Break the rules..Still win?

[jetboatdeath]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...y/20070106200409990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001

That is as long as you have a good political group backing you.

 

[Cryozombie]

Thats it, I'm kicking my roommates *** tomorrow.

(hes a toys r us manager)
​

 

[bushidomartialarts]

so let me be certain i understand the process here:

step one: enter (or be entered) in a contest you're not qualified to participate in

step two: get kicked out of the contest because you're not qualified to participate

step three: whine loud enough

step four: win the contest, even if you're not qualified.

lovely.

 

[Rich Parsons]

so let me be certain i understand the process here:

step one: enter (or be entered) in a contest you're not qualified to participate in

step two: get kicked out of the contest because you're not qualified to participate

step three: whine loud enough

step four: win the contest, even if you're not qualified.

lovely.

You forgot Step 3A: Make sure negative press effects the bottom line for income.

 

[michaeledward]

Is the contest for the child or the mother?

 

[tellner]

It was for the baby, who is a native-born US citizen. The putative sins of the mother should not have been visited on an entirely innocent child. I'm glad that Toys 'R' Us reversed its decision.

 

[Kreth]

It was for the baby, who is a native-born US citizen. The putative sins of the mother should not have been visited on an entirely innocent child. I'm glad that Toys 'R' Us reversed its decision.

From the article:

Although promotional materials called for "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply, [Toys 'R' Us Spokeswoman Kathleen] Waugh said eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents. Many sweepstakes have such requirements, Waugh said.

The mother (and her baby) were ineligible, end of story. The decision to cave and grant the prize anyway just encourages this type of ********.

 

[michaeledward]

Let me see if I understand.

Toys 'R' Us encouraged ALL pregnant women to enroll in the promotion. The award was to "welcome the first baby" and was a savings bond for the infant.

But, we are going to visit the sins of the father (or mother and father in this case) upon the child, who is, by the way, a United States Citizen. Well, that's very Klingon of us, ain't it?

Two other thoughts:

Hey, isn't this a great trap for immigration officials to play on them damn illegals. (By the way, that thought is dripping in sarcasm, if you can't tell).

And, if Toys 'R' Us is going to play the this game of self-promotion, perhaps they will recognize the possible no-win scenario they have placed themselves in. Why don't those who oppose this, not shop at Toys 'R' Us because they gave an award to a child of 'illegal' immigrants. And I won't shop there, because it seems they are more than happy to take the money from, and quite probably employ 'illegals', but then won't have the guts to stand by their customers and employees.

 

[Kreth]

Right. So let's say that Pennsylvania started up a new lottery. Only PA residents are eligible to win. Further, let's say that I, a NY resident, bought a ticket while in PA, without bothering to read the rules, and I was lucky enough to match the winning numbers. Would it be reasonable for me to play the lawsuit game unless the lottery commission overlooked my ineligibility and gave me the cash? After all, the tickets were available right there at the register, and the clerk didn't make sure that I was aware of all the rules.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Right. So let's say that Pennsylvania started up a new lottery. Only PA residents are eligible to win. Further, let's say that I, a NY resident, bought a ticket while in PA, without bothering to read the rules, and I was lucky enough to match the winning numbers. Would it be reasonable for me to play the lawsuit game unless the lottery commission overlooked my ineligibility and gave me the cash? After all, the tickets were available right there at the register, and the clerk didn't make sure that I was aware of all the rules.

There is something similar to this today. If you by the ticket in Penn then you have to claim it in Penn and pay State taxes in Penn, as income there. It is in the rules. How you might ask I know this? I read the rules after winning a $3 prize from Georgia which I bought the ticket on the way through. So I waited until my return trip and collect the money.

 

[Cryozombie]

Toys 'R' Us encouraged ALL pregnant women to enroll in the promotion.

Wrongo, Buddy. Toys R Us encouraged ALL PREGNANT WOMEN WHO WERE LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE US TO ENROLL...

But it doesnt serve your argument not to spin it by leaving the "WHO WERE LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE US" part out.

Hey... you know what? I picked the winning lottery numbers last week, but I picked em after they were drawn! But thats no excuse to stop me from suing to get my 50 million right? After all, this sets precedent that contest rules don't have to be followed.

