 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Thank you. I'm trying to stay civil, although it's hard, some comments that some people are making, seem rather inflammitory. (Note - Trying is not always suceeding.) Clarification - I don't find your above statement inflammitory, it was other (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Oh, I totally agree-- I just don't think Dan tried as hard as he should have in this case. (...) Nobody, really. If Dan thinks the "right way" is to ban everyone whose name gets drawn out of a hat, who's to say that's the "wrong way"? I think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I saw that - and I read and make sure I understand the posts before I reply. Your OTHER points did not match that statment, but I do give you credit for making that statment. And I am not saying how great I think Dan is.. I AM saying he did (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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.
|
|
(...) Given that Tim wants to line Larry up for martyrdom: NO. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Well actually, if you bothered to read all the posts, instead of running around shouting from the rooftops about how great Dan is and he can make all the bad decisions he wants, then you might have seen that I recanted on that point already. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) It does not matter what Tim thinks is inside or outside the ToS. It is not his call to make. Obviously, Dan thought it was not inline with the ToS - and thats really the only view that means anything here - right? Mark P LoB (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) The following posts shed light on this: (URL) on these, I don't believe that Larry's correction was earnest, but rather calculating. My guess (yes, it's a guess)is that it was the phrase "Until perpetual stock is implemented," that was the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that statment is true must have never worked with customers IRL. (...) Who is to say what the right (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Yes, read his very words: "Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it's a ToS violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach." Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Can you please define what you mean by "earnest"? Are you saying his "earnest attempt" put him inside the ToS? (...) You or I would have deleted the whole of the text and shrugged the matter off. Larry tried to play it smart and it backfired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Another flaw Tim - Dan DOES NOT see Larry as a "good-faith" anything! He proved that in not only his words, but his actions. What you think Larry is, or not is is 100% pointless! You need to understand that. The only person view that matters (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) "run his business like a crazed dictator" Where did you pull that from? He banned what he saw to be a problem member. That does NOT make him a crazed dictator. To even imply that is is acting like one is about as wrong as you can possibly get. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Why? It has been said many times why. (URL) as others pointed out this part of the BL ToS: (URL) Breach. -snip- We also reserve the right to terminate your membership and your data and deny you access to any of the site's features at any time (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) No -- it is not undisputed that the reason he was banned was a TOS violation. He broke it, was corrected, and made an earnest attempt to comply. After his attempt to comply he was banned without recourse. -Tim (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
