|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:06 | | Subject: | Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 703 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | dlaw1_lego | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:13 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 117 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, derzy writes:
| | Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
actually these orders don't affect the price guide.as I told you already
the priceguide resets after an order is cancelled.so your talking pure BS.
better to have 'forum police' as you put it rather than allowing OBVIOUS
scammers to operate on bricklink.
|
Really? They don't mess up the price guide? What about BEFORE the order is
canceled? You state above that "the price guide resets AFTER an order is cancelled".
So, from your statement, it is clear that the price guide reflects these bogus
orders until and unless the order is cancelled. It sometimes takes a few days
or more to shut down these stores. And then there is another delay while the
order goes through the cancellation process. IIRC, suspending a store for "preventive
action" does NOT automatically cancel orders that have already been placed. So,
at the very least, the Price Guide will be temporarily infected by these vigilante
orders.
BTW, would you care to respond to any of the OTHER reasons for opposing these
vigilante orders?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Proprietor | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:46 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, derzy writes:
| | Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
actually these orders don't affect the price guide.as I told you already
the priceguide resets after an order is cancelled.so your talking pure BS.
better to have 'forum police' as you put it rather than allowing OBVIOUS
scammers to operate on bricklink.
|
The price guide gets messed up regardless.
Does anyone really believe 2 new UCS Falcons were sold in March for US$700?
Or even the 1 for $1,000?
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?S=10179-1&ColorID=0
Not a chance, but for whatever reason, those orders weren't cancelled even
though I'm sure the store was closed and the sale was never consummated.
Also, some of these scammers actually sell all of their fake sets, so having
a vigilante buy them instead doesn't help or hurt the price guide any more
than the "sale" to the scammed buyer.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 08:42 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Proprietor writes:
| | In Suggestions, derzy writes:
| | Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
actually these orders don't affect the price guide.as I told you already
the priceguide resets after an order is cancelled.so your talking pure BS.
better to have 'forum police' as you put it rather than allowing OBVIOUS
scammers to operate on bricklink.
|
The price guide gets messed up regardless.
|
Not necessarily.
| | Does anyone really believe 2 new UCS Falcons were sold in March for US$700?
Or even the 1 for $1,000?
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?S=10179-1&ColorID=0
Not a chance, but for whatever reason, those orders weren't cancelled even
though I'm sure the store was closed and the sale was never consummated.
|
Exactly, many of these orders are not cancelled and the data remains in the Price
Guide.
| | Also, some of these scammers actually sell all of their fake sets, so having
a vigilante buy them instead doesn't help or hurt the price guide any more
than the "sale" to the scammed buyer.
|
Your second sentence does not follow from the first. First you say "SOME" scammers
sell all their fake sets. That admits that some do not. Thus, you can't say
it won't make any difference to the Price Guide. The fact is that a lot of
these scam listings do NOT sell and many of these scam stores are shut down before
they can sell all, many or even one scam listing. But an entire inventory buyout
by a vigilante buyer will now put everything in the Price Guide - i.e. a lot
more scam listings than if you just let BrickLink handle the matter. So yes,
the Price Guide will definitely be more adversely affected if these vigilante
orders are allowed or become more accepted.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Biglesdug | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Oh god...
Was this really a necessary thread? This isn't something that bricklink told
us to do. So what is the point of making a suggestion to prohibit something that
is already prohibited?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:46 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | Oh god...
Was this really a necessary thread? This isn't something that bricklink told
us to do. So what is the point of making a suggestion to prohibit something that
is already prohibited?
|
Is this already prohibited? From reading the other related thread, there are
some who are arguing that this is not actually prohibited. Their argument seems
to be that the "placing an order is a binding contract" rule does not apply if
they think the goods don't exist or their order is not a "real" order.
If BL already prohibits vigilante orders, great! If not, or if it is not clear,
then maybe BL should make this more clear. I would love to hear what a BL Admin
thinks about this and the reasoning given by others in the related thread to
justify placing a vigilante order.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | Oh god...
Was this really a necessary thread? This isn't something that bricklink told
us to do. So what is the point of making a suggestion to prohibit something that
is already prohibited?
|
You are correct, this is already prohibited. However, there are no real consequences
to doing the vigilante thing (aside from the possible NPB, law suit etc).
It would definitely make a difference if BL were to announce an official stance
here.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | Oh god...
Was this really a necessary thread? This isn't something that bricklink told
us to do. So what is the point of making a suggestion to prohibit something that
is already prohibited?
|
You are correct, this is already prohibited. However, there are no real consequences
to doing the vigilante thing (aside from the possible NPB, law suit etc).
|
Part of this suggestion is to impose real consequences to these vigilante orders
even if the seller's store is suspended by BrickLink.
| | It would definitely make a difference if BL were to announce an official stance
here.
|
Agreed. Especially now that a member has publicly admitted to placing such a
vigilante order and others are publicly patting him on the back for doing so.
Because next time, someone else is going to want to hurry to be the "hero" who
saves us all from the evil dreaded scammer.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:07 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:12 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Very dramatic picture, but entirely inappropriate for this discussion. There
are other ways of taking action, like informing BL of a suspect shop. In fact,
the people that you see in your picture are doing the very same thing - speaking
up.
Please try and stay relevant instead of over-dramatizing things.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | Very dramatic picture, but entirely inappropriate for this discussion. There
are other ways of taking action, like informing BL of a suspect shop. In fact,
the people that you see in your picture are doing the very same thing - speaking
up.
Please try and stay relevant instead of over-dramatizing things.
Niek.
|
Taking action does not necessarily mean making any difference. You can take action
by doing what people in the picture are doing - speaking up (reporting to HD).
But it does nothing to prevent someone getting scammed until admins react.
Taking action by placing a vigilante order DOES save someone from losing their
money.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Reporting to the administration is our only option for removing scammers and
that is how it should be, until they come up with some solution to this issue.
No one individual beside administration should have the power to remove a store.
| | But it does nothing to prevent someone getting scammed until admins react.
Taking action by placing a vigilante order DOES save someone from losing their
money.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Reporting to the administration is our only option for removing scammers and
that is how it should be, until they come up with some solution to this issue.
No one individual beside administration should have the power to remove a store.
| | But it does nothing to prevent someone getting scammed until admins react.
Taking action by placing a vigilante order DOES save someone from losing their
money.
|
|
I have no problems paying up after "removing" an entire store of select UCS sets
at 50% off, if it turns out to be legit.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Reporting to the administration is our only option for removing scammers and
that is how it should be, until they come up with some solution to this issue.
No one individual beside administration should have the power to remove a store.
|
Aaahhh... At last... Some common sense! 
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2015 20:21 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | Very dramatic picture, but entirely inappropriate for this discussion. There
are other ways of taking action, like informing BL of a suspect shop. In fact,
the people that you see in your picture are doing the very same thing - speaking
up.
Please try and stay relevant instead of over-dramatizing things.
Niek.
|
Taking action does not necessarily mean making any difference. You can take action
by doing what people in the picture are doing - speaking up (reporting to HD).
But it does nothing to prevent someone getting scammed until admins react.
Taking action by placing a vigilante order DOES save someone from losing their
money.
|
So does tracking down the scammer and shooting them. Do you advocate that as
well? Because it also achieves the same ends of a John-Wayne-wannabe "saving"
someone else. Really, you are arguing that the ends justifies the means.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2015 20:26 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | Very dramatic picture, but entirely inappropriate for this discussion. There
are other ways of taking action, like informing BL of a suspect shop. In fact,
the people that you see in your picture are doing the very same thing - speaking
up.
Please try and stay relevant instead of over-dramatizing things.
Niek.
|
Taking action does not necessarily mean making any difference. You can take action
by doing what people in the picture are doing - speaking up (reporting to HD).
But it does nothing to prevent someone getting scammed until admins react.
Taking action by placing a vigilante order DOES save someone from losing their
money.
|
So does tracking down the scammer and shooting them. Do you advocate that as
well? Because it also achieves the same ends of a John-Wayne-wannabe "saving"
someone else. Really, you are arguing that the ends justifies the means.
