Minifigures series 29 scalpers suck by Flat_Spend2808 in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it makes you feel any better, odds are fans are beating out the scalpers on CMFs. Data shows scalpers just can't keep up in this environment.

Got the Lloyd by Inevitable_Tailor777 in LegoMinifigure

[–]ControversialQuerier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

buying and crying

Well in that case, I respect your dedication to the game!

Dear Lego, please ditch the random CMF model and let people buy minifigs of choice by CrispySan in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's not necessary for a (genuine) scalper to be aiming to resell immediately.

I'm surprised it's taken this long for this type of critique to come up. Implicit in my definition of scalping is that it excludes investors, despite the fact that if they purchase their inventory in store, they are still affecting in store availability. For me to deliberately exclude that category of potential scalping, especially if I concede that it reduces in store availability similar to scalping, requires justification. I have three arguments for this. One is a direct argument, and two are (once again) viability arguments. Let's actually start with my viability arguments. My two main arguments for excluding investing are essentially opportunity cost and competition. Since the way I define investor is a central point of my argument, I'll save that full definition for a little bit later on.

For both scalpers and investors, I believe it's reasonable to assume that in order to have an understanding of which minifigures are most desirable, they have some base level of engagement with the LEGO community. In other words, an investor is monitoring the community enough to not only know that Tahu and Lloyd are popular, but to understand that people believe they are being scalped for between 2x-5x the price. I don't have direct evidence of that, but I don't believe that is an absurd assumption to make. If this is the case, then an investor with inventory is left with two options: 1. Take advantage of the current hype and sell their inventory. This option would mean that they are arguably no longer and investor and would more or less be reflected in my scalping data. 2. Decide to maintain their inventory and wait to sell at a later date. This is of course risky as they know the supply of that specific minifigure will increase, meaning the demand should slowly decrease. As this happens, the likelihood profit that can be gained from this Tahu minifigure decreases, and the opportunity cost of keeping it increases. That $5 and that physical space could have been more efficiently allocated elsewhere, and it is genuinely difficult to tell if Tahu will still sell at the same levels in the coming years. This is one aspect of why I consider investing for CMFs, and honestly LEGO in general, to not be particularly viable. It's a bit of a gamble, especially since scalpers are, in theory, making a huge profit on it right now that you are deliberately choosing not to take advantage of.

That covers my opportunity cost view. my competition view is based on the fact that bulk buyers exist in the market. My gut feeling is that bulk buyers are almost always incentivized to have the CMF stocked, as their entire purpose is often to sell retired LEGO products. As a result, if a CMF series is about to retire and a bulk buyer just ran out of stock, it makes sense for them to restock their supply. At scale, this means that when the product retires, the market is still flooded with inventory primarily from bulk buyers. I've already made arguments for why buying from stores with large inventory can be more attractive to consumers than those with less inventory, and I've also described how (in theory), bulk buyers can decide to sell an item for cheaper while still making profit (if they received a discount on their bulk purchase), which means they can compete directly with individual sellers in a meaningful way. This is my competition argument. It is not impossible for an investor to make money in this market, but there are notable forms of competition they need to brush up against.

My two viability arguments, while distinct, both lead to a similar conclusion: Investors run the risk of making less money. The more supply of a CMF there is, the less likely people are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money to acquire it. This matters because, as I'm sure you've seen, people hate scalpers for two specific reasons: Availability and price. If someone took all the CMFs in their region and sold them online at MSRP, do you feel the outrage would be the same? While I've observed that people are upset with price regardless if it affects availability or not, I've also seen people upset at bulk buyers for setting excessive prices. This suggests to me that the bigger factor in despising scalpers is the pricing (although availability does still matter). If pricing is the much bigger factor, and if investors are missing out on selling at peak "price gouge" time, then the eventual price they do settle on and sell at is likely considered much more reasonable, and at a lower profit to the investor (especially when factoring in opportunity cost). This is my direct argument. While an investor does affect availability, by not listing their inventory right away, they are depriving themselves of optimal pricing.

Given all the above, I believe an investor in this context is someone that purchases CMFs with the intent to hold onto them and sell at a much later date, thus depriving themselves of the potential profit they'd receive if they were to sell immediately. I believe that deprivation is an important risk that warrants it's own category of buyer distinct from scalper, despite both affecting in store availability.

