| |
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. While I wait for his response, I'd like to try to clear up some
things I feel are misconceptions about my suspension and subsequent banning from
BrickLink.
Long ago in reviewing the BrickLink(tm) ToS, I made the interpretation that it
is allowable to place conditions of sale on items. For example, many sellers
from the very start required you to buy a left door with a right door, or a
wheel with a tyre. Some sellers say that in order to get the pricing offered,
you have to order so many different lots or that the average lot size must be so
large, or that you cannot order more than 20 lots, or any of a number of
restrictions on lots themselves that are not reflected in the bulk amount or
tiered pricing.
I myself had placed conditions on some of my lots, such as that you could not
buy a color instructions upgrade for a particular set unless you were buying the
set itself in that order, or that you could not buy a minifig accessory pack for
a specific model unless you had already bought that model at some point in the
past.
I have always believed that conditions placed on items such as above are
allowable and had no reason to believe otherwise. From the BrickLink ToS:
6. Selling.
If you have a shop and receive a valid order then you are obligated to complete
the transaction. If you list an item for auction and the item is not purchased
through the seller's store and the high bid at the end of the auction exceeds
the item reserve price, you are obligated to sell the item to the highest
bidder.
- end -
My interpretation of that, and I believe that of many other sellers, is that
while you have to complete valid orders, you do *not* have to complete invalid
ones. There are a number of ways to not have a valid order... if you order less
than the store minimum it's not a valid order. In this case, in fact, the system
does not allow you to complete. If you refuse to pay the shipping charges
levied, it's not a valid order either, and you are entitled to get the order
cancelled, either because they are higher than the splash stated (where it is
the seller at fault for not giving good shipping charge description), or you're
subject to NPB because you're not complying with store terms (where it is the
buyer not complying with stated terms).
Similarly, if you as a buyer ordered a paired item unpaired, it seems logical
that it is not a valid order, and the seller is entitled to cancel the order so
that he's not depleted of one side of paired items, because you are not
complying with store terms. In this case, the terms are in the listing rather
than the splash but they are still shown to you before you order. I have always
viewed this as perfectly reasonable and had no reason to believe that anyone,
including BrickLink administration, thought differently. This topic, to the best
of my recollection, had never come up at BrickLink in a way that resulted in a
statement by Dan that pairing, lot limits, quantity limits, or any other form of
item based order restriction is disallowed by the ToS.
A while ago, bulk listing used to allow you to get a form of perpetual stock if
you used a non rounded amount. I used that as a way to avoid losing listings of
parts that I listed repeatedly and that were tedious to relist and which I
wanted to sell in bulk, in large quantities, over time. The implementation was
changed to allow non bulk amounts to be placed in orders and take the lot to
zero. I suggested that this be changed but the decision was taken not to do
that. That's Dan's decision, he runs the site, he makes the decisions, all we
can do is suggest, or choose not to use it. But I still wanted that capability.
I searched for a different way to achieve my goal, which is not to lose
listings, and save time not relisting them, yet still work within the system and
hew to the ToS as written and as I understood it, as abiding by the ToS, any
ToS, is very important to me. Thinking about the above I decided that a way was
to place restrictions on the items, stating that it was a condition of sale that
you not order the last one. I hoped that in future there would be changes made
that would improve the behaviour but wanted to work around the system limitation
meanwhile.
Things have been like that for quite a while. While I cancelled one order, after
explaining the situation to the buyer, I had never thought there was an issue.
That buyer accepted the explanation and did not leave negative feedback so I
assumed all was well. I realised that there might be a problem in that my lots
at quantity 1 appeared in searches, which is unfortunate, but which I don't
really see as a major drawback (and there's a fix, really, implement "perpetual
listings"... listings that do not go away and can be restocked even if they go
to 0 and don't show up in searches).
Sometimes when it became obvious that I was not going to in future restock, for
whatever reason (KB came to their senses or whatever) I'd delete the listing
entirely because once I wasn't restocking, why have a listing you never can buy?
So I was happy. It seemed like a minor, but successful, workaround. Not a big
deal really. It wasn't a deliberate violation of the ToS, because I felt I was
in compliance with it! It certainly was not civil disobedience because I was (in
my view) complying with the ToS! You have to be not in compliance to be
disobeying.
The past 2 weeks have been terrifically busy for me, between preparing for
BrickFest, being at it with my son, and going coastering, then going to
Indianapolis for GenCon. Wednesday I got a note from admin@bricklink.com telling
me that these listings were a ToS violation. I didn't think much of it really...
While Dan and I have had our differences in the past, I had thought
that things had been smoothed over and that our relationship had improved. He's
been asked to participate in the GlobalAFOL initiative, after all, and seemed to
be once again participating in community stuff.
So I responded rather tersely, suggesting that the implementation be fixed
instead. In hindsight I should have either immediately removed the text or
composed an explanation, but I was tired, we had been driving to Indy and then
working to set up the GameLUG GenCon activity track all day and I didn't think
it was that important, I figured that if Dan didn't agree he'd tell me via email
and we'd go from there.
Dan's response was to suspend my store without further discussion. He stated
"Your store will reopen after you either change or delete the item(s) in
question."
So I went to change the items because it was now clear he wasn't going to listen
to reason or explanantions, he just wanted the change made. However, with a
suspended store, you can't manipulate your inventory. So I sent off a note
pointing that out, assuming I'd get a response right away, but did not. Wanting
to go to bed as the next day was also going to be a long one, I posted to the
BrickLink discussion forum as well, explaining that I had been suspended, and
asking that I be unsuspended so I could effect the change.
