| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Spears wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
http://www.bricklink.com/tos.asp
Unless I’m seriously misreading Item 8 of the TOS correctly, then Bricklink
has the right to revoke Lar’s membership without prior notice. That means
that his membership can be yanked because he has too many letters in his
name, because he parts his hair on the wrong side, or because he actively
engaged in fraud. By accepting the terms of service, Lar accepted this
possibility, and he has no stance to dispute it now. If he objects to the
TOS, that’s his right of course, but he entered into the contract under the
terms of the contract, and Bricklink is now enforcing those terms.
|
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 that he still could change what has been done.
|
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 authorize BrickLink to revoke membership, and thereby the member
voids any questions of “should.”
In your view, why “should” BrickLink not have done so in this case?
In your opinion do you feel that Lar has erred? That is, can you understand why
BrickLink judged it appropriate to revoke his membership?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
