| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Has [Dan] failed in [consistent application of the TOS]?
> > 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.
Clarification? Fair enough. I'm referring specifically to Item 8 of the TOS,
which states outright that he can terminate access at any time without notice.
That's the criterion I'm using, and, as it's written, it contractually grants
Dan the power to act subjectively. For him to do otherwise would therefore be
to act in a manner inconsistent with the contract.
As far as applying other terms of the TOS consistently or fairly, I don't know.
If these are relevant to the current issue, then I will be happy to review
examples of inequity.
> 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...)
I'm not sure how we can define "consistent" or "fair" in this situation in such
a way that would justifiably supersede the TOS, except in terms of personal
preference (which is, of course, not relevant). Naturally, criminal and civil
law can trump the TOS, but I don't think that's what we're discussing.
> 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.
Please state the context in which you judge Dan's action to be not-right. He
enforced the TOS as written; was that wrong? What's the purpose of a TOS, if
it's not to be followed, or is only to be followed in a way
> > > 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.
Well, I meant that we can all talk of "fear in certain individuals I've spoken
with," but unless those fears are enumerated, then we're talking about
supposition and hearsay. However, in the spirit of open communication, I guess
it would be appropriate for these anonymous individuals to appoint a
representative to speak on their behalf, but I'd want something more concrete
than "certain individuals I've spoken with." With no way to assess the
integrity of those claims, there is no reasonable way we can include them in our
discussion, except as anecdotes.
And, honestly, it didn't seem to me that you were singled out because of your
views or your comments in the forum, or at least these weren't the deciding
factors. What appeared to tip the scale was your cute re-wording of the "don't
by the last one" request.
> 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.
Well, if it were just you and I, then I suppose I would be willing to believe
you. But we're discussing the enforcement of contract, so your belief and mine
have no weight.
> 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?
Why don't you tell me what you think it says about the health of BrickLink's
environment? I would prefer to have your clear statement on record before I
give mine.
Regardless, as I've said before and as I'm sure you'd agree, if the market will
support a competitor, then let that competitor step up and take its place. The
community will surely benefit, in the long run, from a wider array of choices,
will it not?
Sure, users may prefer not to have to move from BrickLink, if indeed they feel
that they would have to do so. But that's the market in action; I don't want to
switch cable providers, even though I might benefit from the switch, but that's
my problem, not the cable company's.
> 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.
Do you have evidence that others have been booted for voicing opinions
objectionable to Dan? Or do you propose that your ouster is a kind of warning
shot across the bow?
> 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.
That's the price of civil disobedience, as I've said before. If you risk no
consequence in your act of disobedience, then really you're just posing. If
nothing else, I respect your willingness to risk your access for the sake of
discussion.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
