How Do We Achieve Pro-Active Disclosure In The Marketplace?

[DrWatson]

I voted for options 2 and 3... but to be fair here to those that oppose pro-active disclosure, there really should be a fifth option that says "Don't change anything."

 

That would receive the highest number of votes, as the entire anti-disclosure 'camp' would vote for that, whereas the pro-disclosure camp would be spilt over four choices.

 

Or you could say what we used to say about every poll: "How many votes were by shills?"

 

 

I would say an equal proportion per choice.

 

Or are you saying that shills are more likely to be pro disclosure?

 

I guess it would depend on which side was more heated about the issue.

 

 

I do agree that there is a pretty impressive difference between the two though, this time 'round.

 

(thumbs u

 

What was also shocking was the level of respondents. Over 260 people had their say, which was 100+ more than any other previous poll.

 

I wonder how many of those 260 votes were by IDs with 10 posts or less.

 

Guess we'll never know.

Or how many have even ever purchased, sold or even have a valid interest in the marketplace. Of course, I'm sure we will be told that it isn't relevant.

[Jeffro.]

I voted for options 2 and 3... but to be fair here to those that oppose pro-active disclosure, there really should be a fifth option that says "Don't change anything."

 

That would receive the highest number of votes, as the entire anti-disclosure 'camp' would vote for that, whereas the pro-disclosure camp would be spilt over four choices.

 

Ouch, so you're giving those people no voice?

 

Seems to me you just add up the other four choices and compare that total to the "Do nothing" total. If you're previous poll is accurate, I'd expect roughly 75% of respondents to choose something other than "do nothing"... it would be very tough for a "do-nothinger" to win an argument that the community decided to do nothing.

 

If you did add a "Do nothing" category though, you would have to limit the choice to only one as otherwise the "do nothing" choice would always be split.

 

Not trying to over-complicate things for you -- I appreciate your tenacity -- but this poll becomes suspect I think if you don't give the opposing view a voice.

 

Well, the 'opposition' had their voice and at only 27% of the vote, it's clear that something needs to be done. And they even get to chose which choice is least offensive to them.

 

Seriously, the community voice is clear that the issue has to be addressed. To include 'do nothing' is to take the process back a peg.

 

Something might need to be done, but what if it's not in your agenda driven list in your poll?

 

I'm not picking a side here, but the way you're going about this seems like vigilante justice, and some people don't like being pushed if they agree with where they're being pushed or not.

Exactly X 2.

 

X 3

 

When this is done Nick will you be reviving the Approved Sellers List idea?

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

I voted for options 2 and 3... but to be fair here to those that oppose pro-active disclosure, there really should be a fifth option that says "Don't change anything."

 

That would receive the highest number of votes, as the entire anti-disclosure 'camp' would vote for that, whereas the pro-disclosure camp would be spilt over four choices.

 

Or you could say what we used to say about every poll: "How many votes were by shills?"

 

 

I would say an equal proportion per choice.

 

Or are you saying that shills are more likely to be pro disclosure?

 

I guess it would depend on which side was more heated about the issue.

 

 

I do agree that there is a pretty impressive difference between the two though, this time 'round.

 

(thumbs u

 

What was also shocking was the level of respondents. Over 260 people had their say, which was 100+ more than any other previous poll.

 

I wonder how many of those 260 votes were by IDs with 10 posts or less.

 

Guess we'll never know.

Or how many have even ever purchased, sold or even have a valid interest in the marketplace. Of course, I'm sure we will be told that it isn't relevant.

 

Shame on you Jim, the Polls are tamper and fool-proof!

[Transplant]

Overreact much people? Just disclose what you know.

[Pirate]

I vote #5, Pass the Crack Pipe

[nearmint]

Overreact much people? Just disclose what you know.

 

From a seller's point of view, I have no problem with that. As a buyer, I don't want to exclude sellers who might be scared away from what they perceive to be an anti-pressing atmosphere. Many will just sell elsewhere.

[DrWatson]

Overreact much people? Just disclose what you know.

Gladly, but don't tell me I have to disclose something... even when there is nothing to disclose.

[Subliminal]

I think 2 and 3 are a good first step with 1 being something to phase in at a later date for a smoother transition.

[skypinkblu]

I hate to say this, Nick, because I do, and will continue to disclose anything I know...but I can't vote for those options...

 

There was a reason I didn't want to start a poll, it's very difficult.

 

I don't want to see blacklists, I'm not McCarthy...and I don't think we can derive enough information from a few posts in the marketplace to put people on lists.

 

I'd prefer an option where we ask for some suggested statements to be included in the rules.

[seanfingh]

Overreact much people? Just disclose what you know.

Gladly, but don't tell me I have to disclose something... even when there is nothing to disclose.

 

Disclose that you don't know anything. It's not nearly as difficult or as abstruse as you would like people to think.

[DrWatson]

Overreact much people? Just disclose what you know.

Gladly, but don't tell me I have to disclose something... even when there is nothing to disclose.

 

Disclose that you don't know anything. It's not nearly as difficult or as abstruse as you would like people to think.

It's never that simple. Haven't you ever watched Three's Company? All it takes is a single misunderstanding...