Thor
|
Really, you are arguing that placing a bogus order is analogous to murder.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ScootersBricks | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2015 20:28 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Really, you are arguing that placing a bogus order is analogous to murder.
--
Marc.
|
And I thought sending NPB's to debt collectors was bad 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Palindrome53 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | Very dramatic picture, but entirely inappropriate for this discussion. There
are other ways of taking action, like informing BL of a suspect shop. In fact,
the people that you see in your picture are doing the very same thing - speaking
up.
Please try and stay relevant instead of over-dramatizing things.
Niek.
|
and to be exact the original citation is from Edmund Burke and not Einstein
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 19:28 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Palindrome53 writes:
| | […]
and to be exact the original citation is from Edmund Burke and not Einstein
|
Yep, before, when you couldn’t remember, you’d say “a great (or wise) man said.”
Nowadays, everything profund ever said is attributed to Albert Einstein.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Deepwoods | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:32 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| This entire episode seems a little absurd... it's already in the terms about
following through with your orders, isn't it? (saving exactly what is a "binding
contract" outside the US for another discussion)
But really, what's the point? there's nothing stopping anyone from connecting
to an IP leaser/spoofer, temporarily spoof an anonymous international address,
create a fake account, carry out their vigilante purpose & allow all that to
evaporate, rinse&repeat...
wouldn't it just be so much more prudent to simply just better proof all
sellers - especially newly created accounts.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Reki_Lobsheek | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:46 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I get the sentiment of your statement, but all in all, how is Bricklink to decide
which order fits the definition of a "vigilante" order?
Reki
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Captain_Q | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 15:50 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 104 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
Yes, you make some valid points I agree that my action was not necessarily the
best choice to take. But I saw what I perceived as a live grenade with it's
pinned pulled. I chose to land on that grenade so other buyers would not potentially
be hit with the explosive fallout and thankfully it was a dud and the admins
saw that and combined his current store into his previous suspended store.
But I didn't do it without consideration. I saw a multitude of flags that
screamed out that this guy was a scammer.
The Facts
1. - he has zero feedback (doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it does
not help his case)
2. - he has an awful lot of inventory value for someone that is new (always suspicious)
3. - someone found that he was associated with several other stores that have
been closed/suspended
4. - I have emailed the said scammer back and forth before and after my "purchase".
I have caught him in several lies in regards to the suspension, about having
multiple accounts, etc.
5. - he claims "I'm a supplier of Ed Padol ( brick dudes ) and Vincent from
Asia." (which seem a highly dubious claim considering he has multiple suspended
stores)
Perhaps I should be punished with an NPB or something of the sort, I took the
risk and I will take any punishment that fits. I have no marks on my account
at this point, so it would be my first.
I think your energy is misplaced tbh. To me, this is a cry out for a restructuring
of how anybody can create a store. I think there needs to be some preventative
measure put in place, because this scammer has created multiple stores before
and will most likely do it again. Because clearly he has made some money doing
it and has been basically slapped on the wrist over and over.
The important question is what can be done to prevent these people from creating
new stores? I don't have a solution
I ask another question. If you see someone getting mugged in the street, do
you sit back and call the cops and wait for them to help, even though they are
most likely minutes away? Or would you perhaps intervene? This is clearly not
the same situation, but similarly injustice is taking place.
Thankfully the admins were prompt, but lets say that they were not and his store
remained open for any number of more days. I would have felt bad if even one
person was scammed, knowing I could have done something to stop it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:21 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| This is a hard one to decide on. OP lists some good points and you list some
good points.
While BL often takes quick action at other times they do not. The are sellers
still hear with multiple negatives and neutrals who should not be here. Some
are quite notorious. How many new members have they turned off who went to other,
more prominent sites. Because of the sellers insistence that they never do anything
wrong. Many new members probably do not know what a NSS is and think that leaving
feedback is the way to out the offending seller. (I am a firm believer that
using only the percentage of negative feedbacks does not tell the whole story.)
Since there are many sellers here that should not be here, your act was noble
in my eyes. I would prefer the use of a word other than "vigilante" such as
"testing" like in the great speech "testing whether this site or any site so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure...It is altogether fitting and proper
that we should do this." Obliviously you picked the right store to test as they
seem to be suspended for the time being. It is hard to argue with success.
If I were a buyer or seller I would thank you.
John P
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 17:02 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
While BL often takes quick action at other times they do not. The are sellers
still hear with multiple negatives and neutrals who should not be here. Some
are quite notorious.
|
This brings up the slippery slope problem. If BrickLink allows vigilante orders
against new sellers who are BELIEVED to be scammers, how much further will the
vigilantes take this down the road? Will they place bogus orders with HoL or
Brasletty buying out all their inventory so future buyers don't have problems
with them? Where do you draw the line once you allow vigilantism for each member's
own subjective beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of a seller's listings
or practices?
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
While BL often takes quick action at other times they do not. The are sellers
still hear with multiple negatives and neutrals who should not be here. Some
are quite notorious.
|
This brings up the slippery slope problem. If BrickLink allows vigilante orders
against new sellers who are BELIEVED to be scammers, how much further will the
vigilantes take this down the road? Will they place bogus orders with HoL or
Brasletty buying out all their inventory so future buyers don't have problems
with them? Where do you draw the line once you allow vigilantism for each member's
own subjective beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of a seller's listings
or practices?
Thor
|
That is precisely why I do not think that this is an easy discussion. There
is good and bad in testing a store. I find that self policing can work at times.
Often BL lets things go too long, other times they are right on the problem.
They also let some things slide. Testing a store is not the same as riding
out on a horse and hanging the bad guy. It is a bit more benevolent but not
an all encompassing answer to the problem.
John P
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 17:23 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | Testing a store is not the same as riding out on a horse and hanging the bad guy.
|
Completely buying out a new seller's inventory you never intend to pay for
so the new seller cannot receive any other orders is not mere "testing a store".
BTW, nice picture. You would be surprised to learn how often those vigilante
groups have been successfully sued for unlawful detention, assault, battery,
harassment, kidnapping, and other crimes.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, QCHUCKA writes:
| | The important question is what can be done to prevent these people from creating
new stores? I don't have a solution
|
I completely agree. But I don't agree that vigilante orders are any part
of the solution. Vigilantism only adds to the problem.
| |
I ask another question. If you see someone getting mugged in the street, do
you sit back and call the cops and wait for them to help, even though they are
most likely minutes away? Or would you perhaps intervene? This is clearly not
the same situation, but similarly injustice is taking place.
|
No, it is not the same situation. Not even close. But I will answer anyway. The
appropriateness of your intervention depends on the specific facts of each situation
AND the precise manner in which you intervene. If it was an obvious mugging where
the bad guy pulled a gun or knife on the victim, you would be legally and morally
justified in intervening. In some states, that may include pulling out your own
gun and having a shootout with the mugger right there in the middle of the street.
But if you accidentally hit the victim or any bystander, your good intentions
will mean very little. Now suppose you BELIEVE a mugging is taking place even
though it is not clear to others and no weapons are seen. For example, you see
an elderly woman surrounding by 3 or 4 thuggish looking youths in hoodies and
the lady appears to be worried or upset. Would you pull a gun out and start shooting
or tackling the youths? What if it turned out that the youths were actually her
grandchildren telling her that grandpa was just in a car accident? When you take
the law into your own hands without knowing all the facts, you run the risk of
hurting others and becoming the criminal yourself. So it is better to leave such
things to the professionals who are trained on how to recognize and handle the
problem. Here on BrickLink, that professional is Admin and no one else.
| | Thankfully the admins were prompt, but lets say that they were not and his store
remained open for any number of more days. I would have felt bad if even one
person was scammed, knowing I could have done something to stop it.
|
It is not your responsibility (moral or otherwise) to enforce BrickLink's
rules. Yes, you can report perceived wrongdoing. But it is BrickLink or Admin
that actually has the responsibility to assess the matter and, if appropriate,
act on it. I am all for "self-policing" here on BrickLink, but only to the extent
of reporting or exposing a problem. I most definitely do not want any and all
BL members to have the power to take actual punitive or even preventive action
against me or any other members unless specifically authorized by BrickLink to
do so. As far as I know, only Admin, the sub-Admins and the Forum Mods have any
power or authority to intervene and take actual action against other BL members.
