 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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 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)
|
