| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rob Doucette wrote:
>
> He changed the wording from TOS violation, to non-TOS violation.
>
> So why was he banned?
>
> -Rob.
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 question about whether you really have the item(s) to sell. After
all, you are trying to discourage anyone from purchasing the listed item.
2) If *could* be viewed as advertising and a potential path for fee-advoidance.
Having a non-purchaseable lot is a bad idea. Asking (and nicely at that) for an
officially sanctioned change (to solve the base problem) is a good idea.
Dragging Admin (and everyone else now it seems) thru the mud is not a good path
to solving the original problem.
Ray
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
