| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
> You said it yourself, Lar's name carries more weight in that post.
> That known, if those two don't kiss and make up in front of everyone, soon, BL
> has more to loose than Lar does. Lar will go somewhere else or encourage a new
> service site. BL will have gotten negative PR, and informed the general public
> that it's unwilling to adapt with the times.
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a direct affront to the whole point of an
online market facilitator like Bricklink. You seem to be suggesting that anyone
with sufficient name-recognition can, with impunity, dictate terms to his
service provider. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
Bricklink doesn't accept clone brands, which is fine with me (despite some odd
and obvious gray areas). Therefore I make very limited use of Bricklink.
However, if I were a seller and I learned that a famous character were receiving
preferential treatment soley for name recognition, I would certainly close my
shop and go elsewhere; if I were a buyer, I would likewise hesitate before
buying via such a biased service framework.
I have no interest in participating in a system that fosters a cool-seller's
clique.
> BL needs Lar (to be seen accomodated) more than Lar needs BL (to accomodate him)
If that's the case, then BL should definitely get rid of Lar. Why should the
service provider be forced to smooch the posterior of someone who deliberately
subverted the stated policies of the provider, regardless of how much weight
the seller's name is perceived to carry? Additionally, it cannot be
overlooked that in his role here on LUGNET Lar has gone to admirable lengths
to enforce the TOS as it applies to proper posting venues and subject matter
of posts, and on many occasions he posts mid-thread to call for an FUT.
Therefore it is far more poignant when he chooses to subvert the spirit of
Bricklink's TOS.
I've never bought from Lar, but I have no cause to doubt that he is an honorable
seller. That is irrelevant to the propriety of the ban.
> I'd have prefered not to come right out and say it. But
> I agree that my words were poor, in fact I had just logged on to cancel my post.
If you haven't cancelled your post already, then I'd advise against it. The
ensuing debate has arisen as much from your comments as from the original issue,
so the subject is apparently ripe for discussion.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
