|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
