 | | suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Hey all, Over the past few days and possibly weeks the Bricklink administration has been suspending stores for seemingly minor violations with the TOS of the Bricklink site. So far Larry p. has been suspended and now completely removed from the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.announce, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.market.services) !!
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think it is not fair Larry was suspended/removed, I hope he gets reinstated soon. As for Anne, that is an entirely different story, she's not shipped many orders, half-shipped orders, ignored communication form customers, and has recevied 20 (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) i was just sent this email with a link to annie's feedback. --- richard marchetti <burningchrome@SPAMs...lobal.net> wrote: (...) Annie’s store was closed/suspended when I clicked on my favorite places link to her store. This is why I mentioned (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Is it something like those "good till cancelled" listings one can put in his/her ebay store? If Bricklink has this the whole thing would not have happened, even though I doubt its usefulness as most of us sell finite amount of bricks and (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) the item (...) and (...) have (...) Not sure, but I might have an idea. Let me explain the problem of why I don't sell my mods on Bricklink. I make the mod AFTER someone orders it. There is no item that I can put in my shop that stays there (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I'd like Anne's explanation and PoV on this, because she has been of the the finest dealers I've bought from on BL. I don't know for Larry because I've never bought from him, but I know that some people have expressed some bad feelings about (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Hmm... sorry about the reply to my own message. It seems I should have read the whole thread before typing my previous message. It seems that the people who don't like Larry very much have nothing to do with that. But anyways, there's always (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) uh-oh. I feel like I'm watching the dimming embers get poked with a stick. I have a comment, completely of my own opinion; a gut reaction to this coming through my e-mail box. Dan might not like Lar, or enjoy being pressured by him*, but in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Hi OnDrew "perpetual stock" is stock that never depletes. On BL, when someone orders ALL of you remaining stock, it automatically deletes the entry completely from your inventory. In Lar's case, he does NOT want a lot deleted when the item (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) IMHO that has to THE most off base comment I have seen in a very long time. Bricklink does not NEED Larry, not in any way. IMHO a problem member(1) is problem member - I do not care what his name was, or what he has done for the community. You (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) this is what i thought it ment but i wanted to be sure. a simple change of the quanity to some rediculus number like 20,000 would fix the problem. i'm still however curious as to what larry would have an unlimited stock of. ondrew (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) He (or anyone) would theoretically have unlimited stock of a service performed after the order is placed [1]. You wouldn't want to change the stock to an obscenely high number as that would skew your inventory stats in a decieving way. Rather, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) 1st off, that's not what she said. She said BL needs Lar MORE THAN Lar needs BL. If, on a scale from 1 to 10, Lar needs BL at a 1, then the implication is that BL needs Larry at *least* 1, but probably more. She's not saying that BL will (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) ok, so take off the 'so bad' ;) But still, I do not see WHY Bricklink NEEDS Larry. And am more than curious as to why she thinks it does need him - in any way in any amount. (...) No, I am expressing an opinion, just as she did. I do not think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Have you read the post you cited? It is pretty clear he passed on his chance to get reinstated. Given Larry’s role on LUGNET, I thought he’d understand the importance of the ToS: Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Does that not assume that the service provider's time is unlimited? I’d argue that a hobbyist would have a finite ability to offer a service. In the commercial world a non-specialist service provider would simply find a subcontractor, but a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) You could argue that -- it may become undesireable to list a service with infinite quantity if the service proves too popular ... I think that's best left up to the user, though. It would be a neat feature -- and I at least don;t it would skew (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) If he doesn't explain himself and continues to run his business (1) like a crazed dictator than other users may worry that continued investment in BrickLink is not going to yeild returns. Examples - I've been pondering re-opening my Bricklink (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But then the buyer has the risk of buying/ordering a service which is not available? In theory, I suppose the system could be set to offer no more than X sales per time-period or offer customers an indication of the estimated waiting time(?). (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I have a lot of respect for Dan and what he does at BL, to call him a "crazed dictator" is silly. (...) ...because Dan saw a simple idea which he invested his time and