Subject:
|
Re: which threads, ethics (was: Re: Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:57:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
Eric McCarthy wrote:
>
> Hello Lugnet auction participants:
>
> As you might have noticed, I took the liberty of responding to
> this Lugnet auction thread with an offer to sell at a lesser price.
> (The thread was "Mini Auction - 6273 - Rock Island Refuge")
> I knew this might annoy the auctioneer, but I didn't think
> it was unethical or discourteous, just competitive.
> What do you all think?
I wouldn't say it was unethical but I think it would have been more
courteous as well as responsible to start a separate thread. While no
one "owns" a particular thread, auction threads usually only have one
purpose - to announce and update the auction in the subject. If a lot
of auction update threads started meandering into discussions it would
be a disservice to both the buyers and seller.
>
> Steve Scott wrote:
>
> > A. If you want to sell something start your own thread.
> > B. If you must butt-in on mine, at least have the courtesy to wait until my
> > auction has closed.
>
> My current position is that there are multiple sellers and buyers
> in Lugnet, that all threads are available to all, and that
> artificially keeping the price high for one seller by waiting
> for the auction to finish is worse for the community than
> is bringing out the set when the price exceeds my sell price.
I have been in the position of holding off an auction because one was
already underway for the same item a few times. I think I have also
gone ahead and held an auction for an item that was already being
auctioned by someone else. [ASIDE: One time, I was thinking of
auctioning a 398 U.S.S. Constellation (very rare item) when another
auction for it started. In that case, I decided to wait until the other
auction was over and by the time it was, I decided to keep my
Constellation :)} Which is the right course of action? I'm pretty
ambivalent about it. For me, if I really need to generate some money
quickly I'll go ahead and hold an auction while another is running
concurrently. However, I prefer to wait (especially for big ticket
items) because I think it is somewhat rude to the seller of the other
auction. Does it hurt the community? I don't think so. Everyone has a
list of sets that they'd like to get in an auction. Most people realize
that if they don't get the set they want in a particular auction,
another will come along eventually. And people will pay whatever
they're comfortable paying for an item regardless.
Would it benefit the community to flood the market with cheaper Lego?
Maybe. I remember Larry Pieniazek once mentioned that he could afford a
lot of Lego and so enjoyed the hobby in a different way from those who
would only afford a little but that that didn't mean he enjoyed it
more. I think this is very true. We have set up a system were we pay
outrageous prices for Lego. Most people outside the system would think
what we're doing is a little crazy. But one way we decided to show our
enthusiasm for Lego was by paying a lot for it. High auction prices are
symbolic of our enthusiasm for the hobby. I would like to see auction
prices, and prices for Lego in general reduced across the board, but
this would hinder the "free market" which most of us are also very
enthusiastic about. But the point is that even if unlimited Lego was
totally free, it really wouln't change our enjoyment of the hobby. It
simply would be a different kind of enjoyment. The community doesn't
really benefit from cheaper auction prices (individuals within the
community might - but to most, Lego is more important than money).
>
> However, I am willing to change my opinion if there
> is a consensus here that what I have done is unethical.
I don't want you to change your mind about what you're going to do.
There are already too many "ethics police" in our community. If I were
in your shoes (WWTD?) I would have started a separate thread to sell
your item. You might consider that next time, or maybe not.
>
> Thank you for your comments,
> /Eric McCarthy/
> bendyarm@aol.com
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
