|
|
 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| This thread seems to have engendered a lot of discussion. Not all of it is for the long term good of the community, I fear, which is regrettable. I'm hopeful that this post might slow some of it down. I have asked Dan privately to be reinstated. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
| | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) But prudent to what end? Because Larry desperately values his BL store? Or maybe because he wanted to bring the subject to light, aggresively if need be? My guess is that for Larry, it's the principle of the thing, not whether or not his store (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
| | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
| | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) No, not really. Its possible that he believes that the TOS of Lugnet is fair and has no room for improvement at the moment, but that BL has an issue to deal with that might involve changing the TOS. (...) Hmm ? ~Kevin Blocksidge (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
| | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) 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, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
|