And I would like to keep it that way.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | […]
When you take
the law into your own hands without knowing all the facts, you run the risk of
hurting others and becoming the criminal yourself. So it is better to leave such
things to the professionals who are trained on how to recognize and handle the
problem. Here on BrickLink, that professional is Admin and no one else.
|
Just a coincidence¹: I’m right now watching Hang’Em High on the French TV 
¹ or maybe not: there are a lot of vigilante or at least vengeance movies,
so that one is on TV somewhere at anytime isn’t that unlikely. Still, one of
the best movies about justice.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Geniac | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 18:02 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Caveat Emptor
As a fairly new member of BrickLink, I would like to chime in on this debate.
Even as a newbie, I check the feedback of sellers before I order. If something
looks at all dodgy, I steered clear. Even for small purchases.
Obviously, a scam store is a problem for the whole site. But the idea that someone
needs to protect buyers, especially newbies, from such stores by rather extreme
means seems a bit unnecessary.
While I understand the idea...stop a newbie from being scammed and therefore
spreading a bad opinion of the site...I think that a certain about of responsibility
falls on said buyers to make sure the store from which they are purchasing is
legit. Especially if they are about to shell out a significant amount of money.
Let the buyer beware until an Admin shuts it down.
Shaun
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:20 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I understand your reasoning.
But the solution is unnecessary and unworkable.
I do not necessarily condone what you refer to as "vigilante orders", but Bricklink
should be focussed on blocking criminal scammers, not hunting for "vigilantes".
Anyone who believes that someone placed an order in their store that was not
in good faith, already has recourse through several systems already in place.
We do not need "vigilantes" judging and hunting for other "vigilantes".
By all means express your disapproval in the forum, but leave Bricklink out of
it.
I vote no.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | prairie | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
|
It'd only be fair to hold the buyer to their commitment, or if they made
a knowingly fraudulent offer to buy everything, show them the door just as they
wanted done for the alleged scammer.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Captain_Q | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, prairie writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
|
It'd only be fair to hold the buyer to their commitment, or if they made
a knowingly fraudulent offer to buy everything, show them the door just as they
wanted done for the alleged scammer.
|
I am the person in question. And if the items were legitimate I would have definitely
bought some of them since the prices were absurdly good. I would have requested
to change my order to be quite a bit less.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, QCHUCKA writes:
| | In Suggestions, prairie writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
|
It'd only be fair to hold the buyer to their commitment, or if they made
a knowingly fraudulent offer to buy everything, show them the door just as they
wanted done for the alleged scammer.
|
I am the person in question. And if the items were legitimate I would have definitely
bought some of them since the prices were absurdly good. I would have requested
to change my order to be quite a bit less.
|
Some? By submitting an order you are obligated to buy everything in that order.
Of course, you can ask the seller to cancel or revise the order. But the seller
does not have to agree. I don't know the size of the order in question here,
but it is probably rather large and maybe in the tens of thousands of dollars.
If the seller turns out to be legit and declines your request, are you prepared
to make that payment? Sure, you can always accept an NPB if you are wrong and
refuse to pay - up to a certain point. But an NPB won't let you off the hook
if the seller decides to legally enforce the contract outside of BrickLink.
You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27068 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 18:52 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
Pretty sure not paying for a toy order would not mean diddly squat to my family
or their well being.
Please, no legal mumbo jumbo about a binding contract lawsuit over this sort
of thing.
As far as I know no one has ever been reprimanded legally for not following through
on a BL order.
(if there is I am pretty sure I know whom one of the parties would be)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
|
Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this one
part? Because if you did you might realize I was talking in the context of someone
who buys out a store's entire inventory worth tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And something that large definitely makes taking legal
action more economically viable. Obviously, we're not talking about a $15
order here.
Now you may, in your ignorance, dismiss it as legal "mumbo jumbo", but both legally
and according to BL's Terms of Service, placing an order here creates a binding
contract (at least in the USA). If you fail or refuse to perform that contract
you can be sued for breach of contract. Any judgment against you could then be
enforced against you by collecting against your assets (e.g. your home) and/or
garnishing your wages.
If anyone placed a $100,000 order with me as a joke or to give me a hard time,
and I knew they had assets or a good job, I would definitely be inclined to take
them to court to collect what they owe me. If that makes me a "bad" person in
your book, so be it.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 19:31 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
|
Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this one
part? Because if you did you might realize I was talking in the context of someone
who buys out a store's entire inventory worth tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And something that large definitely makes taking legal
action more economically viable. Obviously, we're not talking about a $15
order here.
Now you may, in your ignorance, dismiss it as legal "mumbo jumbo", but both legally
and according to BL's Terms of Service, placing an order here creates a binding
contract (at least in the USA). If you fail or refuse to perform that contract
you can be sued for breach of contract. Any judgment against you could then be
enforced against you by collecting against your assets (e.g. your home) and/or
garnishing your wages.
If anyone placed a $100,000 order with me as a joke or to give me a hard time,
and I knew they had assets or a good job, I would definitely be inclined to take
them to court to collect what they owe me. If that makes me a "bad" person in
your book, so be it.
Thor
|
But would not a contract require signatures? Since BL is not in the US would
person bringing suit have to take it to the world court?
Are contracts made on the internet without a meeting of the minds, only accepting
the sites rules, (which would be hard to prove they even read) which would be
a rule or obligation made by a third party be enforceable?
Even for a small amount like 100K would be hard to enforce or actually impossible.
I can see a judge laughing his ass off when the suit came before the judge.
"This guy is suing someone online for not paying for a box of Lego which was
never sent to him."
I think that here has to be a bit or reality over what is really going on. The
seller would have to prove damages and that there was a loss because of their
stock being tied up. That would be impossible to prove anyway. I think the
reality of the situation trumps legalities.
Just a layman's opinion from watching Judge Judy and The Peoples Court.
And of course watching Honey Boo Boo.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 19:59 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
|
Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this one
part? Because if you did you might realize I was talking in the context of someone
who buys out a store's entire inventory worth tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And something that large definitely makes taking legal
action more economically viable. Obviously, we're not talking about a $15
order here.
Now you may, in your ignorance, dismiss it as legal "mumbo jumbo", but both legally
and according to BL's Terms of Service, placing an order here creates a binding
contract (at least in the USA). If you fail or refuse to perform that contract
you can be sued for breach of contract. Any judgment against you could then be
enforced against you by collecting against your assets (e.g. your home) and/or
garnishing your wages.
If anyone placed a $100,000 order with me as a joke or to give me a hard time,
and I knew they had assets or a good job, I would definitely be inclined to take
them to court to collect what they owe me. If that makes me a "bad" person in
your book, so be it.
Thor
|
But would not a contract require signatures?
|
No.
| | Since BL is not in the US would person bringing suit have to take it to the world court?
|
No.
| | Are contracts made on the internet without a meeting of the minds, only accepting
the sites rules, (which would be hard to prove they even read) which would be
a rule or obligation made by a third party be enforceable?
|
Your question does not reflect the reality of BrickLink orders and assumes things
which are not true.
| | Even for a small amount like 100K would be hard to enforce or actually impossible.
|
Not at all. I have sued and collected on much smaller amounts.
| | I can see a judge laughing his ass off when the suit came before the judge.
|
You have a vivid imagination. More commonly it is the lawyers laughing their
asses off all the way to bank because people are so ignorant of the law and legal
system.
| | "This guy is suing someone online for not paying for a box of Lego which was
never sent to him."
|
You know quite well that is not what we are talking about here.
| | I think that here has to be a bit or reality over what is really going on. The
seller would have to prove damages and that there was a loss because of their
stock being tied up. That would be impossible to prove anyway.
|
John, you really don't know what you are talking about here. Damages would
not be difficult to prove, especially with the price guide. And there are more
types of damages and claims than you know. For example, if the vigilante buyer
were also a seller, he could then also be sued for violations of anti-competition
laws and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
| | I think the reality of the situation trumps legalities.
|
The reality here is that we are not talking about your run of the mill BL order.
