Should the spend limit on comps go up?

mjm3346

No

tarball wrote: »

I don't believe there is any difference between competitions which charge a substantial premium rate to enter purely to make a good profit for the organiser via the entry fee and gambling sites such as bingo and casinos.

That's where there is a difference between paying to enter and purchase necessary competitions. from the other thread -

If you have pay to enter that's gambling and is not money saving (although there is a matched betting section on the forum).

If you have to buy a product to enter in most cases rules apply that do not allow the product to be priced higher to reflect the chance to enter so you are not paying to enter as you are buying a product and the entry is free.

A prize promotion might be considered an unlawful lottery if participants are required to pay to enter or to pay for goods at a price that reflects the opportunity to participate

mumto2boys

5. Yes, to £2.10

I'm in for the £2.10 limit as I agree with the "we are all adults" train of thought and can choose to enter/not enter, but without knowing about the comp in the first place we have no choice to make.

On the whole I probably would not enter the paying ones which is my own choice, and it would only take a second to X them out on the boards wherever they are placed, but as someone (becky maybe) has already said if there is a comp on something I would buy anyway I would be in for that one if it was posted on here.

tranmereforever

5. Yes, to £2.10

My issue is that if we stick strictly to the limit then it may be argued that we need to take the text entry routes out of the ITV comp listings and just focus on the free entry part as the text limit exceeds the allowed cost currently

Personally this is what I would do:

What if we had a rule that it was an unlimited for text entries as long as a free route applies as well ( either online or through post ) and £2.10 for other text entries without a free route - to account for inflation in the next few years

Then I would have all purchase needed comps are free to be posted as that is up to the individual and I see no real problem with these - just have them described as Purchase required in the title

With the texts that have no free entry they can be kept in the postal/telephone thread and then not on the main board anyway

Moneybot

No

For me the issue really is that there is inconsistency in how the rules are applied and at times it can be a bit arbitrary as to whether comps are removed or not.

For example the Lovefilms comps were posted then there was an objection because of the needing to be a paid subscriber but other comps where you have to be a paid up member of something ie the AA are still posted.

With these technically you aren't paying to enter the competitions you are getting entry as a perk of being a member.

mjm3346

No

tranmereforever wrote: »

My issue is that if we stick strictly to the limit then it may be argued that we need to take the text entry routes out of the ITV comp listings and just focus on the free entry part as the text limit exceeds the allowed cost currently

The limit was set to allow the standard premium phone/text rate, just set slightly wrong.

2. Free Competitions Only. This is a not a place to advertise competitions you have to pay to enter. I will accept limited cost text message type competitons (though frankly they're usually naff apart from in special circumstances) where they cost up to £1.50 to text to enter, but generally I would say make sure they are free.

MSE UPDATE JAN 2011: The VAT increase means many paid-to-enter competitions now cost £1.53 to enter. If you still feel you absolutely must enter these competitions then that's fine.

Blulu

5. Yes, to £2.10

The way I see it is those premium rate 'comps' are usually scams and would be weeded out anyway. I don't think the amount is the decisive factor. There could be a legitimate comp that says if you buy a house with estate agent A they will enter you in a draw to win back the cost of that house. So to enter that comp might cost 200k+ But I don't suppose anyone is going to buy a house that they don't really want, just to enter a comp, and if I'm wrong and they do, then they need professional help - way outside of MSE's jurisdiction.

On the other hand, scam comps can cost £1.00 or even be free to enter.

There are a number of safety factors here that we apply quite well here, in my humbles. It's why this is probably just about the safest place to find genuine comps. I just don't see why those who want to should miss out on lots of great and genuine comps because of an arbitrary cut off re cost that hardly applies anywhere else on this site.

Even the thing about gambling is a bit hypocritical. I very rarely go in for gambling comps. Not my thing at all. But there are lots of them listed here. Obviously the lottery ones, but also I've seen tons of comps for bingo sites, and other lotteries. If we're so anti-gambling, should we even support the free to enter comps from those sites? Similarly with payday loan companies, which surely goes against the ethos here.

