| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> 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.
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 is nothing
in the ToS that so binds him. (it's rather one sided, it doesn't bind him to
much of anything, which is just how I would write one myself, I guess...)
However I think he SHOULD be consistent and fair, and I think it will be
difficult to show that he has BEEN consistent and fair. This is not the first
time he's acted arbitrarily, I'm afraid, and I am not the only person he's
singled out.
Don't confuse A right with what IS right.
As for this:
> > 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).
> Let them voice their fears, or else they have no claim to object to the
> consequences of their silence. Otherwise, I can't comment on their fears.
Can you clarify what you meant there?
I believe that there are a number of sellers who are afraid to speak out
publicly, even to the extent of saying they're afraid to speak out, because they
don't want Dan to single them out for inconsistent application and special
treatment either, as they've seen what can happen if you get his special
attention.
Why do I believe that? Because they told me so, and I take their word for it.
Not just with respect to this particular incident, but with respect to previous
incidents in the past, and believe me, there have been many.
So if sellers aren't speaking out because they're afraid of the consequences,
what does that say about the health of the environment at BrickLink?
I completely understand their position, as many of them make their living buying
and selling on BL and they are going to do everything they can to keep their
heads down and not say anything that would single them out or give Dan any
impression that they think he's doing anything wrong.
It's not necessarily a helpful position for the long term health of the
community but it's very understandable.
Note that my pointing this out probably reduces the probability that Dan will
reinstate me, unless I'm wrong. Sort of a catch 22 there, I guess.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