We are talking about something much more substantial and worth going after. We
are also talking about more than just a mere breach of contract.
| | Just a layman's opinion from watching Judge Judy and The Peoples Court.
|
LOL! No wonder.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| All of this could be avoided if BL would just be a little more proactive. in
the process of new stores opening. eBay has limits on both the amount you can
list and the value of what you can list. Scammers will always be able to scam
but it needs to be a little harder then it is.
Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
|
Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this one
part? Because if you did you might realize I was talking in the context of someone
who buys out a store's entire inventory worth tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And something that large definitely makes taking legal
action more economically viable. Obviously, we're not talking about a $15
order here.
Now you may, in your ignorance, dismiss it as legal "mumbo jumbo", but both legally
and according to BL's Terms of Service, placing an order here creates a binding
contract (at least in the USA). If you fail or refuse to perform that contract
you can be sued for breach of contract. Any judgment against you could then be
enforced against you by collecting against your assets (e.g. your home) and/or
garnishing your wages.
If anyone placed a $100,000 order with me as a joke or to give me a hard time,
and I knew they had assets or a good job, I would definitely be inclined to take
them to court to collect what they owe me. If that makes me a "bad" person in
your book, so be it.
Thor
|
But would not a contract require signatures?
|
No.
| | Since BL is not in the US would person bringing suit have to take it to the world court?
|
No.
| | Are contracts made on the internet without a meeting of the minds, only accepting
the sites rules, (which would be hard to prove they even read) which would be
a rule or obligation made by a third party be enforceable?
|
Your question does not reflect the reality of BrickLink orders and assumes things
which are not true.
| | Even for a small amount like 100K would be hard to enforce or actually impossible.
|
Not at all. I have sued and collected on much smaller amounts.
| | I can see a judge laughing his ass off when the suit came before the judge.
|
You have a vivid imagination. More commonly it is the lawyers laughing their
asses off all the way to bank because people are so ignorant of the law and legal
system.
| | "This guy is suing someone online for not paying for a box of Lego which was
never sent to him."
|
You know quite well that is not what we are talking about here.
| | I think that here has to be a bit or reality over what is really going on. The
seller would have to prove damages and that there was a loss because of their
stock being tied up. That would be impossible to prove anyway.
|
John, you really don't know what you are talking about here. Damages would
not be difficult to prove, especially with the price guide. And there are more
types of damages and claims than you know. For example, if the vigilante buyer
were also a seller, he could then also be sued for violations of anti-competition
laws and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
| | I think the reality of the situation trumps legalities.
|
The reality here is that we are not talking about your run of the mill BL order.
We are talking about something much more substantial and worth going after. We
are also talking about more than just a mere breach of contract.
| | Just a layman's opinion from watching Judge Judy and The Peoples Court.
|
LOL! No wonder.
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 20:43 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
|
Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this one
part? Because if you did you might realize I was talking in the context of someone
who buys out a store's entire inventory worth tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And something that large definitely makes taking legal
action more economically viable. Obviously, we're not talking about a $15
order here.
Now you may, in your ignorance, dismiss it as legal "mumbo jumbo", but both legally
and according to BL's Terms of Service, placing an order here creates a binding
contract (at least in the USA). If you fail or refuse to perform that contract
you can be sued for breach of contract. Any judgment against you could then be
enforced against you by collecting against your assets (e.g. your home) and/or
garnishing your wages.
| | | | If anyone placed a $100,000 order with me as a joke or to give me a hard time,
|
|
and I knew they had assets or a good job, I would definitely be inclined to take
them to court to collect what they owe me. If that makes me a "bad" person in
your book, so be it.
Thor
|
But would not a contract require signatures?
|
No.
| | Since BL is not in the US would person bringing suit have to take it to the world court?
|
No.
| | Are contracts made on the internet without a meeting of the minds, only accepting
the sites rules, (which would be hard to prove they even read) which would be
a rule or obligation made by a third party be enforceable?
|
Your question does not reflect the reality of BrickLink orders and assumes things
which are not true.
| | Even for a small amount like 100K would be hard to enforce or actually impossible.
|
Not at all. I have sued and collected on much smaller amounts.
| | I can see a judge laughing his ass off when the suit came before the judge.
|
You have a vivid imagination. More commonly it is the lawyers laughing their
asses off all the way to bank because people are so ignorant of the law and legal
system.
| | "This guy is suing someone online for not paying for a box of Lego which was
never sent to him."
|
You know quite well that is not what we are talking about here.
|
Yes. The topic is about preventing a scam to happen. While you're talking
about someone playing a joke on you.
| | | | I think that here has to be a bit or reality over what is really going on. The
seller would have to prove damages and that there was a loss because of their
stock being tied up. That would be impossible to prove anyway.
|
John, you really don't know what you are talking about here. Damages would
not be difficult to prove, especially with the price guide. And there are more
types of damages and claims than you know. For example, if the vigilante buyer
were also a seller, he could then also be sued for violations of anti-competition
laws and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
| | I think the reality of the situation trumps legalities.
|
The reality here is that we are not talking about your run of the mill BL order.
We are talking about something much more substantial and worth going after. We
are also talking about more than just a mere breach of contract.
| | Just a layman's opinion from watching Judge Judy and The Peoples Court.
|
LOL! No wonder.
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 22:48 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27068 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 00:37 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes his usual nonsense:
| |
Yes. The topic is about preventing a scam to happen. While you're talking
about someone playing a joke on you.
|
As usual, your hostility blinds you to reason and reality. This topic is not
about preventing scams. It is about stopping members from appointing themselves
as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. I am talking about vigilantism.
And, unlike you, I don't consider it a joke at all.
Thor
|
Are you serious?
"members from appointing themselves as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner"
This is the pot calling the kettle black.
(should have been a comedian)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 08:48 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 09:13 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes his usual nonsense:
| |
Yes. The topic is about preventing a scam to happen. While you're talking
about someone playing a joke on you.
|
As usual, your hostility blinds you to reason and reality. This topic is not
about preventing scams. It is about stopping members from appointing themselves
as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. I am talking about vigilantism.
And, unlike you, I don't consider it a joke at all.
Thor
|
Are you serious?
"members from appointing themselves as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner"
This is the pot calling the kettle black.
|
Yes Sue, I am serious. Unlike you it seems. And no, I have never appointed myself
as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. I have reported problems
and expressed my approval or disapproval about certain things in the forum
- just like you and many others have done. But how does that make anyone a self-appointed
cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner? How exactly did that give anyone
the power to take any specific action on BrickLink such as effectively shutting
down a store? Please use facts and logic rather than exaggerated hyperbole and
emotion.
Thor
|
Referring to people as executioners is hyperbole and emotion. Nobody is executing
anyone. If you want to tell others how they should behave, it would make sense
to be consistent and follow your own advice.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 09:50 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 12:27 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes his usual nonsense:
| |
Yes. The topic is about preventing a scam to happen. While you're talking
about someone playing a joke on you.
|
As usual, your hostility blinds you to reason and reality. This topic is not
about preventing scams. It is about stopping members from appointing themselves
as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. I am talking about vigilantism.
And, unlike you, I don't consider it a joke at all.
Thor
|
Are you serious?
"members from appointing themselves as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner"
This is the pot calling the kettle black.
|
Yes Sue, I am serious. Unlike you it seems. And no, I have never appointed myself
as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. I have reported problems
and expressed my approval or disapproval about certain things in the forum
- just like you and many others have done. But how does that make anyone a self-appointed
cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner? How exactly did that give anyone
the power to take any specific action on BrickLink such as effectively shutting
down a store? Please use facts and logic rather than exaggerated hyperbole and
emotion.
Thor
|
Referring to people as executioners is hyperbole and emotion. Nobody is executing
anyone. If you want to tell others how they should behave, it would make sense
to be consistent and follow your own advice.
|
LOL. More attempts by you to divert the discussion?
