|
 |
 | | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH  | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:23 | | Subject: | Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 253 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
I consider this to be personal information.
And I have taken offense at the use of it to single out a certain user (not me
by the way) on this forum for public attack.
This buyer is in good standing, and places large orders with stores on this site.
I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).
But in that ruining a person's reputation by doing this practice is wrong.
Using something like "Buyer wants customs form fraud" works just as well, and
does not point a spotlight at a buyer.
In this case, customer is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, but does he deserve to be drawn and
quartered in public for making a mistake?
Now discussion of a "wrong" matter in the forum is well documented, and I can
list many positive outcomes to posting a person's handle AFTER a NPB or NSS is
complete.
But to attack a person before any BL Admin process can take place, again in my
opinion, is just plain baiting.
I am sure I will have person's in this forum now attack my position by doing
personal attacks on me.
So I am going to ignore this post so I do not head down that path again today.
Have a great day, and I look forward to your business.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rbobo | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted no.
In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
I consider this to be personal information.
And I have taken offense at the use of it to single out a certain user (not me
by the way) on this forum for public attack.
This buyer is in good standing, and places large orders with stores on this site.
I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).
But in that ruining a person's reputation by doing this practice is wrong.
Using something like "Buyer wants customs form fraud" works just as well, and
does not point a spotlight at a buyer.
In this case, customer is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, but does he deserve to be drawn and
quartered in public for making a mistake?
Now discussion of a "wrong" matter in the forum is well documented, and I can
list many positive outcomes to posting a person's handle AFTER a NPB or NSS is
complete.
But to attack a person before any BL Admin process can take place, again in my
opinion, is just plain baiting.
I am sure I will have person's in this forum now attack my position by doing
personal attacks on me.
So I am going to ignore this post so I do not head down that path again today.
Have a great day, and I look forward to your business.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | opii | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:30 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | voted no |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | maxx3001 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:44 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
|
I understand what you mean, but sometimes it is needed.
| |
I consider this to be personal information.
And I have taken offense at the use of it to single out a certain user (not me
by the way) on this forum for public attack.
This buyer is in good standing, and places large orders with stores on this site.
I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).
But in that ruining a person's reputation by doing this practice is wrong.
|
Yes it is.
| |
Using something like "Buyer wants customs form fraud" works just as well, and
does not point a spotlight at a buyer.
|
But we still need to use "handles" to point out NSS, NPB etc.
So I can't support your suggestion, sorry, I do understand not hurting/ ruining
a persons reputation.
| |
In this case, customer is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, but does he deserve to be drawn and
quartered in public for making a mistake?
|
No, beheaded maybe
| |
Now discussion of a "wrong" matter in the forum is well documented, and I can
list many positive outcomes to posting a person's handle AFTER a NPB or NSS is
complete.
But to attack a person before any BL Admin process can take place, again in my
opinion, is just plain baiting.
|
I don't like baiting, can't even put the worm on the end of the hook
| |
I am sure I will have person's in this forum now attack my position by doing
personal attacks on me.
|
Don't let it get to you, I don't think it's personal, some people argue for the
sake of arguing.
| |
So I am going to ignore this post so I do not head down that path again today.
|
Good for you.
| |
Have a great day, and I look forward to your business.
|
Haven't bought from you yet, might never, can't say
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | aftepes | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:46 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
I consider this to be personal information.
And I have taken offense at the use of it to single out a certain user (not me
by the way) on this forum for public attack.
This buyer is in good standing, and places large orders with stores on this site.
I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).
But in that ruining a person's reputation by doing this practice is wrong.
Using something like "Buyer wants customs form fraud" works just as well, and
does not point a spotlight at a buyer.
In this case, customer is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, but does he deserve to be drawn and
quartered in public for making a mistake?
Now discussion of a "wrong" matter in the forum is well documented, and I can
list many positive outcomes to posting a person's handle AFTER a NPB or NSS is
complete.
But to attack a person before any BL Admin process can take place, again in my
opinion, is just plain baiting.
I am sure I will have person's in this forum now attack my position by doing
personal attacks on me.
So I am going to ignore this post so I do not head down that path again today.
Have a great day, and I look forward to your business.
|
If you ban handles from subject headings, you ban them. You can't suggest a ban
and list times when it's OK to to then do so. Your ability to find gray areas
in those that are black and white is amazing...
Let's see... Voted NOPE.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | opii | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:55 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| a simple no would suffice. If you feel its a really bad suggestion then some
constructive criticism is the better route to take.
| |
If you ban handles from subject headings, you ban them. You can't suggest a ban
and list times when it's OK to to then do so. Your ability to find gray areas
in those that are black and white is amazing...