I think the trouble is that people don't want comps posted here that they personally have no interest in entering. I think that's a shame. I don't want to enter purchase related comps, but wouldn't want to stop them being listed, because others might want to do these.

For me I would love to see more skills based comps here. That might not appeal to you, but is that a good enough reason to prevent them being listed? You can hardly call this type gambling - or can you? Who knows you might even be tempted by one now and then. Most of these charge a fairly low entry fee. Might even be £2 or less, but some will be higher. Shouldn't we be allowed to decide our own cut off point on these type of comps? Might well be a money saver too. If someone wins, it could launch a new career for them. What a great investment that would be huh?

Blu X

tranmereforever

5. Yes, to £2.10

Blulu wrote: »

The way I see it is those premium rate 'comps' are usually scams and would be weeded out anyway. I don't think the amount is the decisive factor. There could be a legitimate comp that says if you buy a house with estate agent A they will enter you in a draw to win back the cost of that house. So to enter that comp might cost 200k+ But I don't suppose anyone is going to buy a house that they don't really want, just to enter a comp, and if I'm wrong and they do, then they need professional help - way outside of MSE's jurisdiction.

On the other hand, scam comps can cost £1.00 or even be free to enter.

There are a number of safety factors here that we apply quite well here, in my humbles. It's why this is probably just about the safest place to find genuine comps. I just don't see why those who want to should miss out on lots of great and genuine comps because of an arbitrary cut off re cost that hardly applies anywhere else on this site.

Even the thing about gambling is a bit hypocritical. I very rarely go in for gambling comps. Not my thing at all. But there are lots of them listed here. Obviously the lottery ones, but also I've seen tons of comps for bingo sites, and other lotteries. If we're so anti-gambling, should we even support the free to enter comps from those sites? Similarly with payday loan companies, which surely goes against the ethos here.

I think the trouble is that people don't want comps posted here that they personally have no interest in entering. I think that's a shame. I don't want to enter purchase related comps, but wouldn't want to stop them being listed, because others might want to do these.

For me I would love to see more skills based comps here. That might not appeal to you, but is that a good enough reason to prevent them being listed? You can hardly call this type gambling - or can you? Who knows you might even be tempted by one now and then. Most of these charge a fairly low entry fee. Might even be £2 or less, but some will be higher. Shouldn't we be allowed to decide our own cut off point on these type of comps? Might well be a money saver too. If someone wins, it could launch a new career for them. What a great investment that would be huh?

Blu X

I was going to post exactly the same thing and I agree, I personally do not enter Payday loan company competitions but if you are banning premium ones then you should really ban them as well as they are against the ethos of the site as well - personally I think they should all stay on

snakepilsen

No

Blulu wrote: »

Even the thing about gambling is a bit hypocritical. I very rarely go in for gambling comps. Not my thing at all. But there are lots of them listed here. Obviously the lottery ones, but also I've seen tons of comps for bingo sites, and other lotteries. If we're so anti-gambling, should we even support the free to enter comps from those sites? Similarly with payday loan companies, which surely goes against the ethos here.



Blu X

The key phrase here is free to enter .
If it's free to enter it's fine, if you need to buy a ticket it's a lottery.

Moneybot

No

snakepilsen wrote: »

The key phrase here is free to enter .
If it's free to enter it's fine, if you need to buy a ticket it's a lottery.

Umm so what about the ones where you actually had to buy a lottery ticket to enter?

Blulu

5. Yes, to £2.10

snakepilsen wrote: »

The key phrase here is free to enter .
If it's free to enter it's fine, if you need to buy a ticket it's a lottery.

Now then snakey, you know I luv ya, but I don't agree with that, twice:

1) "If it's free to enter it's fine." It ain't necessary so, bro.

2) If you have to pay to enter, I don't agree that it's a lottery. In fact you can have a free to enter lottery But if it's a judged comp, I don't see how that could be described as a lottery.

Not that I'm against lottery ones anyway. I'm with Tranmere. I don't enter those comps, or payday loan ones, but I wouldn't want to stop others from entering them if they [STRIKE]have no moral fibre at all[/STRIKE] choose to (only kidding folks)

Blu X

Edit: I lied, I do sometimes enter lotteries, but very rarely.