| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Spears wrote:
| |
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.
|
But in joining BrickLink, the member acknowledges that interpretations of the
TOS are ultimately up to BrickLink, not the member. The member should certainly
attempt to clarify confusing language, but that doesn’t mean the member should
be free to work counter to the TOS. And it doesn’t help that the “solution”
proposed by the member was perceived (and not arbitrarily perceived) to be
gratuitously snippy. When threatened with having his membership revoked, it
would have been prudent to act with deference rather than lawyeristic defiance.
| |
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.
|
And BrickLink probably won’t do that. However, in this case BrickLink has
revoked the membership of someone who in BrickLink’s judgment had violated the
TOS.
| |
| |
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.
|
I get the sense that you think BrickLink should be required to make considerable
effort (ie, should be forced to allow renegotiation of the TOS) to accommodate
Lar, while Lar should not be required to make any effort at all. How is this
equitable? The member is subordinate to the group, especially when the member
has ceded any authority to dictate the group’s policies, as has occurred in this
case.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
