| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > In lugnet.market.brickshops, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > > In lugnet.general, Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
> > >
> > > > BL needs Lar more than Lar needs BL.
> > >
> > > [snipping around]
> > >
> > > Can you explain why you think BL needs Larry so bad?
> >
> > 1st off, that's not what she said. She said BL needs Lar MORE THAN Lar needs
> > BL.
>
> ok, so take off the 'so bad' ;) But still, I do not see WHY Bricklink NEEDS
> Larry. And am more than curious as to why she thinks it does need him - in
> any way in any amount.
I'm not sure I'd say that it needs him so much as would be better off *with* him
than without, particularly if 'without' means bad press.
> > For you to dismiss Suz's comment as "the most off base comment" you've seen,
> > well, wow, either you've been reading VERY on-base stuff, or you're jumping
> > to conclusions.
>
> No, I am expressing an opinion, just as she did. I do not think Bricklink
> needs Larry in any way.
You *are* expressing an opinion, but that wasn't my point there. The "the most
off base comment" part of the way you expressed that opinion was (IMHO)
unjustified, and probably more based on what you thought she was saying, rather
than what she actually said, IE, jumping to conclusions.
> > I'm not sure I agree. I know people have problems with Larry-- But Larry is
> > BL's customer. And as we all know, "the customer is always right". When
> > running any sort of business,
>
> Not true in any way. Its a VERY good theme to strive for, but in no way is
> that ‘law’. Say a customer tells you they saw a sign saying a $1,000 item was
> on sale for $100. They have no proof of it - but you are saying "the customer
> is always right" -- so you give it to them for only $100? If so, PLEASE open
> a store and I can promise you I will be the first one in the door ;)
Heh, that's a bit more literal interpretation of the phrase than I obviously
intended :)
> > it's important to try and spin the positive on any situation,
> > and try your best to work well with your clients. Sure, you're bound to have
> > your problems, but really, you should be trying your hardest to make it work
> > out, and make your customers happy.
>
> Very true - and to even imply Dan is not doing that is silly. If you question
> this in any way go take some time to see al the new, and cool, and wanted
> features Dan has put into place.
Um, that's more like skirting the issue. Kinda like saying "Oh, but... uh, look
over here, quick! We did this other thing really well!" There *are* quite a few
features that are cool, and Dan's done a great job with a lot of them, but he's
also got to deal with this The Right Way (tm)
> > Now, granted I don't know the whole history, but to me, it sounded like Dan
> > was WAY too quick to not only shut down Larry's store, but to also
> > completely suspend his account. It's almost like Dan didn't even try to give
> > Larry any sort of benefit of the doubt or what-have-you.
>
> You must have missed what Dan said:
> "taking into consideration your malicious problematic past here"
> http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=63847
Actually, I read that, and Dan's other response, as well as other posts in the
thread.
> (and BTW – I have no interest in debating IF Larry’s past was either
> problematic or malicious)
>
> That tells that this is based on a few items (at least), and NOT just on this
> one problem. So we have no idea how quick, or slow Dan was in his actions,
> and we have no true idea of what went into this, so really - any discussion
> about what was done and for what reasons are nothing more than guesses on our
> part - and I really have better things to do than play guessing games with
> people over this.
Well, maybe that's the problem.
1) I'm not sure history should be much of a factor. *A* factor, maybe, but not
much of one. The issue at hand is important, and less so the history.
2) You don't have to present and debate Larry & Dan's case, you're under no
obligation. But if you *don't*, people are going to make up their own minds. And
if Larry (or other supporters) are giving THEIR side of the story, the public
opinion of BL is likely to slip. It's your choice, and it sucks to imply that
you've got some sort of obligation to reveal private business matters, but it's
up to you to weigh the consequences and weigh that choice.
I would have expected Dan to reply to Larry saying something along the lines of
"if you don't completely remove the comment, your store will be shut down".
Basically, giving him an explicit instruction, and the consequence for not
following it. It sounds more to me like Dan just shut down the account after
asking Larry to remove it, possibly without stating the consequence, or giving
Larry adequate time to take it down.