Do you understand what a metaphor is Marc? The expression "self-appointed
cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner" is a metaphor and was obviously
intended by me to be a metaphor. Furthermore, take each word separately and each
of them is, indeed, hyperbole. Not just the executioner part.
And no Marc, I am not "telling anyone how to behave". I am expressing my opinion
that vigilante orders should not be encouraged here and inviting discussion on
this issue. An opinion several others have posted their agreement with. And a
discussion many have managed to keep quite civil and productive, even some of
those who disagree with me.
Now instead of discussing ME Marc, do you have anything constructive to say about
the issue of vigilante orders?
Thor
|
Yes. I think the are a bad idea. But no special rules are needed for them. And
CERTAINLY there is no need for you to insult people who disagree with you, as
you have done (and continue to do) over and over and over again in this thread
and others. We are getting very tired of your behaviour, Foster.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 13:06 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Yes. I think the are a bad idea. But no special rules are needed for them.
|
Thank you for finally addressing the ISSUE at hand.
| | And CERTAINLY there is no need for you to insult people who disagree with you, as
you have done (and continue to do) over and over and over again in this thread
and others.
|
But then you resort to your usual personal diversion. Sigh... Like I said Marc,
I give what I am given.
| | We are getting very tired of your behaviour, Foster.
|
The solution is simple Marc. Ignore me if you can't handle me or control
yourself.
Thor
|
I can. I don't have a problem with insulting you. I am simply pointing out
your hypocrisy.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| |
The solution is simple Marc. Ignore me if you can't handle me or control
yourself.
|
|
| | I can. I don't have a problem with insulting you.
|
And there we have it folks. Thanks for the admission Marc.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 13:39 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| |
The solution is simple Marc. Ignore me if you can't handle me or control
yourself.
|
|
| | I can. I don't have a problem with insulting you.
|
And there we have it folks. Thanks for the admission Marc.
Thor
|
No problem. That's the difference between you and I. I am an honest person
who is able to accurately describe my actions. You are a dishonest person who
constantly attacks and insults people but you are too much of a coward to admit
it.
You are welcome.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 13:52 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Biglesdug | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 14:22 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Give it a rest man.
Step away from the computer, have a drink or something.
You are not going to win a trophy for proving your point on the internet.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | Give it a rest man.
Step away from the computer, have a drink or something.
You are not going to win a trophy for proving your point on the internet.
|
https://xkcd.com/386/
(For those who don’t know XKCD: don’t miss the mouseover texts.)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 23:18 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | Give it a rest man.
Step away from the computer, have a drink or something.
You are not going to win a trophy for proving your point on the internet.
|
https://xkcd.com/386/
(For those who don’t know XKCD: don’t miss the mouseover texts.)
|
I really do like that one. Made my day. I needed it after spending 6 hours
ticketing people for parking in the handicapped spaces that should not (and they
too, yell at me. Life is so good when you are old with nothing to do.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 00:38 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | You may win this game once or twice or even a few more times. But eventually
you are going to run across a seller who looks suspicious at first but later
turns out to be legit. Are you willing to risk your home and family's well-being
if you are wrong?
Thor
|
Huh?
Please excuse me for being dense but......
......exactly how does (at worst) not paying for a Lego order "risk your home
and family's well-being"?
|
Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this one
part? Because if you did you might realize I was talking in the context of someone
who buys out a store's entire inventory worth tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And something that large definitely makes taking legal
action more economically viable. Obviously, we're not talking about a $15
order here.
Now you may, in your ignorance, dismiss it as legal "mumbo jumbo", but both legally
and according to BL's Terms of Service, placing an order here creates a binding
contract (at least in the USA). If you fail or refuse to perform that contract
you can be sued for breach of contract. Any judgment against you could then be
enforced against you by collecting against your assets (e.g. your home) and/or
garnishing your wages.
If anyone placed a $100,000 order with me as a joke or to give me a hard time,
and I knew they had assets or a good job, I would definitely be inclined to take
them to court to collect what they owe me. If that makes me a "bad" person in
your book, so be it.
Thor
|
But would not a contract require signatures?
|
No.
| | Since BL is not in the US would person bringing suit have to take it to the world court?
|
No.
| | Are contracts made on the internet without a meeting of the minds, only accepting
the sites rules, (which would be hard to prove they even read) which would be
a rule or obligation made by a third party be enforceable?
|
Your question does not reflect the reality of BrickLink orders and assumes things
which are not true.
| | Even for a small amount like 100K would be hard to enforce or actually impossible.
|
Not at all. I have sued and collected on much smaller amounts.
| | I can see a judge laughing his ass off when the suit came before the judge.
|
You have a vivid imagination. More commonly it is the lawyers laughing their
asses off all the way to bank because people are so ignorant of the law and legal
system.
| | "This guy is suing someone online for not paying for a box of Lego which was
never sent to him."
|
You know quite well that is not what we are talking about here.
| | I think that here has to be a bit or reality over what is really going on. The
seller would have to prove damages and that there was a loss because of their
stock being tied up. That would be impossible to prove anyway.
|
John, you really don't know what you are talking about here. Damages would
not be difficult to prove, especially with the price guide. And there are more
types of damages and claims than you know. For example, if the vigilante buyer
were also a seller, he could then also be sued for violations of anti-competition
laws and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
| | I think the reality of the situation trumps legalities.
|
The reality here is that we are not talking about your run of the mill BL order.
We are talking about something much more substantial and worth going after. We
are also talking about more than just a mere breach of contract.
| | Just a layman's opinion from watching Judge Judy and The Peoples Court.
|
LOL! No wonder.
Thor
|
You're funny Foster.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb316892 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Truthfully, the thing that sticks out to me is purposely placing an order without
planning on paying for it. I have only been selling a short time but if anyone
buys all of my store and then says "kidding!" I will want his/her head on a platter
and probably call my congressman to boot.
It is good to watch out for scammers but be careful of going after someone who
may not be guilty.
Paul
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Pher | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 20:55 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
Bla, bla, long story but:
You already get a NPB for not paying, if the seller and bricklink decide so.
Don't you?
And you have one week to pay if you place an order, maybe you find out that your
vigilant intended order was a great idea and pay?
Really don't get your suggestion. The suggestion, not your long explanations.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | j7r7o7c7k7 | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 22:37 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
Anyone who places a order with 100% no intent to pay and it is provin should
be banned. They are just as bad as the people they are calling a "scam" when
they do turn out to be a scam. I fully get that people are just trying to help
out, but they are doing the wrong way. You don't hold up a bank to get the
cops to show up so you can say "look here is one of the FBI top 10, I seen him
in here and thought I would rob the bank so you show up and catch him".
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToddMyers | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 07:09 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 09:04 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToddMyers writes:
| | In Suggestions, j7r7o7c7k7 writes:
| | Anyone who places a order with 100% no intent to pay and it is provin should
be banned. They are just as bad as the people they are calling a "scam" when
they do turn out to be a scam. I fully get that people are just trying to help
out, but they are doing the wrong way. You don't hold up a bank to get the
cops to show up so you can say "look here is one of the FBI top 10, I seen him
in here and thought I would rob the bank so you show up and catch him".
|
And how, exactly, will this be proven?
|
Several ways... A member admits it in the forum. A member develops a history
of buying out the entire inventory of suspect new sellers. Or a member buys out
all 1000 or 2000+ lots of a new suspected seller for their full asking price.
Seriously, how often does the latter occur? Has it ever occurred?
| | Also, much of this thread is, IMO, a mob with pitchforks going after the wrong
guy. The goal here is to prevent scammer stores, and the primary party at fault
here is BrickLink -- they have the power and the tools to take significant
steps to curb the prevalence of scammer stores, and yet they have done nothing
and, often, a store will remain open for many many hours after being reported.
The anger in this thread towards the so-called vigilante is misplaced and should
be directed at the party who is in the best position to do something about scammer
stores: BrickLink.
|
I am not angry at the person who did this. I know they thought they were doing
the right thing. I just don't approve of vigilante orders for all the reasons
noted in my first post in this thread.
I agree BrickLink needs to do more to better and more quickly handle these problems.
But that is precisely it - BRICKLINK needs to do more. Not vigilantes.
