I've chosen to sit out purchasing (or being given) any tickets at all to avoid any appearance of cheating.
@Larry: Thanks for writing what you did.
@Others: Same here. As host to MACNA 2015 (I was president of WAMAS at that time), I and and a few others @ WAMAS have been involved in working some aspect of executing every MACNA since 2014. That includes MACNA 2018, the first operating using the MASNA-planned/executed model. Prior to our hosting it in 2015, we were warned how sensitive the raffle could be for some in attendance and we worked hard to try to keep things above board. (I, for one, rarely play the raffle - partly because of the odds, but also because of the optics: Fair or not, as an organizer, you're held to a higher public standard than the rank-and-file attendee lest you risk suffering accusations of dishonesty and unfairness. Although, to be honest, more than once I've been envious of some of the winners as I remain winless from a self-imposed, but not broadly-practiced standard.)
Let me give you an example of the pains that we went to to deal with in DC to deal with these sensitivities. Many of you attendees know that, most times, the raffle boxes are on tables in the exhibit hall where attendees can drop tickets into them. If you've noticed, each box is sealed with tape to discourage tampering. Later, prior to a drawing, in full view of attendees, we'd collect the boxes on a cart and wrap the whole assemblage in clear plastic wrap. Then we'd transport the boxes (minimum 2-person transport team) to the (public) drawing room where it was unwrapped in public. We debated, at one point, whether to use a raffle drum but had heard that, in previous years, some attendees complained that the process of pouring the tickets from one container to the next risked missing any tickets that might get stuck in the box or spill from the transfer; or static electricity sticking some tickets to the side of the drum; or, whatever - you get the idea. (Yes, somebody always thinks of SOMETHING to brand as unfair.) Anyway, we opted for a process where we shook the box and, in most cases, poured the tickets into a (verified-empty) 5-gallon salt bucket. Displaying the empty box to prove that it was indeed empty, the lead raffle official would often draw the winning ticket. Occasionally, if that person had a ticket in the raffle, a different volunteer would be engaged for the job of drawing the winning ticket. In the case of the Fiji drawing, where the tickets was huge, we did employ a very large raffle drum - partly for the optics, but also for the convenience since the number of tickets in that raffle that year would have probably filled half to two-thirds of a 5-gallon bucket.
The point of this is to say that we tried very hard to implement a process that earned participants' trust.
This year's raffle was led by one of our 2015 co-chairs. And I'm sure that he worked hard to try to keep the playing field level. I understand the unfortunate optics that concern the OP. I'll say this in response:
1) It's not uncommon that (true) volunteers, in exchange for their tickets, will receive some sort of benefit in exchange for their service. Sometimes it's a day pass and a few tickets. Sometimes it's a weekend pass or early seating at the banquet or even a few extra drink tickets at the reception. It's the central planning committee's way of thanking people for their time and we're happy to give thanks. It's not compensation but appreciation/recognition of the personal sacrifice. (I want you to keep in mind that, for the core planners and our volunteer sector/section leads, our experience is much different than yours, the average attendee. For example, I saw only one of the many, many speakers there this year. I may have seen two last year in New Orleans. And, when I walk the exhibition floor, I am asking if we can do anything for our exhibitors and whether things are going well. I'm not looking at and playing with the new toys in the hobby.) And...
2) Depending upon the number of volunteers, their work schedule, and the raffle drawing schedule, you'll sometimes see a situation where one volunteer who's not on duty is monitoring tickets for themselves and for others. A signal that this may be happening is when the tickets are not all in a straight sequence (indicating that they were probably pulled off the ticket stack at different times as they were handed to different volunteers. I suspect that, with the damning picture in the first post, this is what was seen and what triggered suspicion.
In ruminating on the situation for this year, I'll add that we need to take these concerns into account as we move forward. The planning team is already starting to do that as we look at the things that went well and those that could use improvement. This may include looking at the reward scale and, by anticipating overall raffle sales, try to do what we can to keep attendee/volunteer prize distribution where it should be. In my opinion, the idea of setting aside a different raffle for volunteers is like showing appreciation for service by giving somebody play money. Segregation is rarely fair and opens a whole other can of worms.
I want you to know that the criticisms are not falling on deaf ears. I also want you to know that there's a lot that goes into trying to keep the raffle fair for everybody and that an unfavorable conclusion based on bad optics and a presumpion of unfairness (rigged!) may well be... in a word, unfair. Trust me, we'll work to get this right by everybody.
