that the would-be-scalper's actions were leaked to the gifter, only the gifter is really in a position to determine if the would-be-scalper is acting dishonestly or not. Apparently the roommate made a call so that the gifter could make this determination.

Why is that not okay?

In my opinion, it is not okay because

It assumes without provocation that the involved parties, of which she was not one, are incapable of making transactions without her interference.
It assumes without provocation that the woman making these arrangements is deceitful.

First, I think we know what the provocation was. We disagree whether meddling is justified, I think.

I think I understand your point of view here. That it is unfair to assume that would-be-scalper (WBS) would omit in her transaction with the Gifter (G) that she had scalped her tickets. That interfering by calling G and telling them that WBS needed a ticket because she scalped hers is somehow unfairly changing the transaction between G and WBS.

Under what circumstances would this be inappropriate meddling? Under which is it appropriate?

Sikka knows that WBS lied about why she needed a ticket when directly asked by G.
Sikka knows that G had stated a condition of no-resale.
Sikka infers from things said by WBS that WBS lied or that G had an assumed condition of no-resale.
Sikka infers that G believes he is gifting tickets to WBS because he thinks she missed her change to buy one (WBS is lying by omission).
Sikka is assuming any of the conditions above, without evidence or inference.
Sikka assumes any of the conditions below, without evidence or inference.
Sikka infers that G believes the partial view of the situation; WBS sold her ticket to a newbie.
Sikka infers that G placed no stated conditions on the ticket gift, aside from a ride.
Sikka knows that G placed no stated conditions on the ticket gift and infers that G has no assumed conditions on no-resale.
Sikka Knows that WBS told G the truth about why she needed a ticket.

I think that 10 is unlike to be a real situation, otherwise why call G at all? There is nothing new to tell them.
I also think it is reasonable to infer that a burner willing to gift a ticket would be under an assumed condition of no-resale; and probably be offended by gifting to a scalper. I think this is where we disagree, This Woman.
On the other hand, if this is a totally legitimate transaction (both legally and morally), Sikka calling is not going to interfere with the transaction at all, is it? In what way would adding information or confirming that G knew the full situation sabotage a legitimate transaction. Unless G had unstated assumptions, which I feel is the case and you might be recognizing by suggesting that the call could affect the transaction.

There is nothing legally incorrect about WBS's behavior. There is nothing illegal about Sikka's behavior. Either we choice to judge neither of them morally or we choose to judge both of them morally. What is unfair is to condemn Sikka without also condemning a known ticket scalper, regardless of WBS's other behavior. Unless you state that there is no moral issue about scalping, despite the message from the BMORG and how that jives with the ten principles.

[portaplaya]

Oh why am I even bothering.

[This Woman]

This Woman, you wouldn't happen to be the would-be-scalper, would you?

I guess that's a fair question though it doesn't feel like it. No I am not. I've sold one ticket, and here's how it went down: I have a campmate that can't make it with a will call ticket that she asked me to get rid of. You have to give your credit card info to anyone who you give your will call to (after 8/2), so I bought her ticket and sold mine. I sold mine for $320 -face value - and it cost me $6 to ship it with what I felt were the necessary precautions (certified, return rcpt, etc. + the weight of my lil gift to him). The campmate won't pay me that $6 and neither will the guy that bought the ticket, but they were precautions that I took to make myself feel comfortable so I'd never ask for reimbursement. The guy, whom I've never met, and found via eplaya, sent me a money order for the full amount and a homemade gift, with really no assurance other than my history here on eplaya, that I'd not just take his money (well, I did give him more info for various confirmations/recommendations). See, I can be pretty fucking burnier myself.

...but the reason the question - inevitable as it was - sucks is because it implies I'd only have the opinion I have if I somehow profited from it.

[Playa Hater]

I think you did right by keeping them informed about who they were dealing with. Good on ya.

[This Woman]

PortaPlaya:

I think I understand your point of view here. That it is unfair to assume that would-be-scalper (WBS) would omit in her transaction with the Gifter (G) that she had scalped her tickets. That interfering by calling G and telling them that WBS needed a ticket because she scalped hers is somehow unfairly changing the transaction between G and WBS.

No to first, yes to second. To the first, I don’t think it was an indiscretion of WBS to tell G at all that she had scalped her tickets…unless they made conditions about how she would use it or why she needed them in the first place.

I think this is where we disagree, This Woman.

Yes we do. I think that this very thread is evidence that one should not assume a no-resale condition, and should state their desires prior to agreement. I’m not going to go back and count, and I believe my position is in the minority, but it’s a notable minority.

On the other hand, if this is a totally legitimate transaction (both legally and morally), Sikka calling is not going to interfere with the transaction at all, is it?

Seems like a big interference to me. If a complete stranger called me to make sure I knew why another prson was seeking to sell an item it would call the integrity of both parties into question. I would not want to have anything to do with the obvious drama being played out that I was unwittingly m,ade to be a part.