cash in. Anyone else could have done the same (e.g Todd), but only Dan (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) A user requested this thread be moved to market.brickshops -- didn't think of it before but I agree, so I reset the FUTs. -Tim (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Dan deserves quite a bit of thanks for what he's done. However, unlike many sites, BL was created as a business venture rather than a totally benevolent effort. People pay Dan to list their wares, they're buying a service. If Dan knows what's (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Ok, that comment might have been over the top, but from my point of view, so was Dan's decision to boot Larry. (...) I'm not debating that BrickLink helped the hobby, I've certainly benefited from it's presence. As for Thanks, I thanked him (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Look at what has happened. The seller deliberately continued to break the ToS! Given that Dan has a duty to protect buyers; how else could he react? You appear to be suggesting he should have renegotiated the ToS!? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Even when a seller deliberately continues to break the ToS, and as a result potentially disenfranchises buyers? (...) Perhaps somebody should compete? One could argue that BL is too big now, and that a basic "sets only" or "minifig only" (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) unfortunately, I don't have time right now to do a big defense of my personal opinion, or read other posts in this thread, but quickly I will spell out for you what it was my brief comment meant: My gut tells me that the Average Joe does NOT (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
important: FTR, I had/have NO emotional reaction to all this. I only reacted because I see that there may be a big change coming up in the market world, begun by this simple little post. If it wasn't this, I think it could have been some other thing (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I'd say that it needs him so much as would be better off *with* him than without, particularly if 'without' means bad press. (...) You *are* expressing an opinion, but that wasn't my point there. The "the most off base comment" (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a direct affront to the whole point of an online market facilitator like Bricklink. You seem to be suggesting that anyone with sufficient name-recognition can, with impunity, dictate terms to his service (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Do not overestimate the influence of Lar over at BL. He has many detractors there and I'm not sure everyone will be displeased by his store being closed. I myself couldn't care less because I'm not visiting BL more than a couple times a year (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think its clear to me and everyone else that if there were other names involved in this, there would be no discussion. However, as this thread goes on, there is more and more speculation, name calling, flaming, etc. going on. Since Dave and (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) In my whole life I have never corresponded with a more ardent proponent of the free market system than Lar, so I'm confident that Lar would assert that Bricklink is not a natural monopoly. As such, if the market will bear a second online bulk (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) **snip** We Daves know many stories, some of them true. I suspect that you probably meant Dan in this context, but on behalf of my namesakes I thank you for including us! Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
My post was based only on undisputed comments. Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think that the point Suz was trying to make is that often Lar is right. When Lar sees a problem, he doesn't stay quiet and live with it. He tried to fix the problem. In this case, he used something like civil disobedience to make a point. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But the disobedient civilian must accept the price for his disobedience, otherwise it's just posturing like a rhinoceros. In the same way that a journalist should be willing to go to jail to protect his treasonous source, a Bricklink customer (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I am not sure, but I haven't seen anything from Lar saying that he is mad or thinks he was treated unjust. If he has, I'll have to rethink my position (...) I agree, he was rightfully banned, no argueing there. But on the other hand, the rules (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) The issue is *not* that Lar is receiving preferential treatment. The issue as I see it (based on my observation of historical events on BL and conversations with many others who observed same events) that Lar is getting exceptional unfavorable (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) He changed the wording from TOS violation, to non-TOS violation. So why was he banned? -Rob. (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No ... he was attempting to comply with the ToS and proposed a solution when he was cut off at the knees. That's my belief having read the discussion *and* having spoken with Lar. I'll defend him based on the interactions I've observed (recent (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No -- it is not undisputed that the reason he was banned was a TOS violation. He broke it, was corrected, and made an earnest attempt to comply. After his attempt to comply he was banned without recourse. -Tim (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) If Lar were afforded a second (or third, or whatever) chance to come into compliance and if that chance were not similiarly extended to others who had violated the TOS two (or three, or whatever) times, then