Maybe it is only bad DMing.
Now: maybe systems that support Conflict Resolution over Task Resolution - systems that make it hard to do Task Resolution - maybe those are better systems.
However: do you have a good example of Task Resolution?
Actually, I don't think I do have a good example, but here are some possible D&D-style resolution results:
1. Task is succeeded without consideration of the Conflict.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Oh, you want on get on the ship?
PC: *sarcasticly* Noooo, I just want to jump fences.
2. Task is succeeded, but the conflict is failed.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Nope, it sails away.
3. Task is succeeded and results in the conflict being succeeded.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Yes, by jumping the fence, you lessen the distance and make it on the ship before it sails away.
Obviously, #1 and #2 fall under what you will label Task Resolution, while #3 will probably get the Conflict Resolution label. #1 is stupid DMing...the player may have just said, "I jump the fence." and not explicitly stated that he was trying to get on the ship, but the situation should have made it obvious.
#2
may be bad DMing, because the player's goal was obviously not accomplished through the success of the task. Of course, perhaps it isn't bad DMing. The DM may have already calculated that the character cannot make it on the ship before it sails. Whether or not the player had a chance to perceive this before jumping the fence, I don't know. Some DMs may just say, "you know that will not make it on the ship." OR they may say, "make a Spot check to see if you think that you can make it on the ship." OR they may just decide that the character doesn't know if he can make it.
#3 treats "getting on the ship" as the conflict/task that is being rolled for and the fence is can be an obstacle that determines what skill is used or it could have added a penalty to a different roll. There are probably a lot of DMs that implicitly use a so-called Conflict Resolution system in their games. By taking what the player says and tying it into what is being rolled for, he is allowing the player to help shape the game.
I usually follow #3, because it just makes sense to me that what the players are trying to accomplish is pretty important to a game. They rarely word their actions in a way that would allow me to separate Task from Conflict (ala #1 above) without me being an idiot. Of course, I also don't want to have rules in place that make #2 impossible for me as a DM. I would never abuse the #2 scenario, as that would quickly alienate the players...but, there are circumstances where I feel that #2 is useful.
Take the safe example, what if I prepared the scenario where the evidence was not in the safe. The player doesn't know that, nor does his character. I don't want to discuss this out of character, nor do I want to add a Conflict that will allow the evidence to be in the safe. I am going to treat a player's request to, "crack the safe to find the dirt" as, "well, you can attempt to crack the safe and find out if the dirt is inside."
I'm not going to tell the player, "Uh, the dirt isn't in the safe, so save yourself the effort", NOR am I going to say, "Well, since you worded your conflict in a way the allows you to change the scenario, I guess that you'll find the dirt if you succeed."
Perhaps there is less specific preparation or team preparation or at the table preparation that takes place in these GMing By Committee games. Or perhaps there are instance in even these games where the GM can override the committee, but I have been under the impression that these games exist so that the GM doesn't have the authority to make those types of decisions.
I'm getting rambly, so I hope that you can follow what I am getting at.