But worse, as Larry pointed out, by shutting down the store, he wasn't even
*able* to change it, further making Dan's case worse, since it would appear that
he was asking Larry to do the impossible.
And finally, when Larry changed the comment to something less harsh, it sounds
like Dan's reaction wasn't to tell Larry "No, that won't do, remove the comment
*entirely*, or we'll have to shut down the store", but instead was to NOT ONLY
shut down the store, but to remove Larry's account entirely. Now, to me, that
means he didn't give Larry a chance to respond, since (again, to me), it sounds
like Larry was attempting to comply (in the least possible way, mind you) with
what Dan asked him.
But wosrt of all, while I see how Larry's store should be shut down while in
violation of the TOS or Dan's wishes, but Larry as at *least* a BL buyer is
totally unrelated to the issue at hand. Removing his account entirely seems
completely unjustified, as Larry didn't seemingly make any mistakes as a buyer,
only as a seller.
> > But the biggest mistake of all is that it's public now.
>
> And remind me who made the mistake of making it public...
Well, I've known Larry quite a while, and that's exactly the thing I would've
expected-- particularly if he didn't have a way of making the changes to his
store (when it was shut down). Sure it's directly Larry's action that made it
public, but had I seen Dan's reactions prior to Larry's post, I coulda easily
told you that such a reaction could incite Larry to post publically. A bit more
tolerance on Dan's part, and I doubt it'd be this public.
> > But the fact is it isn't. It's now 'big public news'. And as a company, BL
> > really has to present their side of the story well, so that other BL
> > customers won't think any less of BL.
>
> I think you are wrong. Dan owes nobody a reason. Dan does not NEED to explain
> why he runs his site the way he does.
You're totally right. And if he wants to force all stores into renaming
themselves "Our Parts Suck", he's entitled.
> And people are going to think what they want to no matter what is said..
> proof of that is already easy to see.
>
> Dan has already said it was due to a 'malicious problematic past' and thats
> all that should be needed. Dan does not need to divulge ANY private
> information. IMHO if he does - that would be far worse than anything already
> done. We were given a reason - some may not like it, some may not think its
> enough - but fact remains, thats what we got.
Again, it's your call (or, ok, Dan's call-- I admit I'm fuzzy on the
administrative setup for BL). Dan can try and make a better public face, or he
can say "Screw you, The Public! I owe you nothing!" And I can't guarantee that
it'll make a difference one way or the other, but my personal opinion is that
being open and appearing forgiving will be much better for BL.
> > it's a good thing there isn't much competition for Lego selling forums, cuz
> > if there were, I think this sort of thing might incite an exodus to the
> > competition (large or small, I dunno).
>
> You must be kidding - there are countless ways and places to buy/sell/trade
> Lego items on the internet.
Pft. That's like Microsoft a few years ago saying that there were other
operating systems. Sure there are. But seriously, there's not much that rivals
BL. Ebay is the closest, but since they don't really offer straight permanent
selling forums, are also not for free (IIRC it's free for a BL store to exist?),
and don't have Lego-centric functions like part searches, etc, they're not much
of a contender.
> > For BL's sake, I hope you guys provide a better picture of what happened,
> > and better vindicate Dan's actions,
>
> Why? Why does anybody need, or even deserve to be told private information -
> especially when it IS business related?
Again, deserve isn't the issue. It's a pity that in business one only has to
worry about what's just, and not what's moral. But the truth is that the
customers aren't blind to morality, and their preference is swayed not always by
the best service or the best price, but often by how they view the company as a
moral entity.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) As a buyer/seller on ebay, Amazon and Bricklink I want the admins to protect me from individuals which don't respect the ToS. If a chap on ebay has a feedback rating of "-2" as a buyer on ebay would you bid on his auctions? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) ok, so take off the 'so bad' ;) But still, I do not see WHY Bricklink NEEDS Larry. And am more than curious as to why she thinks it does need him - in any way in any amount. (...) No, I am expressing an opinion, just as she did. I do not think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