Lar would be receiving preferential (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I'm not all that good at explaining insanity, but I've been known to state the obvious facts of a situation pretty clearly. Bricklink is a business. If you don't like the way a business operates, do not use that service anymore. If the whole (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think if he violated the TOS, he deserves what he received. No one is above the law/TOS. I have seen his B/L shop before, and was un-impressed by some of the things put in the descriptions. If someone is that busy, maybe they shouldn't run a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Why? It has been said many times why. (URL) as others pointed out this part of the BL ToS: (URL) Breach. -snip- We also reserve the right to terminate your membership and your data and deny you access to any of the site's features at any time (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) "run his business like a crazed dictator" Where did you pull that from? He banned what he saw to be a problem member. That does NOT make him a crazed dictator. To even imply that is is acting like one is about as wrong as you can possibly get. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Another flaw Tim - Dan DOES NOT see Larry as a "good-faith" anything! He proved that in not only his words, but his actions. What you think Larry is, or not is is 100% pointless! You need to understand that. The only person view that matters (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Yes, read his very words: "Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it's a ToS violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach." Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Can you please define what you mean by "earnest"? Are you saying his "earnest attempt" put him inside the ToS? (...) You or I would have deleted the whole of the text and shrugged the matter off. Larry tried to play it smart and it backfired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that statment is true must have never worked with customers IRL. (...) Who is to say what the right (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) The following posts shed light on this: (URL) on these, I don't believe that Larry's correction was earnest, but rather calculating. My guess (yes, it's a guess)is that it was the phrase "Until perpetual stock is implemented," that was the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) It does not matter what Tim thinks is inside or outside the ToS. It is not his call to make. Obviously, Dan thought it was not inline with the ToS - and thats really the only view that means anything here - right? Mark P LoB (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Well actually, if you bothered to read all the posts, instead of running around shouting from the rooftops about how great Dan is and he can make all the bad decisions he wants, then you might have seen that I recanted on that point already. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Is that not rather ironic given his willingness to enforce the ToS on this site? (...) hmm. Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Uhhh... has anyone in an official position actually said the revised wording has ceased to be a ToS violation ? IMHO (and IANAL) any attempt to keep a lot active, but not purchaseable, runs afoul of the ToS from two directions... 1) There is a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Given that Tim wants to line Larry up for martyrdom: NO. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Just because BrickLink has the right to pull Lar's membership, doesn't mean BrickLink should. It's my opinion that Admin shouldn't have handled this situation this way and I'm letting him know that I think he should have handled it better. And (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I saw that - and I read and make sure I understand the posts before I reply. Your OTHER points did not match that statment, but I do give you credit for making that statment. And I am not saying how great I think Dan is.. I AM saying he did (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) IMO BrickLink *should* pull the membership of any member who, in BrickLink's opinion, violates the TOS, and any second-chances or probationary periods are entirely up to BrickLink. People who enter into contracts of membership explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Oh, I totally agree-- I just don't think Dan tried as hard as he should have in this case. (...) Nobody, really. If Dan thinks the "right way" is to ban everyone whose name gets drawn out of a hat, who's to say that's the "wrong way"? I think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Thank you. I'm trying to stay civil, although it's hard, some comments that some people are making, seem rather inflammitory. (Note - Trying is not always suceeding.) Clarification - I don't find your above statement inflammitory, it was other (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Because it's bad for the stability of Bricklink to revoke membership over minor violations of the TOS. To clarify "minor"; in this case, when the violation of the TOS could be a matter of interpretation. Also I think it is worth pointing out, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No, not really. Its possible that he believes that the TOS of Lugnet is fair and has no room for improvement at the moment, but that BL has an issue to deal with that might involve changing the TOS. (...) Hmm ? ~Kevin Blocksidge (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But in joining BrickLink, the member acknowledges that interpretations of the TOS are ultimately up to BrickLink, not the member. The member should certainly attempt to clarify confusing language, but that doesn't mean the member should be (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But prudent to what end? Because Larry desperately values his BL store? Or maybe because he wanted to bring the subject to light, aggresively if need be? My guess is that for Larry, it's the principle of the thing, not whether or not his store (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