Let's see... Voted NOPE.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | redbeardlegoman | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 08:57 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, neosmosis writes:
| | a simple no would suffice. If you feel its a really bad suggestion then some
constructive criticism is the better route to take.
|
Seconded.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | maxx3001 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, neosmosis writes:
| | a simple no would suffice. If you feel its a really bad suggestion then some
constructive criticism is the better route to take.
|
Same thoughts here.
| |
| |
If you ban handles from subject headings, you ban them. You can't suggest a ban
and list times when it's OK to to then do so. Your ability to find gray areas
in those that are black and white is amazing...
Let's see... Voted NOPE.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | aftepes | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 11:14 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, neosmosis writes:
| | a simple no would suffice. If you feel its a really bad suggestion then some
constructive criticism is the better route to take.
| |
If you ban handles from subject headings, you ban them. You can't suggest a ban
and list times when it's OK to to then do so. Your ability to find gray areas
in those that are black and white is amazing...
Let's see... Voted NOPE.
|
|
Constructive criticism to someone who refuses to listen to you is pointless to
begin with. Telling John to think before he writes would be constructive, because
it hardly seems that he ever does. He starts by saying that we should ban people
from posting user names in subject headings. That's pretty black and white. Then
he turns around and says that we should have a list of when it's OK to do it.
Why does an absolute suggestion require caveats?
Don't the mods around here have enough to do without having to look at each post
with a pointless checklist?
The real suggestion is to tell these people who can't handle the heat is to get
out of the kitchen. John (and Dan) is (was) always getting his feelings hurt
or blood pressure raised from perusing the forum. Instead of trying to get the
Forum locked down so his posts are one sided and can't get responded to, stay
away. How's that for constructive?
Suggestions should benefit the site. The site as a whole. Time shouldn't be wasted
implementing suggestions that benefit one person or ones that really detract
from the site. Thought should be put into suggestions and shouldn't be posted
as reactionary posts to someone getting their feelings hurt.
If a post was made saying "(insert handle/person's name) (insert verb) (insert
animal body part)", it would be pretty logical that I should expect the post
to be canceled by the mods and to expect some loss of posting privileges. If
a post was made saying that an NPB/NRS/NSS was filed or completed against a user,
as long as I didn't make any false accusations, everything should be fine. In
fact, like others have said, this is a great tool to make sure that the bad apples
are weeded out or health issues are communicated to the community.
Logic and existing rules make this suggestion unnecessary.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 10:44 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
|
I voted no. I consider self-policing one of the best things about this community
and one of the best tools for keeping this site safe and clean. Self-policing
won't be effective if problem members cannot be identified by name. Such posts
have saved me and many other members from being victims numerous times in the
past.
Self-policing is not perfect and mistakes can be made. But I think the vast majority
of readers here are level-headed enough to be objective and consider both sides
of the story before rushing to a rash judgment. Furthermore, as a recent example
showed, if one publicizes a premature or false claim, THEY may suffer themselves.
This encourages members to have all their facts straight before publicly complaining
about others.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | lmeyer | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 20:34 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
I consider this to be personal information.
And I have taken offense at the use of it to single out a certain user (not me
by the way) on this forum for public attack.
This buyer is in good standing, and places large orders with stores on this site.
I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).
But in that ruining a person's reputation by doing this practice is wrong.
Using something like "Buyer wants customs form fraud" works just as well, and
does not point a spotlight at a buyer.
In this case, customer is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, but does he deserve to be drawn and
quartered in public for making a mistake?
Now discussion of a "wrong" matter in the forum is well documented, and I can
list many positive outcomes to posting a person's handle AFTER a NPB or NSS is
complete.
But to attack a person before any BL Admin process can take place, again in my
opinion, is just plain baiting.
I am sure I will have person's in this forum now attack my position by doing
personal attacks on me.
So I am going to ignore this post so I do not head down that path again today.
Have a great day, and I look forward to your business.
|
Unless you can't post anyone's handle in the subject OR the body of the message,
everyone will know anyway. Otherwise anyone who was interested enough to read
the post will find out who the person is when they read it in the body of the
message, everyone winds up knowing who it is in the end anyway. And there are
a lot of buyers and sellers who do read this for their own reasons.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 20:59 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Unless you can't post anyone's handle in the subject OR the body of the message,
everyone will know anyway. Otherwise anyone who was interested enough to read
the post will find out who the person is when they read it in the body of the
message, everyone winds up knowing who it is in the end anyway. And there are
a lot of buyers and sellers who do read this for their own reasons.
|
I understand this, my point was and is that the title makes a big difference.