[DiceX]

 

 

[DiceX]

I voted...

#5 None of the above.

#6 Except for crack.

 

 

[EastEnd]

I voted for options 2 and 3... but to be fair here to those that oppose pro-active disclosure, there really should be a fifth option that says "Don't change anything."

 

That would receive the highest number of votes, as the entire anti-disclosure 'camp' would vote for that, whereas the pro-disclosure camp would be spilt over four choices.

 

Ouch, so you're giving those people no voice?

 

Seems to me you just add up the other four choices and compare that total to the "Do nothing" total. If you're previous poll is accurate, I'd expect roughly 75% of respondents to choose something other than "do nothing"... it would be very tough for a "do-nothinger" to win an argument that the community decided to do nothing.

 

If you did add a "Do nothing" category though, you would have to limit the choice to only one as otherwise the "do nothing" choice would always be split.

 

Not trying to over-complicate things for you -- I appreciate your tenacity -- but this poll becomes suspect I think if you don't give the opposing view a voice.

 

Well, the 'opposition' had their voice and at only 27% of the vote, it's clear that something needs to be done. And they even get to chose which choice is least offensive to them.

 

Seriously, the community voice is clear that the issue has to be addressed. To include 'do nothing' is to take the process back a peg.

 

The question you asked in the previous poll was "Should pro-active disclosure be expected." That's a very different question than "Should we actively do something to address non-disclosure of pressing" which is what this poll asks. The former strikes me as a very easy question to answer yes to; the latter requires a bit more thought. And frankly, I thought there was a lot of good discussion that transpired after most people had voted (something unusual from a pressing thread) that some may find persuasive in this poll.

 

Again, I've put in my votes in favor of two "active" alternatives... but I think you open the poll to justifiable criticism if you ignore the opposing view... just my two cents.

 

 

[cloudofwit]

Overreact much people? Just disclose what you know.

Gladly, but don't tell me I have to disclose something... even when there is nothing to disclose.

 

Disclose that you don't know anything. It's not nearly as difficult or as abstruse as you would like people to think.

 

Your using abstruse is too obtuse...for any good use...in addressing pressing or, yay, disclosure guessing.

[supapimp]

where is the "somebody call the WAHHHmbulance" option?

[G.A.tor]

another problem is that no matter what the policy is, there are always going to be folks that say one thing, and do or know something else...so, really, until some sort of "exposure" (which folks blasted the old NOD about), deception will still be out there...just the nature of where our hobby is...

[cloudofwit]

another problem is that no matter what the policy is, there are always going to be folks that say one thing, and do or know something else...so, really, until some sort of "exposure" (which folks blasted the old NOD about), deception will still be out there...just the nature of where our hobby is...

 

And although deception will still be out there, we can be thankful that one decepticon is in our midst for sales thread updates.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I hate to say this, Nick, because I do, and will continue to disclose anything I know...but I can't vote for those options...

 

There was a reason I didn't want to start a poll, it's very difficult.

 

I don't want to see blacklists, I'm not McCarthy...and I don't think we can derive enough information from a few posts in the marketplace to put people on lists.

 

I'd prefer an option where we ask for some suggested statements to be included in the rules.

 

Sha, I included all of the suggestions to cover all the possible stances on the issue...from militant to middle-ground.

 

You don't like lists but do like incorporation in the rules? That's fine...just vote that way. (thumbs u

[ChasingKingKirby]

Should you do this you are now restricting the sales threads to those who press and actively disclose and those who do not press and can vouch for the book.

 

What happens to those who do not press and do not know if a book is pressed? What do they disclose? Are they now suspect simply because they do not have an answer?

 

We all saw what happened to Steve B's sales thread when he said the books "may or may not have been pressed".

 

 

If you know, you say.

 

If you don't know, you say you don't know.

 

Ok....so I don't know. Suspicion is now levied against me for simply not knowing. The question of pressing has been deliberately inserted into my sales thread. This is completely aside from the fact that I am innocent in all ways since I truly have no idea if the book has been pressed. I am now guilty from merely having the term associated with the books in my thread. Its a level of suspicion that is not warranted except to appease those who feel pressing is restoration.

 

I have always said I dont believe pressing is restoration nor do I care about pressing.

 

Its a backhanded way to push the anti presser agenda in the marketplace.

 

You guys do what you want to do but I have a bad feeling about this.

Exactly.

 

I've got a bad feeling about this being added as a "rule" as well. Hmmmm? Just how do you mandate that CGC board members disclose pressing, when CGC themselves make no attempt to do so? I'm one of the guys that actively ASKS if a book has been pressed via PM. As I've seen time and time again, that those boardies that disclose have their sales threads turn into train wrecks. I have no vested interest either way. I don't personally press books, and the few books I've had pressed by Joey probably will not see the light of day, but I don't like the feel that boardies will be placed in the position of defending themselves. Every time pressing is brought up in a sales thread, the sales thread goes to mess. What's wrong with putting a line in the beginning of a sales thread, "Any questions regarding knowledge of pressing of a particular book should be directed to the OP via PM". That eliminates any potential thread-crapping doesn't it?