This thread seems to have engendered a lot of discussion. Not all of it is for the long term good of the community, I fear, which is regrettable. I'm hopeful that this post might slow some of it down. I have asked Dan privately to be reinstated. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) This is like saying that your driver license should be revoked if you violate even the most insignifcant traffic law or that you should be sentenced to life in prison for jaywalking. -Orion (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But see, you are still acting like it was this ONE event that got him banned. It was not - I thought you understood this. Dan very clearly said that there were problems in his past that factored into it. So he was not banned for this one (in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Mark, What are you trying to gain by the repetition of this idea? We get it. You think that we don't have a right to an opinion. I happen to disagree. If you're merely pointing out that we don't have the power to change anything over at BL, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Why? What is so wrong with trying to convince Dan that the action was overblown? If we all gave up an just took what was given to us, that wouldn't say much for us. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual FAQ Home (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
ONDREW HARTIGAN wrote in message ... (...) It's not so much unlimited stock, as continually replenished stock, AND a complicated non-standard description, for items like a custom kit (as Larry and I both sell on BL) or in my case, custom instruction (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) And until Dan speaks up, we'll never know. Personally, *with what I currently have to go on*, Dan's reaction was overblown, and Larry's attempt to meet ToS was earnest. Only Dan can prove that wrong. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think you're probably speaking more generally here anyhow, but I haven't really got anything special to say. (...) I just got back from my doctor's appointment and a grad class. Right now all I can think about is how I'd like a world with no (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Chris - I have said countless times in the last few days in direct regards to this situation - I am not trying to tell anybody they can not have, or voice thier opinion. But when you base your opinion on false information that some people (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) I would say that it would be more productive to ask Dan to state his side of the story, rather than try to convince everyone else to shut up. The only way we will get Dan's side of the story is if *Dan speaks up*. If he does not, BL's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Tom, do me a favor - copy this over, paste in in your word editor, print it up and post it above your monitor: I am not, and have not told anybody to shut up. I have not, and am not telling anybody to not have or voice their opinion. Can you (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) And some of them not true, but hilariously funny, nonetheless. (...) Normally I'd probably agree, but in this situation I kinda feel like I've been "included" on a field trip to the local minefield... "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) It won't be quite as easy as being able to replenish stock from 0 quantity, but if it's so much trouble to reenter the info, have you considered setting up TXT files with the various bits so you can just cut and paste instead of having to (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) Well, I don't think its fair you make it seem thats where he stopped. He did change the wording, as requested to what he felt was within the ToS. I know that fact is not in question, but I think its only fair to put up all of his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Hmm. So if I think that the LUGNET ToS is unfair and has room for improvement, should I just engage in "something like civil disobedience" to make my point? Think about it. (...) That is your view. But if you search for words like "malicious", (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Wow. 2500+ words! Is an executive summery available? (...) IMHO this whole thing should have stayed private. Scott A PS Was cross posting to .general really req'd? (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) As a buyer/seller on ebay, Amazon and Bricklink I want the admins to protect me from individuals which don't respect the ToS. If a chap on ebay has a feedback rating of "-2" as a buyer on ebay would you bid on his auctions? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I'm not counting, but I'm aware of a lot of posts which say Dan was correct. I'd also suggest that there will be a lot of BL users who are indifferent to the mess Larry has got himself in. A further group is probably unaware (despite Larry’s (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) The difference is that Lar accepted the terms of the TOS, and I commend him for stating this explicitly in his recent post. The TOS included the provision for summary action, and BrickLink has taken that action. The revoking of a driver's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) What I find really sad in all of this is, though you're toeing a line and being consistent in your arguments, you're *really* using this incident as an opportunity to stick it to Larry. Pathetic, but expected. -Tim (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) That's your option. However, that's not what Larry was doing. "Think about it." (...) Who are you to say such a thing? Unlike Larry, you contribute virtually nothing to LUGNET and many of us (even people who might agree with you on many (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Scott, you ought to be ashamed. Chris (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Hello! (...) And there is a a large group of BL users who simply don't care for what has happened and continue using BL because it is the best platform for buying and selling LEGO. There are few who know Admin (or even Admin's name ;) ), there may (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree; I wish this whole thing had stayed private. That said, think about this: what do you think Larry would have done if the tables were turned? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Did I say he was? (...) I note you have not disagreed with my point. (...) Interestingly, I stopped posting outside .debate due to the tendency of a certain individual to jump on my posts... Secondly, I very seldom post outside the .debate (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But the fact the TOS said what it did (summary action) isn't disputed, at least, I don't think. Did Dan have the right to ban Larry? Yes. Was it right for him to ban Larry, given the situation? No. Dan can do whatever the heck he wants with (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I believe honestly that if Larry saw exactly what played out leading up to his banning happen to you or Richard, he would support reinstating the banned member because of their earnest attempt to act in good faith in the situation (regardless (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops-
|
|
(...) If you mean I'm not brown-nosing Larry: you are correct! However, read my posts; you'll see that all I'm doing is urging for some realism. I'm not suggesting Larry be banned for life or anything silly like that. Nor am I suggesting that Dan is (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But what are you using as the standard of judgment? I can't think of any justification to judge Dan's actions except in terms of consistent application of the TOS. Has he failed in this regard? I don't think so. Do some people find his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops-
|
|
(...) Rarely, anymore. Why? Chris (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) That sounds a little subjective (...) In what way is he paranoid? (...) Now that sounds like paranoia. (...) Now you sound paranoid. (...) Last month I had what I thought was a serious problem; I could not pay my BL fee due to a PAYPAL (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I would like clarification here. Are you asserting that Dan has applied the ToS consistently and fairly? What evidence of that do you have? I have evidence to the contrary. I acknowledge that he doesn't *have* to be consistent and fair, there (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Larry, You are painting a very dark picture. Without divulging names, can you give us more details on these "previous incidents in the past"? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Purple Dave wrote in message ... (...) but (...) TXT (...) to (...) it (...) Been there, done that :-) It's still a a nuisance, and the more of them you have, the more of a nuisance it is. Many of my kits are simply not on BL because I got fed up (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Clarification? Fair enough. I'm referring specifically to Item 8 of the TOS, which states outright that he can terminate access at any time without notice. That's the criterion I'm using, and, as it's written, it contractually grants Dan the (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Now that's just ridiculous. While I would understand your concern if his TOS violation was in regards to non-payment or non-shipping, let's face it, it wasn't. It was about a particular policy which hadn't been clearly enough spelled out until (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Hey, that's true-- but what you're also not counting are the number of posts that are favoring Larry. And that's my point about bad press. There are people out there who (if things like this continue) who will abandon BL. Heck, on the BL (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
This whole situation is so unfortunate on so many levels. Dan seems upset that Larry is trying to use Bricklink in a way that he doesn't intend (even though the TOS doesn't seem to address the gray area of stores imposing "terms and conditions" on (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I shall need time to think about that. ;) scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
I believe Larry's actions were entirely appropriate, and those of Dan completely inappropriate and unprofessional. Though I am not a high profile Bricklink customer (I've only spent a few hundred there), I will not shop there unless and until his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Personally, I see it as resolved now. Almost all of us can all still buy or sell. Follow the rules. It can be debated all we want, but to me, it is resolved. (and I stress - To Me) Jamie Jamie (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I understand your point, but this in no way would effect my shopping on bricklink (and I suspect MOST others). Jamie (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Given the vast number of sellers who do just that (especially in terms of S&H/insurance surcharges), without getting into trouble over it, I'm guessing from that that it's okay to say "If you buy X, you must also buy Y", but that it's not okay (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) This