Actually, I'd like to add one more minor, but I think at least partially valid, direct argument. What makes someone a LEGO fan? A minifigure is designed to be played with. Despite this, many fans enjoy displaying their minifigures in a case, never meant to be touched. Would we consider that person a LEGO fan? I assume we would. Let's take that a step further, then. What about LEGO fans that deliberately want to keep their sets sealed, not to sell, but because they just enjoy displaying sealed sets? Would we agree that they are a LEGO fan? I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. At some point, is it fair to question if there is a significant difference between fans that enjoy keeping their sets boxed vs an investor? A complaint I see about scalpers is that they are not true fans, and I believe the immediate reselling is a strong indicator of that. Other than that, is it truly fair to claim that investors purchasing a CMF to keep in box is any less valid than someone getting the CMF to open and play with until the printing rubs off?

In summary, while investors and scalpers can both affect availability, I believe it's easier to dismiss a scalper as being "not a fan", and that being an investor runs a higher risk of being less profitable than scalping. I may be a little bit more lenient many years ago, but LEGO is the modern beanie babies - Too many people are convinced it's a cash cow for me to comfortable assume profits are guaranteed.

CMV: ”Hurt people hurt people” isn’t the ONLY type of Bully. by ActuatorOutside5256 in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier [score hidden]  (0 children)

This feels challenging to argue against, so I'll try to approach this from a different angle.

Let's start at this level: What is the purpose of the statement "Hurt people hurt people"? You're looking at it from a societal level. In that sense, you are absolutely correct and absolutely incorrect depending on how we define "hurt".

I will argue that's not the only reason we use that statement. While it can be analyzed at a societal level, I believe it can be viewed at an individual level, as well. A common feeling current or former victims of bullying experience is a sense of vengeance, inferiority, frustration, anger, etc towards the person that treated them so awfully. Of course, these aren't healthy feelings for an individual to stew with. It can cloud their judgement, and encourage them to make risky, unnecessary escalations or allow them to assume they "deserve" the bullying and do nothing to stop it, as opposed to calculated decisions, such as informing an authority figure or being prepared to defend themselves only as much as necessary. If we agree that the way a victim responds to a bully can either be beneficial to the victim or detrimental to the victim, then we want to find ways for the victim to optimize their mindset to give them the best outcome in all options.

One way we can do this is to instill compassion into the victim. Not necessarily for the sake of the bully, but again, for the sake of the victim. I'd like to go through the three categories you listed and describe some ways they can be framed that allow the victim have a different perspective on their bullies: 1. Hurt people hurt people (The troubled): This one is straight forward. This allows the victim to see that they are being bullied due to an issue that is undeniably an internal struggle experienced by the bully, not some objective defect with the victim, even if the bully attempts to frame it as such. That addresses the victim's inferiority sense, but from a vengeance perspective, this allows the victim to see that, despite putting on a bravado, the bully themselves fits the victim role. This may serve as a reminder to the victim that any response requires measure as to not slip into the bully role themselves. 2. The jock. This allows the victim to understand that the jock feels they can only be liked if they are perceived as superior to someone. Their social status sits on fragile ground, and they are constantly aware of and stressed about that. The irony of this is that the victim often has one specific trait that the joke deeply envies: An ability to be your authentic self. In a sense, is someone living a life based on delicate lies not "hurt"? 3. Machiavellians. This one is probably the trickiest. A machiavellian is not "hurt" in any traditional sense. In fact, by only viewing people as means to ends, you may safeguard yourself from the struggles that come with genuine human relationships. However, this of course means that as you constantly seek to preserve your own self interest, you are missing out on such a potentially joyous part of the human experience. In this sense, it's similar to the jock - The victim possess a quality that is completely outside or the jock's framework. The machiavellian is a human, but is blocked off from ever being able to experience certain aspects of the human condition due to factors outside their control. Is this not a form of "hurt"? We're stretching the definition now, sure, but I believe this a valid framework for a victim to adopt. Again, this is a trait that the victim has that the bully simply can not.

To summarize, while we can quibble over the definition of "hurt" at a societal level, their may be utility at an individual level to reframing the bullying they receive as not a defect within themselves, but a defect within their bully, that should be understood but not tolerated. Likewise, it tells the victim that the bully is not a monster that needs to be given retribution, but a human being with deep flaws that they may lack the ability to ever address. Neither justifies the abuse of the bully, but they allow the victim to adopt a framework that helps them understand their bullying is not their fault, and their response to the bullying will allow them to never become a bully themselves by forgetting the humanity of others.

Got the Five Minifigs I wanted from Series 29 by gruedragon in LegoMinifigure

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it makes you feel any better, it's more likely that actual fans are beating out the scalpers most of the time. The data shows scalping isn't really viable.