Reading a body of a message can make a HUGE difference on what is being said
about the person.
When you have 50+ messages, and the discussion is about someone doing something
that may or may not be wrong.
Scanning the title is important.
I tried to put in an example, but it was pulled for obvious reason.
You have very limited title space, and putting a person's 'handle' on that title
is paramount to personal information due to the ownership of a store by a person.
Also when it comes to a reputation, as with mine, some people have gotten the
wrong impression of me due to other people posting about battles of the past
with other posters.
You and I had an issue, it was resolved by a back and forth blockage of stores.
While very childesh on both sides, it was resolved in private.
If we had a public battle, both our reputations could have been damaged over
something as simple as, and you know exactly what I am speaking of.
1.) Element mistake
2.) Bad handling of said mistake
3.) Bad handling of the cancelled order (on our end)
4.) Bad handling of the responses made by the buyer (on your end).
While both to blame for a major breakdown in communication, it was a simple mistake
that was resolved by two adult parties.
If it was done in the forum, you would have said bad things, I would have said
bad things, LEGO and MEGABLOX would have flown, and as said in a past message;
Barbies would have died world wide.
I could have lied in a forum post about you, put something bad in a title attacking
you, but we are adults, and both good people.
Disagreements while fun to watch (like train wrecks) can damage people both financially
and emotionally (I will site example of our founder on that one).
Taking that argument, disagreement, or just plain bad day out on someone by posting
their handle and nasty stuff about them (case and point again a buyer who made
a mistake by asking for customs form deduction) does not make you a good person.
Just someone who loves to bash people for the sake of bashing them.
I am sure this buyer is sorry for asking. And the seller did the right thing
by refusing to 'break his moral ethics'
Where my ONLY problem comes from this was posting the person's handle in the
forum, and letting other forum members tear that person apart FOR NO REASON AT
ALL.
He is a good buyer (by feedback standing), I cannot image doing that to one of
my customers.
If they ask me to do something I will not do, I SAY NO.
Simple, to the point. NO. Then I will cancel the order (which I have 20+ orders
that we have cancelled for just that reason).
Have a nice night, and sorry for the book.
I just felt my actions of today were wrong, and I wanted to explain why I posted
the way I did.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 21:58 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | | | Unless you can't post anyone's handle in the subject OR the body of the message,
everyone will know anyway. Otherwise anyone who was interested enough to read
the post will find out who the person is when they read it in the body of the
message, everyone winds up knowing who it is in the end anyway. And there are
a lot of buyers and sellers who do read this for their own reasons.
|
I understand this, my point was and is that the title makes a big difference.
Reading a body of a message can make a HUGE difference on what is being said
about the person.
|
Yes it can. The title can also save multiple other members a lot of misery and
financial loss. Many people do not bother to read the text of every post. But
put the username of someone they have or may transact with, and it is much better
at calling their attention to a potential problem. In the real world, there is
no law or rule preventing anyone from saying "X is a scammer". Such a law or
rule is not needed or desired because it would deter legitimate speech and cautionary
warnings for the safety of the community. The accuser just needs to make sure
the claim is truthful. If not, the accuser stands to suffer more reputational
harm than the accused, and perhaps even potential civil liability. For the most
part, those seem to be sufficient in the real world to deter publicly making
bogus damaging accusations about other non-public figures.
| | You have very limited title space, and putting a person's 'handle' on that title
is paramount to personal information due to the ownership of a store by a person.
|
A BrickLink username or store name is not personal information. Their real life
name might be, but not their BL username. BL usernames and store names are available
for all members to see anytime they wish.
| |
If we had a public battle, both our reputations could have been damaged over
something as simple as, and you know exactly what I am speaking of.
1.) Element mistake
2.) Bad handling of said mistake
3.) Bad handling of the cancelled order (on our end)
4.) Bad handling of the responses made by the buyer (on your end).
|
I don't think forum readers care as much about occasional isolated problems between
members as they do a pattern of repeat problems involving the same member. So,
for example, if a seller was repeatedly reported to have made the above mistakes,
there are some buyers (including myself) who would find that information useful
when deciding where to take our business. When I buy, I want a smooth transaction.