I sent Dan a note and I also mentioned it on the BL forum because I wanted to
make sure the message was received. After all, I had just given out 140 USD in
gift certificates to my store and I didn't want BrickFest winners to get
confused or angry because they couldn't collect their prizes.
But I was STILL thinking that not having the lots in question deleted when they
sell through was a good thing.
A day passed and when I got back to the room late on Thursday I found this note
from about 11 AM: " Your store has been reopened. You can go ahead and proceed
with making the corrections. If not then the items in question will be deleted
and you will be informed of the deleted items by e-mail."
So I figured OK, my store's open and now I can make the corrections. In fact,
Dan's offering to delete the items for me if I don't make them... I thought that
I would rather not put him to the trouble so I made the correction myself. I
deleted the text saying that orders would be cancelled, replacing it with a
request that buyers not buy the last item: "Until perpetual stock is
implemented, it would be greatly appreciated if you do not buy the last one"...
After I finished I saw this post
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=63847
Not very positive spin on things by Dan but I was still hoping for the best and
hey, I'd made the corrections and was too tired/busy to do anything more that
day.
If a buyer did not honor my request I would still sell to them, but I know most
buyers are good people and would honor that request. I also sent admin@bricklink
an email saying that if there were any questions or concerns please email me, I
did mention that I would deal with his inaccurate characterisation of me as
malicious later, so I figured I was all set.
But apparently not.
Dan's next response was this
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=63963 in which he announced my userid's
deletion.
There are a few points of importance here.
I take a ToS very seriously. I would never knowingly violate a ToS, any ToS,
even one at a site where I'm not in agreement with policy. I did not think I was
in violation in the first place but that doesn't matter. The ToS is what the
owner of the site says it is.
When informed that I was in violation, although I did not agree, after my
attempt at dialog was rebuffed (I think suspending a store instead of sending a
note is a rather strong rebuff, it's not the level of dialog I'd open with even
though I'm rather more direct than some), I worked to comply to the best of my
ability, even though (with a suspended store) it was technically impossible to
do so.
I think my modification of the wording is in compliance as well. Sellers
certainly can, and do, make requests of buyers, it happens all the time. But if
it had been stated by Dan that it's not acceptable text, I would have changed it
again. I even had said so in my last mail back to admin@bricklink.com...
However I was not afforded that opportunity. Dan terminated my membership over
this, which I view as unjustified and unfair.
About memberships... the BrickLink ToS also states
8. Breach.
We reserve the right to terminate your membership, your orders and your
inventory if you breach this Agreement or if we are unable to verify or
authenticate any information you provide to us. 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 for any reason without prior notice.
- end -
Therefore Dan was well within his rights to terminate my membership for any
reason, at any time he wished, just because he didn't like the way my name is
spelt, or for the color of my minifig, or no reason at all, and I completely
accept that.
HOWEVER, it is important to distinguish between what one has a RIGHT to do, and
what is a GOOD THING to do. I do not think that terminating me (or anyone else,
were it someone else, but especially someone else with my record of positive
contributions at and to BrickLink and my near perfect feedback record (one
neutral and no negatives the whole time)) with this rapidity and lack of
communication, over this particular issue (I still see the issue itself as a
minor difference of opinion) is a good thing to do. I think it sends a very bad
message to the community.
Does that mean I think I am special and that I should get a pass, or
preferential treatment? No.
Far from it, I think I should get the same, or similar, treatment as anyone else
who has made similar revenue, usability, advertising and support contributions
to BrickLink. But I feel that rather than getting favorable treatment, I am
receiving unfavorable treatment, and receiving it unfairly.
Is Admin within his rights? Certainly. Is it a wise or prudent or fair thing to
do? I don't think so. Life can be unfair, though, and that's the way it is
sometimes.
I have asked that I be reinstated and I hope that I will be.
I hope this misunderstanding of my intent will be cleared up.
I hope that Admin will stop viewing my actions as malicious because they are
not.
On the contrary, I have been for a long time a promoter of BrickLink in many
ways. I feel that advertising one store is good for the site as a whole as it
draws traffic. So the actions I just took at BrickFest to promote Milton Train
Works by awarding Milton Train Works BrickLink store gift certificates (and to
encourage other Guild members to donate BrickLink credit as well, which they
did) and to promote it by advertising in the BrickFest program, and on my own
flyer are good for the site. Further, the URL of BrickLink (as well as many
other resources) is on the business cards I hand out, it's on many of the club
handouts I've fostered the creation of, and it's on my own MTW web site, which
gets a lot of traffic from interested buyers. I could sell to them directly, but
instead I encourage them to go to BrickLink rather than buy direct, because I
want Dan to get the revenue.
I remain a fan and supporter of BrickLink. I think it's a good thing that it
exists. I hope this issue can be resolved amicably and I can return to buying
and selling the product I love there. However if it cannot be, I will have to
work directly with the winners of the MTW prizes at BrickFest to arrange for
alternate prizes, so I would appreciate it if winners would contact me.
Finally, why even post here at all, instead of on BL? Well... if you're not a BL
member, you can't post there (and rightly so, I would argue, if you were
terminated for a just cause). So hopefully this post clears up some of the
misconceptions in the various threads there as well. Feel free to share the link
over there.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
131 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
