| |
In lugnet.market.auction, n.norderSPAMBLOCK@computer.org (Naji Norder)
writes:
> [...]
> Returning to the social context, web etiquette is still up to debate in
> many forums. Perhaps the users of Lugnet (the social majority) could be
> asked to vote if people should be able to "infringe" on another's
> auction/sale thread. I consider the lack of this in Lugnet's rules to
> be an oversite,
I don't see this as an oversight at all. It's a natural part of the
market dynamics and of competition in a free market. It's not something
that everyone feels comfortable doing, and it's certainly not something
that everyone is happy having done to them, but let me be clear that it is
something that everyone should expect to see happen from time to time and
should not be freaked out by.
Assuming that people could even agree that Eric's action was wrong (which
is extremely unlikely), how would you define and detect the problem in a
fair way?
> but if the majority feels differently, then a vote
> should easily determine this.
>
> Again, here are the two questions that I would put to a vote.
>
> 1.) Should someone be allowed to post, within the thread of another
> seller/auctioneer, that he/she has the item available at a better
> price/condition/etc.?
Can you define "within the thread" in a bulletproof way?
What if the following occurs--?
A---B-+-C---E
|
\-D---F---G
Here, A, B, C, and E are auction announcements and updates posted by some
auctioneer. D and F are follow-up commentaries posted by other people
commenting on how cool one of the items for sale is. G is a message like
Eric's, responding to F and not to A, B, C, or E. In this scenario, the
person who posted G hasn't seen A, B, C, or E. Has the person posting G
done something wrong?
Or what if--?
A---B-+-C---D
|
\-E
Here, A through D are announcements and updates posted to lugnet.market.
auction by some auctioneer, and E is a message like Eric's posted to
lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade. Has the person posting E done something
that is eminently detectable?
Or what if--?
A-+-B---C---D
|
\-E---F
Here, A through D are announcements and updates posted to
lugnet.market.auction by some auctioneer, and E is a message like Eric's
posted to a lugnet.loc.* group, say perhaps because someone just saw one
at a store the other day and wanted to let people in the area know about
it. Has the person posting E done something wrong? What if, as a result
of E, someone in that local area goes and buys the set and then posts a
for-sale message F, not knowing about A, much less B, C, and D?
> 2.) Should someone be allowed to post (in his/her own thread) that
> he/she has an item available at a better price/condition/etc. than XXXX,
> and specifically mention the other auctioneer/seller?
How do you define "specifically mention"? Is it a name thing (even this
is fuzzy) or does the poster have only to put the idea in the reader's
head somehow that there is some other auction being preempted?
Let's say that Eric was mentioning Steve's auction. There are a number of
ways that he could mention the other auctioneer/seller. One of them is
rather specifically, by saying simply
Steve Scott
or he could say
S. Scott
or he could fudge a bit and say
that other 6273 auction -- the one Steve's running
or he could sneakily give the URL of the other message without truly
appending his new message into Steve's thread
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.market.auction:797
or he could make the reader do a bit of work
a recent auction by someone whose name begins with S and who posts
in a thread containing "mini auction 6273" in the subject line
or he could be totally nebulous
I've seen 6273's go for as much as $200 in recent auctions -- in fact
I think I saw one running right now (somewhere, but I can't recall
where) with a high bid like $180. At that price, I can't justify
keeping mine, so I'll offer mine for $150 plus postage from the USA
to the first respondent...etc...
In other words, the line between a clear infraction and plausable
deniability can be extremely fuzzy. If some rule were put into place
attempting to prevent people from doing things like what Eric did, I
guarantee you that people would find ways to work around it and still
achieve the same exact effect.
> There are plenty of threads for everyone to start one of his/her own,
> without causing any ill-will amongst fellow Lego enthusiasts.
Agreed.
--Todd
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
