 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But the disobedient civilian must accept the price for his disobedience, otherwise it's just posturing like a rhinoceros. In the same way that a journalist should be willing to go to jail to protect his treasonous source, a Bricklink customer (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I am not sure, but I haven't seen anything from Lar saying that he is mad or thinks he was treated unjust. If he has, I'll have to rethink my position (...) I agree, he was rightfully banned, no argueing there. But on the other hand, the rules (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) He changed the wording from TOS violation, to non-TOS violation. So why was he banned? -Rob. (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