 

[michaeledward]

Wrongo, Buddy. Toys R Us encouraged ALL PREGNANT WOMEN WHO WERE LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE US TO ENROLL...

But it doesnt serve your argument not to spin it by leaving the "WHO WERE LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE US" part out.

Hey... you know what? I picked the winning lottery numbers last week, but I picked em after they were drawn! But thats no excuse to stop me from suing to get my 50 million right? After all, this sets precedent that contest rules don't have to be followed.

Well, that's friendly, isn't it.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...y/20070106200409990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Although promotional materials called for "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply, Waugh said eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents. Many sweepstakes have such requirements, Waugh said.

I guess we read this sentence differently.

 

[Grenadier]

Virtually all sweepstakes have the fine print of "see eligibility rules for details." A large company the likes of Toys R Us is almost certainly going to have that printed on the information about the contest.

The baby was ineligible. Period.

 

[chris_มวยไทย]

Thats it, I'm kicking my roommates *** tomorrow.​

(hes a toys r us manager)​

have fun!:whip1:

 

[michaeledward]

Virtually all sweepstakes have the fine print of "see eligibility rules for details." A large company the likes of Toys R Us is almost certainly going to have that printed on the information about the contest.

The baby was ineligible. Period.

Having announced that the infant was the winner, before determining the mother's eligibility (not the infant's eligibility), how should a large company respond? The infant was included in a random drawing of three infants born at the same time. The infant won the random drawing.

Immigrants of all stripes would probably be outraged by the appearance of discrimination against the American Citizen infant. How many of those immigrants shop at Toys 'R' Us and Babies 'R' Us? Can a retail establishment so easily not consider the potential impact on the bottom line.

The mistake here is with the company. They should not have included an ineligible mother in the drawing. They should not have announced an ineligible mother before having the affidavite's of eligibility signed.

The company's choice to award two prizes is no doubt an act of self-defense. Companies are not in the business of altruistically giving away $12,500.00 to anyone. The corporation must protect its bottom line.

If one is outraged by this, I would suggest shopping at 'KB Toys' or 'Target'.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

It's a pretty common practice for most sweepstakes to not check the eligibility of contestants unless they win. It would be very cost prohibitive to do otherwise. Much easier to say sorry, you didn't win 'cause you didn't meed the requirements than to check everyone who could possibly win.

Jeff

 

[fireman00]

Another sad showing of political correctness. Rather then doing the right thing and announcing that the contest was open to all mothers that were legal citizens and stand by that decision .... Toys R Us caved.

 

[michaeledward]

No doubt about it.

But, if word gets out, as it apparently did here, how should a corporation respond? Either way, it is a PR problem.

It seems that it is just easier to just rail against the mother.

I thought I read in one article that the Doctor/Hospital actually notifies Toys'R'Us of the birth of the New Year baby, and not the mother. Apparently, one New Year Baby was not eligible because the facility was late in completing the submission. Anyone have any information on this?

 

[Grenadier]

It's no different than a white student fraudulently entering a contest to win a college scholarship that is supposed to go to a black student. Even if the white student wins, he should not be eligible to claim it, since he never met the eligibility requirements in the first place.

Would you demand that the black college student fund be held responsible for someone else's fraud?

 

[CoryKS]

This is Toys R Us' contest. As long as they follow state guidelines, they are free to (mis)manage it as they see fit. In this case, they decided the bad publicity that would ensue was more expensive than giving this women the money. Time will tell if that decision was correct, but its a safe bet that a recognized complaint group will protest louder than a vague 'the rest of y'all'.

One thing that bugs me is this:

Chinese-American advocates had complained that the toy company's decision smacks of second-class citizenship. They said the prize should was supposed to be for the child, not the mother. One attorney launched an e-mail campaign on the issue.

Who are these advocates to tell the company what the prize is for? That is Toys 'R Us' decision to make. What arrogance!

One last thing - the article says she is not a legal resident of the US, but it doesn't say she is illegal. Are there other categories? Ex., is a person with a work visa considered a legal resident or something else?