| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Spears wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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
letters 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.
|
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 that he still could change what has been done.
|
IMO BrickLink *should* pull the membership of any member who, in
BrickLink’s opinion, violates the TOS
|
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.
|
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 license for a minor infraction would constitute a
change to the Driver’s License TOS, and no such change occurred in this
case. However, if, in accepting your driver’s license, you acknowledged
outright that it could be revoked for what you might perceive as minor
infractions, then your example would be fitting. Ditto with jaywalking.
It’s not about what you or I think is a suitable consequence of a “minor”
action; it’s about what the TOS stated at the time of agreement.
|
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 his own site. He can require users
purchase a pink MegaBlok with every purchace or face banning and be well within
his rights as the owner of BL. Just cause he has the right, doesn’t make all of
his BL-related actions prudent or just.
At least the way I’m reading you, you want to argue that justice is whatever Dan
decides is justice. IMNSHO that couldn’t be further from the truth -- and he’s
illustrated his lack of concern for doing the right thing in this situation --
and even further so with his refusal (by silence) to correct it.
I hope in the long run, competition forces Dan to grow up. His paranoia and rash
actions have created their fair share of fear in certain individuals I’ve spoken
with -- people who depend on BL far, far more heavily than I do (which is next
to nothing). Dan’s service (the site) is great, but I’m very unimpressed with
his administration of it, his choice of mouthpiece (official or unofficial,
bridled or unbridled), and the way he deals with his members. It’s unfortunate
for the community BL is effectively a monopoly.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