is now not possible, as Bricklink has been changed (URL) to allow buyers to add the remainder to their cart, even if it's not a multiple of the bulk amount. That is I believe what prompted Lar to enter the description that caused this (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) down while (...) BL buyer (...) entirely (...) mistakes (...) to protect (...) his TOS (...) it, it (...) enough (...) No. He showed that he thought he could dictate the ToS. I want to be protected from that sort of mind-set. (...) ebay would (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I don't understand _your_ point. Is it that people are weak or inconsiderate? Chris (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Hello! (...) I assume people just don't bother with an affair that is nothing to anybody but Admin and Lar. BrickLink is still the best source for LEGO parts. Solidarity with either Admin or Lar doesn't help anybody at all. First of all not my (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I read the TOS again yesterday and didn't see any of this mentioned. Again, I think it's unfortunate that the TOS doesn't spell out what types of additional rules are allowed and what types aren't. (...) I have a feeling that this wouldn't be (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Larry didn't break any rule spelled out in the TOS. That's the problem. He broke an "unwritten rule" and when he tried to fix the problem, he found that he was still breaking some "unwritten rule". When one enters into such an agreement (like (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) Is there even the slightest shred of evidence for this statement? (...) Are you suggesting that he should pretend contrition even though he did nothing wrong? Chris (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) Yes, his own words: "Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it's a ToS violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach." Later: "...I responded rather tersely, suggesting that the implementation be (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
"Mark P" <mark@landofbricks.com> wrote in message news:I2vxt7.q1p@lugnet.com... (...) I have a real problem with businesses that like to lay down the law without providing a reasonable explanation as to why. A while back I had an issue with my ISP (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (major snip) All of you AFOLs have way too much time on your hands regarding this issue. :-) -jeremy (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) I'm not sure from your writing if you simply don't know what dictate means or if there is some less transparent explanation for your mischaracterization of the events that you accurately quoted. Maybe you can shed some light on this? Chris (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) To be fair, his response was "How about you implement bulk correctly instead? Seems a better solution to me." (according to Dan). That doesn't suggest that ToS be altered, rather that (as Lar saw it) a feature be (re-)implemented correctly. (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I confirm that was the exact wording. Too terse? Yes. Refusing to abide by the ToS? No. Asking that it be altered? No. (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Can somebody PLEASE tell me why this crap deserves to be a "Top News Story"?!?! Is it because it is Larry and he is "such a valued AFOL"? Give me a break. Keep issues as stupid as this one between whoever had a shop closed and the Bricklink admin. I (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Top news stories are member-selected. Paid LUGNET members can highlight or spotlight posts which causes them to be listed in the top stories. So, the post is at the top of the list because enough LUGNET members thought it was important for (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Un-spotlight? (was: suspended Bricklink shops)
|
|
(...) Which gets me thinking, why not also have a "un-spotlight" function? Not to remove a spot light I've previously set (which I can already do), but to subtract from the spotlights of others (subtract 100 or whatever from its points value). So if (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) I'm not clear on what the distinction is; was he not suggesting a change in the way BL operates rather than bring his listing within the ToS? Does that not imply that he wanted the ToS changed? Or do you mean he wanted the wording to remain (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) Chris, if I'm so wrong, maybe you could tell me what you think. Scott A (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Do you feel that your intial listing was outside of the ToS? If not, why change it? I find it notable that neither you or Dan have posted your full e-mail exchange. I know from personal experience and the testimonials of others that you (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) Does "suggesting a change" really seem to you to be the same as "dictating?" Seriously? Maybe you think it's just a matter of spin, but your first (unfounded) claim is simply incorrect (based on all the evidence I have) and your most recent (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops/
|
|
(...) OK. Show me your evidence. (...) Indeed, he wanted it his way. He suggested* /dictated* / demanded* / intimated* / decreed* / commanded* / requested* / ordered* that the world should spin just the way he wanted. (*) Delete as appropriate. (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Un-spotlight?
|
|
(...) I think that originally, there was the possibility to set negative, as well as positive ratings on a post. However, this was soon removed, to avoid the negative carma associated with rating a post down. Fredrik (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