Either we choice to judge neither of them morally or we choose to judge both of them morally. What is unfair is to condemn Sikka without also condemning a known ticket scalper, regardless of WBS's other behavior. Unless you state that there is no moral issue about scalping, despite the message from the BMORG and how that jives with the ten principles.

I disagree. Sikka is right here to respond, which she is doing. She is defending herself and finding support amongst people who agree with her. And I do not equate WBScalper’s actions to that of a professional scalper. It is a non-issue to me, and if she were in my camp I can’t see myself doing anything more than making her the butt of a disparaging joke or two to her face.

Principles schminciples:

Radical Inclusion
Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

Communal Effort
Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration.

[portaplaya]

Radical Inclusion, and all of the other principles, still require that others uphold the ten principles. People can, and have, been evicted for failing in the responsibilities that come with the ten principles.

For example, from JRS:

Harboring stowaways or assisting people sneaking in is as bad as sneaking in yourself. Any vehicle with stowaways or assisting people sneaking in will have the whole vehicle refused entry with no refund of tickets.

So just being in a vehicle that is crossing the line with the community principle means that your ticket is voided and you don't get to go this year. Even if you had no say in the decision to hide a stowaway. If I was on Gate I would give WBS a big hug, tell her I understood and accepted her choices in this drama, but still refuse to let her enter the city because she obviously has trouble with the Decommodification, Civic Responsibility, and Gifting principles.

The Radical Inclusion principle says:

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

So, I take that to mean that I do not have to welcome those that do not participate in the community. Participation requires upholding the responsibilities of the ten principles, which WBS has (according to Sakka, I will admit) failed on three counts.

[Bay Bridge Sue]

Not that I don't despise scalpers (because I do), or that I like seeing tix sold for more than their face value (and prefer that they be used as gifts anyway, not sold, even if you DID buy them)...

When you GIFT something, it's freely given, with no strings attached, right? It's not gifted with the hopes of getting something in return - it's a gift.

So... if you gifted someone, say, a ticket... it's now theirs. You have released it into the omniverse to do whatever it does. It's not in your sphere of psychic influence, so whether they use it, sell it, burn it, whatever... that's on them.

If you are mad because you gifted someone something then are not happy with the way they use your gift, maybe you shouldn't gift things like Tickets (or anything else), because your concept of "gift" is more like "I'll let you have it if you do this and this ", which ain't really a gift. It's an obligation.

[portaplaya]

Not that I don't despise scalpers (because I do), or that I like seeing tix sold for more than their face value (and prefer that they be used as gifts anyway, not sold, even if you DID buy them)...

When you GIFT something, it's freely given, with no strings attached, right? It's not gifted with the hopes of getting something in return - it's a gift.

So... if you gifted someone, say, a ticket... it's now theirs. You have released it into the omniverse to do whatever it does. It's not in your sphere of psychic influence, so whether they use it, sell it, burn it, whatever... that's on them.

Heh heh, certainly an important response. But this is not a "gift ticket" if there was a negotiation for a ride to BM and a place to camp.
And you certainly failing in the Radical Self-Expression principle (in which there is a burden of respectfulness) if you were to go around destroying every gift you received while the gift-giver watches.

[Bay Bridge Sue]

+1

[Playa Hater]

Can we just go to the fucking desert already?

[This Woman]

Actually, my whole point about the principles was “principles schminciples!” and your response only serves to firm my opinion in that regard.

The principles came long after I did, and I don’t approve of them at all. Any similarities they have to my own principles is merely coincidence. But at least they say encourage and discourage rather than, oh I don’t know, say burn in a lake of fire if you don’t adhere to them. That’s all they are – ideology. I’m fine with ideology as long as people keep it on a personal level.

The reason I showed two principles that could be interpreted in favor of my position was to illustrate how they are open to interpretation.

People can, and have, been evicted for failing in the responsibilities that come with the ten principles.

Do you have some sort of concrete verification for this? What an alarming and nauseating prospect. I simply can’t believe it, and will have to seriously consider future participation if that is true. Harbouring stowaways is against the rules of the event. Rules that were put in place for business reasons like revenue, safety and liability exposures.

You don’t work the gate, do you? If so, tell them what you would do to WBS and see how they react. And while you’re at it kick out all the dehydrated, overdosing folks in the med-tents too. They’ve surely been shirking their civic responsibility.

Porta, it's been fun debating with you, thanks. But I'm moving on, I think. I've been hogging the thread.

[Chauncy]

My friend sold her ticket after going to BM 2x, for $800... Craigslist, first person to respond in an hour. I was indifferent since I had doubts about getting a ticket, and I'm not a crazy hater. We're going to Vegas instead; BM next year!

[nocturnal_steve]

-
-
Scalping is Evil viewtopic.php?f=190&t=42395&start=90#p713733
-
-