| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Spears wrote:
| |
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?
|
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, that I feel there is a distinct
difference between what Bricklink has the right to do and what Bricklink should
do. According to the TOS, Bricklink has the right to revoke membership of
everyone with an odd number of letters in their name. But Bricklink shouldn’t
do that.
| |
In your opinion do you feel that Lar has erred? That is, can you understand
why BrickLink judged it appropriate to revoke his membership?
|
Did Lar err? Maybe, in that he could have deleted the note in it’s entirety
and tried to work with Admin on what wording would be ok, so as to get the
effect Lar was looking for.
Can I understand why Admin did what he did? Sure. But I think it was a hasty
decision.
Jason Spears | BrickCentral
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
