Subject:
|
Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:49:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1549 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > Not true in any way. Its a VERY good theme to strive for, but in no way is
> > that ‘law’. Say a customer tells you they saw a sign saying a $1,000 item was
> > on sale for $100. They have no proof of it - but you are saying "the customer
> > is always right" -- so you give it to them for only $100? If so, PLEASE open
> > a store and I can promise you I will be the first one in the door ;)
>
> Heh, that's a bit more literal interpretation of the phrase than I obviously
> intended :)
But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good
theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that statment
is true must have never worked with customers IRL.
> > > it's important to try and spin the positive on any situation,
> > > and try your best to work well with your clients. Sure, you're bound to have
> > > your problems, but really, you should be trying your hardest to make it work
> > > out, and make your customers happy.
> >
> > Very true - and to even imply Dan is not doing that is silly. If you question
> > this in any way go take some time to see al the new, and cool, and wanted
> > features Dan has put into place.
>
> Um, that's more like skirting the issue. Kinda like saying "Oh, but... uh, look
> over here, quick! We did this other thing really well!" There *are* quite a few
> features that are cool, and Dan's done a great job with a lot of them, but he's
> also got to deal with this The Right Way (tm)
Who is to say what the right way is? You? Me? Dan? The only correct answer there
is Dan. Dan did what he thought the right thing was. You can fault him for it
all you want (thats your right) - but you need to understand and accept the fact
Dan did what he saw as being the correct thing to do. And with that, people need
to accept that and live with it.
> if Larry (or other supporters) are giving THEIR side of the story, the public
> opinion of BL is likely to slip. It's your choice, and it sucks to imply that
> you've got some sort of obligation to reveal private business matters, but it's
> up to you to weigh the consequences and weigh that choice.
Anybody who deals with Larry should know they get a tainted version of what
happend. Proof of this is how Larry presented how he voiced something to Dan,
and what he really said (from his first and only post about this on BL and Dan's
reply to him). I am NOT saying that is a problem only with Larry - everybody
tends to say a slightly skewed version, Larry is no different - and there is
proof of that for all of us to see.
> I would have expected Dan to reply to Larry saying something along the lines of
I understand that you expected Dan's reply to be different. I am sure many
different people expected many different things. But that is not the point - Dan
did what he did for reasons he thought were correct. Going back and sayng 'Dan
should have done this' or 'Larry should have done that' is just a pure waste of
time. We have zero control over Dan, and we have zero control over Larry. They
did what they did.
> But worse, as Larry pointed out, by shutting down the store, he wasn't even
> *able* to change it, further making Dan's case worse, since it would appear that
> he was asking Larry to do the impossible.
Honestly - I do not know why Dan suspended him BEFORE giving him a chance. MAYBE
he forgot that while suspended you could not make changes? I have no idea - that
is a guess. But I do know Larry WAS given the chance. But it is not lke he was
not given a chance.
> But wosrt of all, while I see how Larry's store should be shut down while in
> violation of the TOS or Dan's wishes, but Larry as at *least* a BL buyer is
> totally unrelated to the issue at hand. Removing his account entirely seems
> completely unjustified, as Larry didn't seemingly make any mistakes as a buyer,
> only as a seller.
Maybe totally unrelated in your views - but you have to understand there is much
behind the scenes we do not know. So for all we know it is totally related. I do
nto think anybody has the ability to make the call of being related or not being
related other than Dan.
> > > But the biggest mistake of all is that it's public now.
> >
> > And remind me who made the mistake of making it public...
>
> Well, I've known Larry quite a while, and that's exactly the thing I would've
> expected-- particularly if he didn't have a way of making the changes to his
> store (when it was shut down). Sure it's directly Larry's action that made it
> public, but had I seen Dan's reactions prior to Larry's post, I coulda easily
> told you that such a reaction could incite Larry to post publically. A bit more
> tolerance on Dan's part, and I doubt it'd be this public.
Larry could have emailed Dan. His posting that (IMHO) was only to draw attention
and heat to what was going on, and to give him the upperhand by manupilating the
situation. There is no reason Larry could not have emailed Dan saying 'hey, I
can't fix it while suspended!' From what I understand Dan emailed Larry to tell
him to fix it -- what was so hard to hit 'reply' on his email rather than
hitting 'post' on the BL public forum?
> Again, it's your call (or, ok, Dan's call-- I admit I'm fuzzy on the
> administrative setup for BL). Dan can try and make a better public face, or he
> can say "Screw you, The Public! I owe you nothing!" And I can't guarantee that
> it'll make a difference one way or the other, but my personal opinion is that
> being open and appearing forgiving will be much better for BL.
Every single post I have made about this has been personal, non-Admin posts. The
*ONLY* time I make an official type post is when it has to do with the catalog.
I have zero say in how the site is run, but can make suggestions just like you.
Mark P
LoB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) Oh, I totally agree-- I just don't think Dan tried as hard as he should have in this case. (...) Nobody, really. If Dan thinks the "right way" is to ban everyone whose name gets drawn out of a hat, who's to say that's the "wrong way"? I think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) Why? What is so wrong with trying to convince Dan that the action was overblown? If we all gave up an just took what was given to us, that wouldn't say much for us. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual FAQ Home (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) I'm not sure I'd say that it needs him so much as would be better off *with* him than without, particularly if 'without' means bad press. (...) You *are* expressing an opinion, but that wasn't my point there. The "the most off base comment" (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