As for that "mob" you mention, it isn't against the vigilante buyer. It is
against me once again. My posts in this thread and all the posts by others supporting
my suggestion or expressing disapproval of such vigilante orders have not personally
attacked the member who placed that vigilante order. In fact, he and I have no
problems with one another and have been able to respond to each others' posts
and opinions on this matter quite civilly.
Lastly, I don't know if BL will implement this or any Admin will post in
this thread. They probably won't. But it isn't about winning or losing
this suggestion or argument. It is simply about getting a discussion going about
what has finally happened. For years I have read posts from members suggesting
that members buy out the listings of new suspected sellers. And for years many
people said that should NOT be done. Well now someone has actually done this
and publicly admitted to it in the forum. And he is being patted on the back
by many for doing so. I think it is wrong to encourage this sort of thing and,
by starting this thread, I was hoping to get a discussion started about this
separate from one specific new seller.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 09:53 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToddMyers writes:
| | In Suggestions, j7r7o7c7k7 writes:
| | Anyone who places a order with 100% no intent to pay and it is provin should
be banned. They are just as bad as the people they are calling a "scam" when
they do turn out to be a scam. I fully get that people are just trying to help
out, but they are doing the wrong way. You don't hold up a bank to get the
cops to show up so you can say "look here is one of the FBI top 10, I seen him
in here and thought I would rob the bank so you show up and catch him".
|
And how, exactly, will this be proven?
|
Several ways... A member admits it in the forum. A member develops a history
of buying out the entire inventory of suspect new sellers. Or a member buys out
all 1000 or 2000+ lots of a new suspected seller for their full asking price.
Seriously, how often does the latter occur? Has it ever occurred?
| | Also, much of this thread is, IMO, a mob with pitchforks going after the wrong
guy. The goal here is to prevent scammer stores, and the primary party at fault
here is BrickLink -- they have the power and the tools to take significant
steps to curb the prevalence of scammer stores, and yet they have done nothing
and, often, a store will remain open for many many hours after being reported.
The anger in this thread towards the so-called vigilante is misplaced and should
be directed at the party who is in the best position to do something about scammer
stores: BrickLink.
|
I am not angry at the person who did this. I know they thought they were doing
the right thing. I just don't approve of vigilante orders for all the reasons
noted in my first post in this thread.
I agree BrickLink needs to do more to better and more quickly handle these problems.
But that is precisely it - BRICKLINK needs to do more. Not vigilantes.
As for that "mob" you mention, it isn't against the vigilante buyer. It is
against me once again. My posts in this thread and all the posts by others supporting
my suggestion or expressing disapproval of such vigilante orders have not personally
attacked the member who placed that vigilante order. In fact, he and I have no
problems with one another and have been able to respond to each others' posts
and opinions on this matter quite civilly.
Lastly, I don't know if BL will implement this or any Admin will post in
this thread. They probably won't. But it isn't about winning or losing
this suggestion or argument. It is simply about getting a discussion going about
what has finally happened. For years I have read posts from members suggesting
that members buy out the listings of new suspected sellers. And for years many
people said that should NOT be done. Well now someone has actually done this
and publicly admitted to it in the forum. And he is being patted on the back
by many for doing so. I think it is wrong to encourage this sort of thing and,
by starting this thread, I was hoping to get a discussion started about this
separate from one specific new seller.
Thor
|
Foster:
Have you ever stopped to consider why so many threads that you post to become
personal and lead to acrimony and name calling and degenerate into you against
the others? You should stop and ask yourself why. What you say you started
as a hope to a discussion is now off track with several people being denigrated
by you.
"Aaahhh... At last... Some common sense! "
"Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this
one
part? Because if you did you might realize..."
"Now you may, in your ignorance,..."
"you really don't know what you are talking about here."
"As usual, your hostility blinds you to reason and reality."
"Yes Sue, I am serious. Unlike you it seems."
"Please use facts and logic rather than exaggerated hyperbole and
emotion."
From you in just this thread. Perhaps if you would not make personal comments
about the poster, regardless of what the poster writes a real discussion could
take place. As soon as someone disagrees with you, the about happens.
I have always been a supporter of you being on the forum, throughout your bans
and other problems you got yourself into. I lobbied for a long time to end your
permanent ban. I am starting to think I might have been wrong in my support.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 10:26 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 10:49 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
, nothing you say
| | about this has any credence to me.
Thor
|
That was expected. You would be so valuable if you would just tone down your
responses Foster. It is not necessary to go line by line trying to tear apart
another persons posts. I still say take a good look at yourself. It is immaterial
what you believe the others do, it is how you respond that creates tension. I
know of no other poster on this forum that creates such acrimony. No slight
is left that you do not commentated on. No disagreement is left without you always
sticking totally to your opinion. Remember Foster, no one learns who is totally
convinced of their own infallibility.
John P
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 11:05 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 113 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, ToddMyers writes:
| | In Suggestions, j7r7o7c7k7 writes:
| | Anyone who places a order with 100% no intent to pay and it is provin should
be banned. They are just as bad as the people they are calling a "scam" when
they do turn out to be a scam. I fully get that people are just trying to help
out, but they are doing the wrong way. You don't hold up a bank to get the
cops to show up so you can say "look here is one of the FBI top 10, I seen him
in here and thought I would rob the bank so you show up and catch him".
|
And how, exactly, will this be proven?
|
Several ways... A member admits it in the forum. A member develops a history
of buying out the entire inventory of suspect new sellers. Or a member buys out
all 1000 or 2000+ lots of a new suspected seller for their full asking price.
Seriously, how often does the latter occur? Has it ever occurred?
| | Also, much of this thread is, IMO, a mob with pitchforks going after the wrong
guy. The goal here is to prevent scammer stores, and the primary party at fault
here is BrickLink -- they have the power and the tools to take significant
steps to curb the prevalence of scammer stores, and yet they have done nothing
and, often, a store will remain open for many many hours after being reported.
The anger in this thread towards the so-called vigilante is misplaced and should
be directed at the party who is in the best position to do something about scammer
stores: BrickLink.
|
I am not angry at the person who did this. I know they thought they were doing
the right thing. I just don't approve of vigilante orders for all the reasons
noted in my first post in this thread.
I agree BrickLink needs to do more to better and more quickly handle these problems.
But that is precisely it - BRICKLINK needs to do more. Not vigilantes.
As for that "mob" you mention, it isn't against the vigilante buyer. It is
against me once again. My posts in this thread and all the posts by others supporting
my suggestion or expressing disapproval of such vigilante orders have not personally
attacked the member who placed that vigilante order. In fact, he and I have no
problems with one another and have been able to respond to each others' posts
and opinions on this matter quite civilly.
Lastly, I don't know if BL will implement this or any Admin will post in
this thread. They probably won't. But it isn't about winning or losing
this suggestion or argument. It is simply about getting a discussion going about
what has finally happened. For years I have read posts from members suggesting
that members buy out the listings of new suspected sellers. And for years many
people said that should NOT be done. Well now someone has actually done this
and publicly admitted to it in the forum. And he is being patted on the back
by many for doing so. I think it is wrong to encourage this sort of thing and,
by starting this thread, I was hoping to get a discussion started about this
separate from one specific new seller.
Thor
|
Foster:
Have you ever stopped to consider why so many threads that you post to become
personal and lead to acrimony and name calling and degenerate into you against
the others? You should stop and ask yourself why. What you say you started
as a hope to a discussion is now off track with several people being denigrated
by you.
"Aaahhh... At last... Some common sense! "
"Did you actually read the entire post and thread before latching on to this
one
part? Because if you did you might realize..."
"Now you may, in your ignorance,..."
"you really don't know what you are talking about here."
"As usual, your hostility blinds you to reason and reality."
"Yes Sue, I am serious. Unlike you it seems."
"Please use facts and logic rather than exaggerated hyperbole and
emotion."
From you in just this thread. Perhaps if you would not make personal comments
about the poster, regardless of what the poster writes a real discussion could
take place. As soon as someone disagrees with you, the about happens.