If the transaction is not smooth, I want the seller to at least be able to quickly
and amicably work with me to resolve the problem. If a seller has repeated ongoing
problems with either of these legitimate buyer expectations, I think buyers have
the right to know. Feedback helps, but it is often not enough. The forum can
be a very nice and more informative supplement to the brevity of the feedback
system.
| | If it was done in the forum, you would have said bad things, I would have said
bad things, LEGO and MEGABLOX would have flown, and as said in a past message;
|
If this is how a seller or buyer so badly handles their differences in public,
I imagine it could only be worse in private. I find it very helpful to read here
in the forum how a buyer or seller deals with and resolves such complaints. Sometimes
it convinces me to take my business elsewhere. Sometimes it makes me want to
do more business with one of the parties involved.
| |
Taking that argument, disagreement, or just plain bad day out on someone by posting
their handle and nasty stuff about them (case and point again a buyer who made
a mistake by asking for customs form deduction) does not make you a good person.
|
Posting the truth about what a member did is NOT saying "nasty stuff" about them.
If it is a lie, then let's reprimand the liar. But if it is true and may legitimately
influence whether another member wishes to transact with such persons, there
is no reason to keep it out of the forum.
As for the buyer in your example, I am not inclined to dismiss what he did as
a mere mistake. He has made this same illegal request multiple times in the past
to multiple sellers. He reiterated his request even after he was told it was
illegal. And I find it hard to believe anyone could really believe that requesting
a lie is an honest mistake. There are some who are more forgiving than others.
But I for one do not wish to transact with buyers who have a history of repeatedly
making such illegal improper requests in the past. Nor do I believe this particular
tiger will change his stripes.
| | Just someone who loves to bash people for the sake of bashing them.
|
I do not know anyone here who loves to bash people merely for the sake of bashing
them. If there were such a person, I am sure the mods would not put up with it.
Whenever I have seen sparks fly here, there has always been some baiting, provocation
or underlying reason.
| | I am sure this buyer is sorry for asking.
|
I bet he is. He is probably more sorry that he was caught and publicly exposed
for repeatedly making and pressuring sellers with such an obviously illegal and
improper request.
| | Where my ONLY problem comes from this was posting the person's handle in the
forum, and letting other forum members tear that person apart FOR NO REASON AT
ALL.
|
"For no reason at all"?!? The buyer in question has a history of repeatedly requesting
and pressuring sellers to commit a crime. Yet you seriously consider that "no
reason at all"? The OP had perfectly legitimate reasons to post the identity
of this problem buyer. He performed a public service and I applaud him for doing
so. I also appreciate him letting me know about a problem buyer I and other sellers
may legitimately wish to avoid transacting with.
| |
He is a good buyer (by feedback standing), I cannot image doing that to one of
my customers.
If they ask me to do something I will not do, I SAY NO.
Simple, to the point. NO. Then I will cancel the order (which I have 20+ orders
that we have cancelled for just that reason).
|
The fact that you - one seller - have canceled over 20 orders because buyers
have requested customs fraud says quite a lot about this problem. It also suggests
that order cancelation may not be the best way of dealing with these buyers,
since it frees them up to keep shopping around for other sellers who may be more
willing to accept their illegal demands. Like many other sellers, I will not
cancel an order because I refused a buyer's request to lie on customs forms.
On the contrary, I become less likely to let them out of their contract. I also
take greater precautions by charging more expensive fully insured trackable shipping.
There are two legs to this particular problem. Buyers who make these requests
and sellers who accept them. Both need to be dealt with if there is to be any
hope of reducing this problem on BrickLink.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 22:16 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Now that was a disussion, not a inflamatory set of statments
I applaud your change in tone.
Thank you, and I look forward to future disussions without personal attacks.
Have a great night.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 22:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Locutis | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 22:29 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Uh-oh!
(ducks)
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | Now that was a disussion, not a inflamatory set of statments
I applaud your change in tone.
Thank you, and I look forward to future disussions without personal attacks.
Have a great night.
|
You are welcome. It helps when I just ignore the baiting innuendo and thinly
disguised condescension.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 22:25 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).
|
Hmm, who currently gets more business, the accused, (obviously Foster), ...or
YOU? I'm just curious...
Darren
P.S. I voted no, the less restrictions the better, trust me .
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 22:26 | | Subject: | Re: Update of TOS | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
| | I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.
This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.
|
That would kill the "NPB completed for ..." and the "member ..." posts (which
I occasionally do when I'm trying to decided if someone is placing large numbers
of bogus orders, as has happened in the past).
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Ohio
Netherlands, Utrecht
Canada, Alberta