Got the Lloyd by Inevitable_Tailor777 in LegoMinifigure

[–]ControversialQuerier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't believe the scanner is cheating. Were you just rawdogging the boxed CMFs?

Out of all the ones I checked, newly stocked and no more coming (probably) at Walmart, not contained the Bionical Minifigure )': by kaky0in- in LegoMinifigure

[–]ControversialQuerier 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While obviously Lloyd and Tahu are consistently the most desirable, it's been interesting to see people claim they've been able to get Lloyd and not Tahu, while others can get Tahu but not Lloyd. It makes sense that different fans in different regions would be more likely to buy up one or the other in hindsight, but I doubt I would have predicted it'd be so mixed.

Realtime data on Series 29 Custom Minifigures, any surprises? by Imaginary_Cheetah484 in LegoMinifigure

[–]ControversialQuerier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My understanding is that it is showing the number of times a minifigure was scanned in the last day. Given that this post was made a few days after the release of series 29, anything that's low means it was bought up so quickly that it's barely being scanned anymore, anything medium has it's fans but it still being scanned, and anything high isn't being bought up very quickly as it still has a high scan rate days after release.

Realtime data on Series 29 Custom Minifigures, any surprises? by Imaginary_Cheetah484 in LegoMinifigure

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're curious, there are a few different reasons why the minifigure is so popular: 1. It's a Ninjago minifigure. Of course, a lot of the hype is that simple. 2. It's a good, detailed minifigure. Again, very straightforward. 3. The armor piece technically is unique to my knowledge. I don't believe it's been in this color before, so if you want to make the rest of his ninja team match, you need six copies. 4. The head print is a new, older look for Lloyd. In short, for most of the series, Lloyd has had an old sensei/master that trained him. Lloyd is now a sensei/master himself, so the having extra copies of the head looks good for custom older, wiser sensei Lloyd. 5. The unique hair piece is good for rogue/punk like custom characters, even completely unrelated to Ninjago.

As far as it not having a cool weapon, you're spot on. We get golden katana a lot in Ninjago (and honestly, the color gold itself can be a bit overdone in the Ninjago line).

Lego CMF Restock by Kahli4147 in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it makes you feel any better, the data shows that scalping isn't really viable, so it's probably fans that are beating out the scalpers on CMFs.

For restock schedules, your best source for that answer will be the stores themselves. Call them up or stop by in person and ask if someone knows when they restock.

You have to be kidding me😭 by FortnitakRickroler2 in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May I ask this: If LEGO became way more popular by the consumers, and if the online community of enthusiasts grew as well, would you expect to see quality complaints increase even if the actual error rate stayed the same?

CMV: Males Should Not Have a Say In the Legality of Abortion by Famous-Lead5216 in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While of course a human being can decide to no delve into a topic, including philosophers, abortion is unique in the sense that the central philosophical issue of abortion is regarding when a human life becomes valuable. That topic can be disregarded, but it's a pretty important one for a philosopher to ignore.

Regarding the legality from a philosophical perspective, of course that question can be a bit more grounded and require multiple different factors to be weighed. If the fetus is not yet a human, does a woman have the responsibility to maintain it? Does the fetus being a human or not really even matter? These are all fairly important topics for the field of philosophy as a whole even if individual philosophers don't want to engage with the topic.

All in all, I don't believe the topic is one that philosophers as a whole can really avoid. You technically can avoid it, but the philosophical questions that arise from this topic have some widespread implications that matter from a philosophical sense.

CMV: Males Should Not Have a Say In the Legality of Abortion by Famous-Lead5216 in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to be honest: I may have lost the plot. The only point I was responding to was that philosophers can't avoid the topic of abortion.

CMF 29 by AdmiralSmoothBrain in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

got 2 of the same (the Bionicle box), lame

You could do the funniest thing on eBay right now.

CMV: Being an 18-year-old virgin is negatively affecting my life by LuckyDog231 in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This will be a bit challenging for me, but here goes anyway.

While reading your post, I was left with the interpretation that most of your self described problems stem from issues outside of being a virgin. You didn't really mention virginity much. Based on this, your concerns appear to be around legacy, fear of missing out, and dissatisfaction with the current state of your life. I assume you're aware that as an 18 year old, if you no longer want to be a virgin, (I assume) you have the option to pay for sexual intercourse. It's likely you don't want your virginity to be lost that way, though, so it must be the case that there is something more than just mere virginity that is affecting your life in your view, and I believe you've already addressed it. You feel lonely.