I have always been a supporter of you being on the forum, throughout your bans
and other problems you got yourself into.
|
| | I lobbied for a long time to end your
permanent ban. I am starting to think I might have been wrong in my support.
|
John,
You and Thor both have strong opinions, that you both don't shy from expressing.
Bringing-up Thor's ban, and your supposed aid towards lifting it, is very
un-JohnP like.
I personally enjoy both yours and Thor's inputs here in the forum. You both
are a big part of the BL forum's character.
-Cory
|
Cory, there comes a time that too much is too much. Many of the people bring
the wrath of Thor, by just responding to his posts. I am glad you enjoy our
posts, that is the purpose of most of my posts. I had been a strong supporter
of Foster's right to be here. I only brought that up because the forum degenerates
into wars and I think that is not good. Some one, some how should show him that
there is more to the forum than 100% positive feedback to his posts. We all
are wrong at times and we are all right at times. No one is beyond this. I
do stand by his quotes I listed in the forum. They do not lead to productive
conversations.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 13:28 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 23:10 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | John P |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27068 | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 08:27 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | claims about me getting too personal. They are,
in every essence of the word, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Thor
|
....and with that you have just redefined the definition of "the epitome of hypocrisy"!
As someone suggested you really need to step back and take another look at your
posts.
IF there was an award for "too personal" you surely would be in the running.
You do remember that you brought your own personal life to this LEGO forum on
more than one occasion.
In all seriousness take the advice of your 'friends' here and try looking
at your own actions and responses to them.
I do not claim to be an expert at anything but we have been here for some 12
years now and I have seen the best best and worst of things.
I have to admit you know exactly what you are doing when you post so as to get
a long and heated discussion going while slowly digressing onto other agendas.
A talent probably best suited for a discussion board, not so much of any real
value to a toy (Lego) forum.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 10:15 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 11:05 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | claims about me getting too personal. They are,
in every essence of the word, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Thor
|
....and with that you have just redefined the definition of "the epitome of hypocrisy"!
As someone suggested you really need to step back and take another look at your
posts.
IF there was an award for "too personal" you surely would be in the running.
You do remember that you brought your own personal life to this LEGO forum on
more than one occasion.
In all seriousness take the advice of your 'friends' here and try looking
at your own actions and responses to them.
I do not claim to be an expert at anything but we have been here for some 12
years now and I have seen the best best and worst of things.
I have to admit you know exactly what you are doing when you post so as to get
a long and heated discussion going while slowly digressing onto other agendas.
A talent probably best suited for a discussion board, not so much of any real
value to a toy (Lego) forum.
|
Perfect insight. Well said and thank you for your observations. We all need
to be calmer about this.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 11:26 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 100 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
To those people I would say: go on with your life and have fun with LEGO - but
not in this forum...
Best wishes,
Martin
In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | claims about me getting too personal. They are,
in every essence of the word, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Thor
|
....and with that you have just redefined the definition of "the epitome of hypocrisy"!
As someone suggested you really need to step back and take another look at your
posts.
IF there was an award for "too personal" you surely would be in the running.
You do remember that you brought your own personal life to this LEGO forum on
more than one occasion.
In all seriousness take the advice of your 'friends' here and try looking
at your own actions and responses to them.
I do not claim to be an expert at anything but we have been here for some 12
years now and I have seen the best best and worst of things.
I have to admit you know exactly what you are doing when you post so as to get
a long and heated discussion going while slowly digressing onto other agendas.
A talent probably best suited for a discussion board, not so much of any real
value to a toy (Lego) forum.
|
Perfect insight. Well said and thank you for your observations. We all need
to be calmer about this.
John P
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 12:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Zixx | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 13:58 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
|
You are absolutely right. We all know the Forum is only for sellers. If you are
not selling anything, you have no business posting here or expressing any opinions
about what goes on here on BL. LOL! It keeps getting absurder and absurder.
Thor
|
Yes, Leftie IS absolutely right. And I'm pretty sure (without checking) that
he hasn't posted his opinion in 1/3 of the posts in this entire thread. He
posted his opinion, so why the sarcastic reply? And no, I really don't want
or need 2-3 more posts for a reply. . .
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Zixx writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
|
You are absolutely right. We all know the Forum is only for sellers. If you are
not selling anything, you have no business posting here or expressing any opinions
about what goes on here on BL. LOL! It keeps getting absurder and absurder.
Thor
|
Yes, Leftie IS absolutely right. And I'm pretty sure (without checking) that
he hasn't posted his opinion in 1/3 of the posts in this entire thread. He
posted his opinion, so why the sarcastic reply? And no, I really don't want
or need 2-3 more posts for a reply. . .
|
I *DID* say he was right, didn't I? Of course, non-sellers have nothing important
to say. They should not be allowed to post in the forum or have any opinions
about BrickLink lest they "irritate" you big important sellers. That includes
me, Rick_S, PurpleDave, randyf and tens of thousands of other BL members who
don't sell anything at this particular point in time.
http://www.bricklink.com/messageStats.asp
Thor 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Zixx | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Zixx writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
|
You are absolutely right. We all know the Forum is only for sellers. If you are
not selling anything, you have no business posting here or expressing any opinions
about what goes on here on BL. LOL! It keeps getting absurder and absurder.
Thor
|
Yes, Leftie IS absolutely right. And I'm pretty sure (without checking) that
he hasn't posted his opinion in 1/3 of the posts in this entire thread. He
posted his opinion, so why the sarcastic reply? And no, I really don't want
or need 2-3 more posts for a reply. . .
|
I *DID* say he was right, didn't I? Of course, non-sellers have nothing important
to say. They should not be allowed to post in the forum or have any opinions
about BrickLink lest they "irritate" you big important sellers. That includes
me, Rick_S, PurpleDave, randyf and tens of thousands of other BL members who
don't sell anything at this particular point in time.
http://www.bricklink.com/messageStats.asp
Thor
|
Why do you think that non-sellers have nothing important to say? Many frequently
post and have meaningful things to say--but they don't take over threads
or post constantly. I know . . . sarcasm again. Long threads where it just goes
back and forth between a few individuals just turns into gunking up the forums.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 19:52 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
|
You are absolutely right. We all know the Forum is only for sellers. If you are
not selling anything, you have no business posting here or expressing any opinions
about what goes on here on BL. LOL! It keeps getting absurder and absurder.
Thor
|
Then lets drop this and neither of us answer any more posts on the subject.
John P
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
To those people I would say: go on with your life and have fun with LEGO - but
not in this forum...
Best wishes,
Martin
|
seriously you just said that? lets look at your feedback, hmm smaller then mine,
hmm lets see your start date, wow a recent date, maybe BL should ban all members
with less then 5 or 10 years from posting? and lets see I've sold a lot here
before, did rather well, helped with other things on this site, your comment
would be akin to say ignore the old or those over 40 years of age or 50 or 60
since they do nothing, congrats you made my stoplist for being insulting.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 20:32 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | +1
I notice by myself that I'm getting more and more irritated by lengthy posts
from 'sellers' who have nothing to sell, yet they have very strong opinions
on everything going on here on BL. Not only Thor, but Rick_S as well.
To those people I would say: go on with your life and have fun with LEGO - but
not in this forum...
Best wishes,
Martin
|
seriously you just said that? lets look at your feedback, hmm smaller then mine,
hmm lets see your start date, wow a recent date, maybe BL should ban all members
with less then 5 or 10 years from posting? and lets see I've sold a lot here
before, did rather well, helped with other things on this site, your comment
would be akin to say ignore the old or those over 40 years of age or 50 or 60
since they do nothing, congrats you made my stoplist for being insulting.
|
my bad your already on it for stoplisting me
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 12:17 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 19:51 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | claims about me getting too personal. They are,
in every essence of the word, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Thor
|
....and with that you have just redefined the definition of "the epitome of hypocrisy"!
As someone suggested you really need to step back and take another look at your
posts.
IF there was an award for "too personal" you surely would be in the running.
You do remember that you brought your own personal life to this LEGO forum on
more than one occasion.
In all seriousness take the advice of your 'friends' here and try looking
at your own actions and responses to them.
