 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney
|
| | | (...) The issue is *not* that Lar is receiving preferential treatment. The issue as I see it (based on my observation of historical events on BL and conversations with many others who observed same events) that Lar is getting exceptional unfavorable (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jason Spears
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jason Spears
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) But in joining BrickLink, the member acknowledges that interpretations of the TOS are ultimately up to BrickLink, not the member. The member should certainly attempt to clarify confusing language, but that doesn't mean the member should be (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But prudent to what end? Because Larry desperately values his BL store? Or maybe because he wanted to bring the subject to light, aggresively if need be? My guess is that for Larry, it's the principle of the thing, not whether or not his store (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm not counting, but I'm aware of a lot of posts which say Dan was correct. I'd also suggest that there will be a lot of BL users who are indifferent to the mess Larry has got himself in. A further group is probably unaware (despite Larry’s (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Johannes Koehler
|
| | | | | | | | | Hello! (...) And there is a a large group of BL users who simply don't care for what has happened and continue using BL because it is the best platform for buying and selling LEGO. There are few who know Admin (or even Admin's name ;) ), there may (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hey, that's true-- but what you're also not counting are the number of posts that are favoring Larry. And that's my point about bad press. There are people out there who (if things like this continue) who will abandon BL. Heck, on the BL (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I shall need time to think about that. ;) scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) But see, you are still acting like it was this ONE event that got him banned. It was not - I thought you understood this. Dan very clearly said that there were problems in his past that factored into it. So he was not banned for this one (in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) This is like saying that your driver license should be revoked if you violate even the most insignifcant traffic law or that you should be sentenced to life in prison for jaywalking. -Orion (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) The difference is that Lar accepted the terms of the TOS, and I commend him for stating this explicitly in his recent post. The TOS included the provision for summary action, and BrickLink has taken that action. The revoking of a driver's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) But the fact the TOS said what it did (summary action) isn't disputed, at least, I don't think. Did Dan have the right to ban Larry? Yes. Was it right for him to ban Larry, given the situation? No. Dan can do whatever the heck he wants with (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) But what are you using as the standard of judgment? I can't think of any justification to judge Dan's actions except in terms of consistent application of the TOS. Has he failed in this regard? I don't think so. Do some people find his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I would like clarification here. Are you asserting that Dan has applied the ToS consistently and fairly? What evidence of that do you have? I have evidence to the contrary. I acknowledge that he doesn't *have* to be consistent and fair, there (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | Larry, You are painting a very dark picture. Without divulging names, can you give us more details on these "previous incidents in the past"? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Clarification? Fair enough. I'm referring specifically to Item 8 of the TOS, which states outright that he can terminate access at any time without notice. That's the criterion I'm using, and, as it's written, it contractually grants Dan the (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) That sounds a little subjective (...) In what way is he paranoid? (...) Now that sounds like paranoia. (...) Now you sound paranoid. (...) Last month I had what I thought was a serious problem; I could not pay my BL fee due to a PAYPAL (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| | | | |