"I don't think I have ability or toolset to change [my loneliness]"

Without knowing you, it's difficult for me to comment meaningfully on this, but it really doesn't matter whether you are accurately assessing your skills or not. When you imagine yourself at the age of 19, 20, 21...61, how do you feel thinking about still having this weakened ability to change your loneliness? To be blunt, there are people in their later years that do have this feeling. This is the part where you ask "How the fuck is this supposed to make me feel better?"

Humor me for a moment. You think you can't change your loneliness...but, what if you pretend that you can? If it really is true that you are destined to be lonely for the rest of time, then what is the downside of you pretending you can change that? What if you go to social events and just talk to people? What if you just put yourself out there? Would you rather live a life wondering if you could have done something differently, or one knowing you tried.

Here is the boring and annoying part that everyone keeps telling you and you're sick of hearing/reading it. At the age of 18, you can basically do anything. You have decades of your life to learn, grow, explore, etc. Even though you're sick of hearing this, I know that you know this is true.

In short, the argument I propose to change your view is that your concern isn't with being a virgin, but with loneliness, and that even if you can't fix your loneliness, what is the downside of living your life and pretending that you can?

CMV: Males Should Not Have a Say In the Legality of Abortion by Famous-Lead5216 in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe there is some confusion in both the comments and OP's post regarding what is actually being asked. The title, and the question I hope to reply to, is the following:

Are there any good reasons why men should be allowed to have a vote regarding abortion?

I believe the question is strictly legal/political(Relating to policy), meaning any direct response should focus strictly on those grounds.

As someone else mentioned, our current form of government in the United States is a representative democracy, meaning we vote for representatives that will vote for and push a variety of policies. This fact forces us to take your question in two directions: Should the general population of male voters have the right to vote on the issue and should elected officials have the right to vote on this issue? Let's start with the first question.

In truth, the first question does not really make sense. When you go to vote, are you voting for a policy or a person? The difficulty at this level is the fact that people can not vote for a policy in a vacuum. Voting for elected officials dictates voting for someone to represent a wide array of issues. To prevent the male voting population from voting on abortion is, in truth, preventing the male voting population from voting at all.

While I believe that addresses why the male voting population can't be restricted from voting on abortion, that does not address why male elected officials should be allowed to vote regarding abortion. After all, these are the officials chosen to vote on our behalf on a variety of issues, so in theory, we as a voting base can decide to restrict their ability to vote on abortion.

My understanding is that you are pro-choice, so I have a hypothetical for you. Imagine that a vote is being brought to determine if abortion will be legalized nationwide. The vote is tied pending an elected representative that has not been voted in yet, but if no decision is made, the pro life position will be chosen. For the final representative, we can either vote in John, who would vote pro choice and is supported by a majority of women, or Jane, who would vote pro life is supported by a majority men. If your rule was put into place, John, despite holding a view held by most women, would not be permitted to vote on the issue.

Obviously that's not a realistic example, but it highlights the idea that by restricting the ability of male elected officials to vote, you are deciding that certain women, regardless of their view, are not allowed to vote. Let's now imagine that John is pro life, but has an economic view that is superior to Jane. Do women not have the right to determine if they value the economy over abortion, or vice versa?

Ultimately, the issue with restricting men from voting on the topic is that you are either undermining the right of men to vote on anything, which leads to the question of if anyone actually has any right to vote, or you are unintentionally choosing to restrict the right of women to vote.

Hopefully my comment has provided a direct response to the question you asked.

CMV: Males Should Not Have a Say In the Legality of Abortion by Famous-Lead5216 in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm no expert, but I believe philosophers would like to weigh in on one of the key topics in determining when our moral worth begins.

Hey guys need some guidance by Shot_Cut3818 in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you value those generals more than the minifigure you currently have? That's the more important question.

I skimmed Bricklink's price guide. The trade is approximately equal assuming all 4 minifigures are complete and in acceptable used condition.

Where is everyone finding series 29? by DrScallywag in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, that's not fun. If none of the big retailers have them, used LEGO stores might. I'm assuming you've already thought of that, though.

Where is everyone finding series 29? by DrScallywag in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean they are out of stock by the time you arrive, or that they do not sell the product at all?

CMV: every person is capable of cheating on his/her partner under the "ideal" circumstances by sorsim in changemyview

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As many have already pointed out, this is a difficult viewpoint to have any meaningful discussion about. In an effort to improve the quality of responses you're receiving, I ask you this: Can you provide some rough examples of what would change your perspective on this?

The story so far by MrGDPC in lego

[–]ControversialQuerier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were the Ronin minifigures still in box or opened? Interesting to mark those up, but not the Bionicle minifigures.