  
| Author: | TorontoLego  | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
For a position like catmins or chatmins, where there are multiple people doing
the same task, there may already be an element of committee in the sense of all
subject mins soemtimes might have a say in a given decision. (?)
Would committees in general be good for the site? Im not so sure, I would prefer
Admin to keep final say on such things as catalog policy matters, mainly because
committees are notorious for not listening to the majority, whereas at least
Admin may at times choose to agree with the majority concencus of membership
and ask a particular min or group of mins to change the way they approach a given
area of their responsibility.
A camel remember, is a horse designed by a committee.
| | I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
|
Positions of power are always better offered to people who can be trusted to
operate within them, the mere desire to hold power is often a good indicator
that that person should not be given power in the first place.
| | Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
If Admin has the right to overule a committee then basically the committee's
role is reduced to making a recommendation to Admin, therefore the concept is
useless as it doesnt save Admin any time at all.
I think I see where your coming from, many bricklink members live in societys
whereby if they break the rules they are entitled to a trial by their peers.
Bricklink rules however are much more clearcut than criminal law, most listing
either clearly break the rules or they dont, with a small minority that perhaps
challenge the shades of black and white. As such there is no purpose to trial
by committee (aka jury). However I am sure that if Admin has an issue with the
volume of reportied listings that he has to deal with, he and the C/O are more
than capable of offering an appropriate role to someone who can be trusted to
fill the role with complete impartiality.
So because as admirable as the cause and logic is, it is neither necessary nor
workable in the context of which it is suggested, so I respectfully on this occasion
vote against.
Gareth
|
Gareth,
You are correct in highlighting the reason for creating such a committee would
be entirely to save Admin time. It is also to make these corrections easier
to implement.
Here are some assumptions that I have - please feel free to point out their flaws.
1) The vast majority of listing violations are either careless mistakes, or inadvertent
mistakes made by sellers that did not know they were violating the rule.
2) Many of us see these mistakes and don't bother to point out the issue because
we don't want to flood Eric with issues that would keep him from doing the "good
work".
3) Most sellers would have no problem correcting a listing that is pointed out
as incorrect.
The suggestion is for a committee that will basically enforce the rules insofar
as sellers comply with the committee's ruling. Seller's would have a right to
appeal and then Eric would of course rule on the individual listing. The committee
wouldn't even have to know about this appeal. In this way I believe 90%+ of
all of these could be kept off Eric's desk AND I think we - the community at
large - would feel better about pointing these out more frequently (being vigilant
about it) knowing that we aren't bugging Admin.
Please remember the goal -- the better listings are - the more accurate the price
guide is and the more fair and competitive all selling becomes.
Every time an item gets listed incorrectly and then sells - the price guide becomes
a little bit less accurate.
Thanks for reconsidering,
Mike.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:  Re: Committee for Listing Violations - bagelboybugle (3408)  | [...] For a position like catmins or chatmins, where there are multiple people doing the same task, there may already be an element of committee in the sense of all subject [...]
(164 months ago, Dec 21, 2010, to Suggestions) |
Message Has 1 Reply: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations - FigBits (3564) | [...] But if the reporting increases tenfold, then a 90% reduction of the number of cases that Admin needs to review personally would result in the same net workload. I'm [...]
(164 months ago, Dec 21, 2010, to Suggestions) |
40 Messages in this Thread: Msg 1 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
 Msg 2 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
  Msg 3 - BUC (9723) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 4 - therobo (9708) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 5 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 6 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 7 - Speciale (4825) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 8 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 9 - Speciale (4825) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 10 - InanimateReason (3467) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 11 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 20, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 12 - SimplyBricks (18742) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 13 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 14 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 15 - bagelboybugle (3408) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 16 « - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 17 - FigBits (3564) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 18 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 19 - .bob (878) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 20 - mnementh (23254) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 21 - BrickBuy (40596) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 22 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 23 - mnementh (23254) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 24 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 25 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 26 - FigBits (3564) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 27 - Lonely_Brick_OH (10071) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 28 - BLUSER_87297 (1859) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 29 - Scrp749 (2439) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 30 - BLUSER_27495 (269) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 31 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 32 - tEoS (5297) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 33 - ToriHada (8887) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 34 - therobo (9708) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 35 - InanimateReason (3467) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 36 - therobo (9708) 164 months ago Dec 22, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 37 - TorontoLego (6304) 164 months ago Dec 22, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 38 - LEGOMASTER (179) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 39 - dvsntt (432) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Msg 40 - AndersPaludan (822) 164 months ago Dec 21, 2010 to Suggestions
Entire thread on one page
This message and all its replies on one page
|
Canada, Ontario
