wrote:

My *original* thinking (since then other people have been
explaining why it's unrealistic) is that even though I am not
a party to the contract between the seller and the listing
agent, I have complete control over the listing agent's
compensation. With one phone call, I can cut it from
6% to 3% by bringing another agent into the deal.
It *seemed* to me (apparently, erroneously) that this
should give one some negotiating leverage; that the
listing agent only expects to receive 3%, not 6%,
so it's not in exchange for nothing - it's in exchange
for part of the usual buyer's agent's share, of which the
listing agent would normally not see a single cent.
Again, this was my original reasoning, and folks have
been explaining why this won't work.

And I've spelled it out twice in detail here exactly how it can work
and how you can get the commission cut, if you do it the right way.
Isn;t that what you wanted?

Yes, that's what I wanted, and your advice was probably
the best specific advice I received in this thread. It was
concrete, it answered exactly the question I asked, and
it was very helpful. Thanks.

But apparently you prefer to ignore a
logical, resonable and obvious approach and are now siding with those
that say it can't be done, but still continue to argue with them at the
same time.

I am not ignoring anything, not siding with anyone, and
I am certainly not arguing. I have questions, not opinions.
I put in these verbal disclaimers - "apparently", "folks
have been telling me" - because I don't want to
be attacked by people like you and Doug Miller.
Both of you lay into me for ignoring the obvious, yet you
are saying things are, ahem, incompatible (which one of
you is right depends on the circumstances, I guess).
I am listening to all opinions that are offered to me.

What do you want me to do? Shut up and not
interact with people who are offering me advice
which is different from yours?