I do not claim to be an expert at anything but we have been here for some 12
years now and I have seen the best best and worst of things.
I have to admit you know exactly what you are doing when you post so as to get
a long and heated discussion going while slowly digressing onto other agendas.
A talent probably best suited for a discussion board, not so much of any real
value to a toy (Lego) forum.
|
Perfect insight. Well said and thank you for your observations. We all need
to be calmer about this.
John P
|
Are you and Sue seriously equating seeking forum advice on a personal matter
with personally attacking someone because of a suggestion they make? Wow! That
has got to be the most ludicrously irrational and nonsensically desperate gotta
hate on Thor comment I have ever read in this Forum. I know some of you do this
for sport. But you and Sue need to go back to being fourth string benchwarmers
in the minors.
I am very grateful that more than a dozen Forum readers were gracious enough
to share with me their own personal experiences and kind helpful advice when
I reached out here for some help. Shortly after doing so, however, I was also
warned that my haters would use this against me. And sure enough, here they are
perverting a sincere reaching out to the community.
Be careful everyone. Don't dare share anything personal about your life.
Don't dare reach out for help or a kind word of support if life gets tough.
Because some here might use it to justify personally attacking you on any other
matter.
Thor
|
That is so true. The forum is not the place to do that. See Foster, we agree
on something. And I did not say anything about your personal life as you did
when you questioned my memory problems a few years ago, but that is another story.
Personally I do not care what family or personal problems you have and I said
nothing about them. I will say I hope you are doing better.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27068 | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 23:28 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, TexMexSu writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | claims about me getting too personal. They are,
in every essence of the word, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Thor
|
....and with that you have just redefined the definition of "the epitome of hypocrisy"!
As someone suggested you really need to step back and take another look at your
posts.
IF there was an award for "too personal" you surely would be in the running.
You do remember that you brought your own personal life to this LEGO forum on
more than one occasion.
In all seriousness take the advice of your 'friends' here and try looking
at your own actions and responses to them.
I do not claim to be an expert at anything but we have been here for some 12
years now and I have seen the best best and worst of things.
I have to admit you know exactly what you are doing when you post so as to get
a long and heated discussion going while slowly digressing onto other agendas.
A talent probably best suited for a discussion board, not so much of any real
value to a toy (Lego) forum.
|
Perfect insight. Well said and thank you for your observations. We all need
to be calmer about this.
John P
|
Are you and Sue seriously equating seeking forum advice on a personal matter
with personally attacking someone because of a suggestion they make? Wow! That
has got to be the most ludicrously irrational and nonsensically desperate gotta
hate on Thor comment I have ever read in this Forum. I know some of you do this
for sport. But you and Sue need to go back to being fourth string benchwarmers
in the minors.
I am very grateful that more than a dozen Forum readers were gracious enough
to share with me their own personal experiences and kind helpful advice when
I reached out here for some help. Shortly after doing so, however, I was also
warned that my haters would use this against me. And sure enough, here they are
perverting a sincere reaching out to the community.
Be careful everyone. Don't dare share anything personal about your life.
Don't dare reach out for help or a kind word of support if life gets tough.
Because some here might use it to justify personally attacking you on any other
matter.
Thor
|
That is so true. The forum is not the place to do that. See Foster, we agree
on something. And I did not say anything about your personal life as you did
when you questioned my memory problems a few years ago, but that is another story.
Personally I do not care what family or personal problems you have and I said
nothing about them. I will say I hope you are doing better.
John P
|
John it was your post to which I was referring.
"Foster:
Have you ever stopped to consider why so many threads that you post to become
personal and lead to acrimony and name calling and degenerate into you against
the others? You should stop and ask yourself why. What you say you started
as a hope to a discussion is now off track with several people being denigrated
by you."
You too have been here since 2003 and I would hope that he would at least take
some advise from you and back off just a bit as to not encourage the responses
that are so common.
I agree this toy forum is not a place to air personal issues but that I guess
is up to the individual. I would never post on a public forum for any sort of
personal advise but to each their own.
Our posts were not attacks, they were responses to comments made previously by
the OP.
Taken out of context (or twisted around) they may appear that way however that
was certainly not the intent.
However this looks like it was directed rather firmly at a couple people.....
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
"you and Sue need to go back to being fourth string benchwarmers in the minors."
|
If you see a fire common sense tells you to call for help or try to put it out.
I guess once in a while things just burn to the ground regardless.
What a shame.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | AntsScurrying | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Have you ever thought about doing something useful with your time? Maybe volunteering
somewhere that actually needs your help.
Your posts only purpose if to create negativity, and you never have anything
to add Lego related.
Please go somewhere you are needed, or at least wanted.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | briky | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 05:23 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, AntsScurrying writes:
| | Have you ever thought about doing something useful with your time? Maybe volunteering
somewhere that actually needs your help.
Your posts only purpose if to create negativity, and you never have anything
to add Lego related.
Please go somewhere you are needed, or at least wanted.
|
Ssssssssssssssst !!! Silentium Triplex,the great prohibitor is asleep.
ooo dolce tempore non suspecto.
Amen
Chris
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 10:04 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, AntsScurrying writes:
| | Have you ever thought about doing something useful with your time?
|
Have you ever thought that others may honestly disagree about things and how
to productively use their time? I believe this thread to be useful mainly because
it is serving my purpose of having a discussion on whether vigilante orders should
be encouraged or discouraged here on BrickLink. I listed multiple reasons why
these sort of orders could harm BrickLink and its members. But rather than responding
to any of those, you choose to be personally hostile, rude and confrontational.
Your post and condescending dismissiveness about this issue is insulting not
only to me but to everyone else who shared their opinions on this ISSUE in a
civil and constructive manner. Next time, you might want to follow their example.
| | Your posts only purpose if to create negativity, and you never have anything
to add Lego related.
|
You mean like this post of yours? Your bias and hostility clearly make you blind.
Apparently, you haven't read most of my posts where I often answered questions
from members seeking help, offered advice on how to amicably resolve feedback
and other problems, discussed PaB and other "Lego-related" matters, gave tips
on selling bulk inventory and how to package orders more safely, argued for the
fairness of letting other members know if they are being called a scammer in
the forum, suggested that sellers check their inventory for color listing mistakes,
and listing the top ten most controversial events in Lego's history. Oh my!
So negative and totally unrelated to Lego. LOL.
Yes, I am sure you can find some posts where I was more negative or contentious.
I admit those happen sometimes, just like they happen to many others when they
are provoked or respond to others who are less than friendly (such as yourself).
But you made the bogus claim that my "posts ONLY purpose is to create negativity"
and that I "NEVER have anything to add Lego-related". Clearly, you are not only
wrong but blind or incapable of reading comprehension.
| | Please go somewhere you are needed, or at least wanted.
|
If you don't want to read my posts, you don't have to. Better yet, ignore
me if you can't control yourself, handle what I say, or are incapable of
civilly or constructively addressing the ISSUE at hand.
Have a nice day!
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToddMyers | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2015 06:57 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2015 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
As long as the individual is willing to take the consequences for placing such
an order, I don't see what the problem is. I would have more of a problem
if someone who placed such as order so was trying to get out of the consequences
than actually making such an order.
There are some things that are worth doing for the sake of the community which
are well worth the consequences. I think that it should be left up to the conscience
and discretion of the individual and if he is willing to accept the consequences
for doing so (without trying to make excuses for getting out of the consequences).
They should confess what they did to those in authority over them, and tell them
that they are willing to accept whatever consequence the authorities thinks fit.
If it is a just cause, then the consequences are irrelevant to the person who
broke such rules to place such an order.
However, some authorites are more lenient, and may drop the charges against the
offender -- but the one who broke the rules should never assume that this
will be the case, and should humbly and respectfully understand that they are
under the sole mercy of the authorities.
If this is the attitude of the indivdual who places such orders for what they
believe is the protection and betterment of the community, then I will let the
authorities determine the penalty, and not myself.
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Ireland, Kerry
Canada, Alberta
Lithuania, Panevėžys
France, Pays de la Loire
Belgium, Brussels
Germany, Hessen
Netherlands, Overijssel
