It's become very difficult for people in Hong Kong to get tickets for popular events or even book public sports facilities. This is because of ticket scalpers, who buy up many tickets and then resell them at much higher prices.

For example, someone named Keith Rumjahn couldn't get tickets for shows by comedian Jimmy O. Yang or the band Coldplay. When he looked for them elsewhere, the prices were at least double the original cost. He also found it hard to book a public basketball court. He and his friends wanted to play, but touts were selling the court time for ten times the normal price, going from HK$100 to HK$200 (about $13 to $26) up to HK$1,000 to HK$2,000 (about $128 to $256).

Rumjahn even tried to create a computer program to automatically book the courts, but it wasn't fast enough. He explained that scalpers use special computer programs, called bots, that can grab the tickets or court bookings within seconds of them becoming available. His own program took several minutes. Even though he and his friends play sports often, they still end up buying from scalpers because it seems like the only way to get a spot.

However, Rumjahn chooses not to buy concert tickets from scalpers, even though many people do. He feels the system for buying tickets isn't clear and that it's nearly impossible to get tickets directly. He believes that this is because there's a strong desire in Hong Kong to make money quickly, and people have gotten used to buying from scalpers for popular events.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article describes a problem and a personal experience but does not offer any steps or solutions for readers to take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the concept of ticket scalping and the use of bots. It also touches upon the underlying societal factors in Hong Kong that contribute to this issue, such as the desire for quick money. However, it does not delve deeply into the technical aspects of bots or offer a comprehensive analysis of the economic or social systems at play.

Personal Relevance: The topic is personally relevant to individuals in Hong Kong who wish to attend popular events or use public sports facilities, as it highlights a common frustration and barrier. For those outside of Hong Kong, it serves as an informative piece about a specific market issue.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It does not offer official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts. It is more of a descriptive report on a societal problem.

Practicality of Advice: Since no advice is given, this point is not applicable.

Long-Term Impact: The article does not offer advice or actions with lasting good effects. It describes a current problem without suggesting long-term solutions or strategies for individuals.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article might evoke frustration or a sense of helplessness in readers who experience similar issues. It does not offer hope or strategies for coping with the problem.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used is descriptive and factual, not employing dramatic or sensationalized words to drive clicks.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed a significant opportunity to provide practical guidance. For instance, it could have offered advice on how to increase chances of getting tickets through official channels, suggested alternative leisure activities, or provided information on consumer rights regarding ticket purchasing. A reader looking for solutions might benefit from researching official ticketing platforms, understanding the terms and conditions of ticket sales, or exploring community forums for tips on securing tickets.

The issue of ticket scalping and the difficulty in accessing public resources in Hong Kong poses a significant threat to the fabric of local communities and the well-being of families.

Firstly, the practice of scalping tickets and reselling them at exorbitant prices creates an unfair and inaccessible environment for families to enjoy cultural events and recreational activities. This directly impacts the ability of parents to provide enriching experiences for their children, which is a fundamental duty of care. By making these events unaffordable, the scalpers diminish the opportunities for families to bond, learn, and grow together, thus weakening the foundation of the clan.

Furthermore, the use of sophisticated computer programs, or bots, by scalpers to automatically purchase tickets and court bookings within seconds highlights a technological imbalance that favors those with access to such tools. This puts families at a disadvantage, especially those who may not have the technical know-how or resources to compete. It creates an uneven playing field, where the duty of parents to provide equal opportunities for their children's development and enjoyment is compromised.

The impact on public sports facilities is particularly concerning. The inability to book courts at reasonable prices or through fair means forces families to either pay exorbitant fees or miss out on physical activities altogether. This not only affects the health and well-being of children and elders but also undermines the community's ability to come together and foster a sense of unity and camaraderie.

The spread of such practices can lead to a breakdown of trust within communities. When families feel they are being excluded or taken advantage of, it breeds resentment and a sense of powerlessness. This can result in a lack of community engagement and a decline in the sense of collective responsibility, which are essential for the survival and prosperity of the clan.

Additionally, the acceptance of scalping as a norm can lead to a shift in family responsibilities. Parents may feel compelled to prioritize earning more income to afford these inflated prices, potentially neglecting their duties to care for and spend quality time with their children. This can have long-term consequences on the emotional and psychological development of the next generation, thus impacting the continuity and strength of the family unit.

