Subject:
|
Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:01:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1638 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rob Doucette wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that the point Suz was trying to make is that often Lar is right.
> > > > Lar sees a problem, he doesn't stay quiet and live with it. He tried to fix
> > > > the problem. In this case, he used something like civil disobedience to
> > > > make a point.
> > >
> > > 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 should be willing to accept the ban if he willingly violates
> > > the TOS on principle.
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > > > It's not because it is "The Great Lar++", it is because Larry is consistently
> > > > acting in the best interest of the community. If he didn't often point out
> > > > problems and than help fix him, he wouldn't be "The Great Lar++".
> > > >
> > > > His history shows that people should consider what he says, not ban him for
> > > > insubordination.
> > >
> > > As I read the thread-tree on Bricklink, he was banned for willful violation of
> > > the TOS, in which case the ban is appropriate. As has been pointed out
> > > elsewhere, Lar has vocally supported the banning of TOS-violators, and he's
> > > endorsed elaborate ceremonies of capitulation to reinstate those violators.
> > > Therefore he should certainly be held to that same standard.
> >
> > I agree, he was rightfully banned, no argueing there. But on the other hand,
> > the rules themselves should be changed (ie: continuous stock)
>
>
> He changed the wording from TOS violation, to non-TOS violation.
>
> So why was he banned?
>
> -Rob.
Why? It has been said many times why.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=63847
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=63963
And as others pointed out this part of the BL ToS:
http://www.bricklink.com/TOS.asp
"8. 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 for any reason without
prior notice."
and going by what Dan posted in his first post:
"taking into consideration your malicious problematic past here"
That shows that there IS more to this than a simple wording in Larry's shop
(despite some efforts to make it seem like that was the only reason).
Mark P
LoB
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
