| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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 treatment because of personal issues.
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 treatment.
> So, he's being unfairly discriminated *against.* Doesn't matter if its Lar or
> not receiving the mistreatment, its mistreatment. Sure, there's an outcry
> because Lar's recognizeable -- regardless of who it is, that doesn't make it
> less wrong.
http://www.bricklink.com/tos.asp
Unless I'm seriously misreading Item 8 of the TOS correctly, then Bricklink has
the right to revoke Lar's membership without prior notice. That means that his
membership can be yanked because he has too many letter in his name, because he
parts his hair on the wrong side, or because he actively engaged in fraud. By
accepting the terms of service, Lar accepted this possibility, and he has no
stance to dispute it now. If he objects to the TOS, that's his right of course,
but he entered into the contract under the terms of the contract, and Bricklink
is now enforcing those terms.
Really, that's the end of it. Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant.
Lar's access was terminated in accordance with the contract. In fact, by giving
any advance notification at all (or, in this case, giving the chance to correct
the breach of TOS) Bricklink went above and beyond the letter of the TOS to
accommodate Lar.
It doesn't even matter whether others have been afforded more or fewer chances
to come into compliance with the TOS. Bricklink expressly reserves, and the
site-user expressly grants to Bricklink, the right to deny the user access to
the site with no claims re: due process or review.
This would be my stance regardless of who exactly had been banned; the contract
trumps all other claims of "it should be thus."
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