If these behaviors are left unchecked, the long-term consequences for the community and its future generations are dire. The erosion of family bonds, the decline in birth rates as families struggle to provide for their children, and the breakdown of community trust will lead to a fragmented society. The stewardship of the land and the preservation of cultural heritage will be at risk as the focus shifts from collective care to individual gain.

It is imperative that local communities take proactive measures to address these issues. Restoring fairness and accessibility to public resources is crucial for the survival and prosperity of the clan. This may involve implementing measures to counter scalping, such as limiting ticket purchases per person, implementing dynamic pricing to discourage scalping, or even exploring blockchain-based ticketing systems to ensure transparency and fairness.

In conclusion, the issue of ticket scalping and the challenges it poses to families and communities in Hong Kong are a stark reminder of the importance of local responsibility and the need to protect the fundamental bonds that keep our societies thriving. The survival of the clan and the stewardship of the land depend on our ability to uphold these duties and ensure a fair and prosperous future for our children and generations to come.

The text uses strong words to describe ticket scalpers. Words like "scalpers" and "touts" are used, which have negative meanings. This makes the scalpers seem like bad people. The text focuses only on the negative impact of scalpers, showing just one side of the issue.

The text suggests a reason for the scalping problem without providing proof. It says, "He believes that this is because there's a strong desire in Hong Kong to make money quickly." This is presented as a fact but is actually a belief or opinion. It tries to explain the behavior of many people based on one person's idea.

The text uses a specific example to show how bad scalping is. It talks about Keith Rumjahn not being able to get tickets and the high prices he saw. This example helps to make the problem seem very real and important. It makes the reader feel sympathy for people like Rumjahn.

The text uses passive voice to hide who is responsible for the problem. For example, it says, "It's become very difficult for people in Hong Kong to get tickets." This doesn't say who made it difficult. It also says, "people have gotten used to buying from scalpers." This makes it sound like a natural thing that happened, not something caused by scalpers.

The text conveys a sense of frustration and disappointment experienced by people in Hong Kong due to ticket scalping. This emotion is evident when it states that it has become "very difficult" to get tickets and book facilities, and through the personal example of Keith Rumjahn being unable to secure tickets for popular shows or basketball court time. The strength of this frustration is amplified by the description of prices being "at least double" or even "ten times the normal price," highlighting the unfairness of the situation. This emotional portrayal aims to create sympathy in the reader for those affected and to underscore the problem's severity.

The narrative also touches upon a feeling of helplessness or resignation. This is shown when Rumjahn's attempt to create a program to bypass scalpers fails because his solution is not fast enough compared to the scalpers' "bots" that can grab bookings "within seconds." The statement that he and his friends "still end up buying from scalpers because it seems like the only way to get a spot" strongly conveys this feeling of being unable to overcome the system. This helplessness is used to build concern in the reader, suggesting that the current situation is deeply entrenched and difficult to change.

Furthermore, there's an underlying disapproval or criticism of the system and the behavior of scalpers. This is implied when Rumjahn explains his choice not to buy concert tickets from scalpers, citing that the system is "not clear" and it's "nearly impossible to get tickets directly." The mention of a "strong desire in Hong Kong to make money quickly" also carries a critical tone. This disapproval is intended to persuade the reader to view the situation negatively and to question the fairness of the market.

The writer uses several tools to enhance the emotional impact and guide the reader's reaction. The personal story of Keith Rumjahn serves as a relatable example, making the abstract problem of scalping feel more concrete and emotionally resonant. The use of specific, high numbers, like "ten times the normal price" and the dramatic price increases from HK$100 to HK$2,000, exaggerates the situation to emphasize the unfairness and create a stronger emotional response of outrage or disbelief. The contrast between Rumjahn's slow program and the scalpers' fast "bots" highlights the David-and-Goliath nature of the struggle, further building sympathy for the ordinary person. By presenting these emotional elements, the writer aims to evoke a shared sense of frustration and a desire for a fairer system, ultimately shaping the reader's opinion against ticket scalping and the practices that enable it.