Discussion Forum: Messages by StormChaser (569)
Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full      Show Messages: All | Without Replies

 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 25, 2020 12:57
 Subject: Re: Have A Heart
 Viewed: 65 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In General, Legolibrarian2 writes:
  This may be in response to a new law that took effect in California this month.
It has to do with personal information in an online environment. BL headquarters
is in California, so I guess they have to abide by the law.

No, from what I can tell by reading a summary of that law it would not be applicable
in this situation.

The following is not directed to you, but to several readers who really don't
seem to get it. I understand getting it and disagreeing, but some people really
aren't getting it.

So: there is a somewhat recent trend in society of erasing people from history.
A number of different reasons are used to justify this. In this instance, privacy
appears to have been the reason. Obviously I disagree with that trend.

BrickLink assigns each person a unique identifying number upon sign-up. This
is necessary for their database of members. Now it has reduced certain users
to that number, even though the vast majority (probably all) of them did not
request it.

I will present a couple of situations that may be somewhat analogous depending
on perspective.

Imagine a graveyard where the company that owns the graveyard has assigned each
gravesite a number. One day the company goes through and erases the name from
every headstone (or most of them) and replaces those names with the numbers they
have assigned to the plots. The reasons why they did so are irrelevant - it
should be obvious that this is not a wise decision on the part of the company.

Here's another: imagine that someone comes up with a numbering system for
authors and assigns every author throughout history a unique identifying number.
Then, one day, they have the power and ability to replace each author's
name with a number in all records kept by humans. So they do it.

And then we have Hamlet by Author_291763. Moby Dick by Author_9182772. 1984
by Author_3177634. I could continue, of course.

mfav makes the point that these contributors didn't contribute much and it
was a long time ago. He's saying that it therefore doesn't matter how
we treat them. Using the analogy above, then, if an author hasn't contributed
much to the collective human store of literature, then it's okay to erase
them. But Shakespeare, much as he desired anonymity, won't get it because
he contributed too much.

Of course, the logical response is that catalog contributions are not works of
art. That is fair, but they are still effort someone put forth with the understanding
and promise that they would receive perpetual credit for the volunteer work they
did. BrickLink has broken that promise and there is no way to justify that.
A username is not (and correct me if I'm wrong) PII.

It amazes me that I'm putting so much effort into explaining the effects
of erasing history. I think I may know the reason: nearly everyone alive today
grew up in cultures where everything is disposable. It is a logical extension
to see humans in the same way. I'm arguing against that way of looking at
the past. I'm arguing for treating people with the respect they deserve
and keeping promises. I'm arguing against erasure.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 25, 2020 12:07
 Subject: Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 75022-1
 Viewed: 22 times
 Topic: Inventories Requests
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Inventories Requests, teraith writes:
  Please make changes to the following inventory:
 
Set No: 75022  Name: Mandalorian Speeder
* 
75022-1 (Inv) Mandalorian Speeder
195 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2013
Sets: Star Wars: Star Wars The Clone Wars

* Add 2 Part 64802 Dark Bluish Gray Minifigure, Jet Pack with Nozzles

Comments from Submitter:
The deathwatch command have them as per the instructions.

Those items are already included in the inventory of the set. They exist in
the sub-inventories of these figures:

 
Minifig No: sw0495  Name: Mandalorian Super Commando (Head with High Brow Pattern)
* 
sw0495 (Inv) Mandalorian Super Commando (Head with High Brow Pattern)
Minifigures: Star Wars: Star Wars The Clone Wars
 
Minifig No: sw0494  Name: Mandalorian Super Commando
* 
sw0494 (Inv) Mandalorian Super Commando
Minifigures: Star Wars: Star Wars The Clone Wars

If you click on the Break Minifigs link at the top of the inventory page
the jet packs will be shown in the complete inventory.

The packs, by the way, are pearl dark gray, not dark bluish gray.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 25, 2020 03:31
 Subject: Inventory Change Request for Set 70731-1
 Viewed: 36 times
 Topic: Inventories Requests (Entry)
 Status:Open
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
Please make changes to the following inventory:
 
Set No: 70731  Name: Jay Walker One
* 
70731-1 (Inv) Jay Walker One
359 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2015
Sets: NINJAGO: Possession

* Add 1 Minifig njo184s Jay (Deepstone Armor) - Possession, Lightning Pack with Yellow Danger Stripes and Gold Lightning Reactor Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 24, 2020 13:41
 Subject: Re: Have A Heart
 Viewed: 68 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In General, MidwestBrick writes:
  In the long-run, why does it matter?

You make a fine argument. And if we were all to agree with it, then this page
should be removed from BrickLink altogether (which you clearly support):

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp

But to answer your question, I'll give you one way in which it actually does
matter. Catalog and inventory administrators sometimes have to make judgments
about the reliability of information that members submit. Contributors build
a reputation based on the quality of work they've done in the past.

Looking back on past work done to know how reliable it should be considered,
it actually does mean something to be able to identify a user and not just see
that one the blusers did it.

  This literally sounds like an employee of mine that needs to know for every task they do that we all know they did it. After awhile, it doesn't hold any merit and I really don't care. The task was completed and we can move on.

Yeah, but if you truly believed that, then you would refer to all your employees
by a number. You would say things like, "Employee Number 3827, go assist Employees
Number 99234 and 439 with the task they're working on."

But you don't. Because people have names and you treat them like people,
not cogs in your machine.

At least I hope you do.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 24, 2020 13:28
 Subject: Re: Have A Heart
 Viewed: 70 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In General, Andrsv writes:
  It is probably related to privacy laws. If someone deletes their account it is
for a reason, and many want their info removed. This is a guess based on related
issues on other places.

This was done wholesale for a large number of users at the same time and thus
was likely NOT based on privacy laws. The likelihood that hundreds of thousands
of users simultaneously requested that their information be removed is remarkably
low.

The Help Center states:

If you have done any of the following, then that information and your user
profile cannot be deleted but all other information attached to your user profile
will be deleted
:

•Placed or received at least 1 order
•Changed your username or a profile was merged into your username
•Added at least 1 item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 image small or large to the catalog
•Added at least 1 inventory of an item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 relationship to the catalog
•Added at least 1 link to the links section
•Added at least 1 inventory change request to the catalog
•Added weight, dimensions or color code for at least 1 item in the catalog
•Are an inventories verifier and verified at least 1 inventory
•Sent any messages to other members through the contact form
•Posted a message in our discussion forum and it is still there
•Moved a discussion forum post and the message is still there
•Are currently or have been before banned from Chat


I assume BrickLink decided that sentence in bold meant that the username was
part of the information that should be removed.

I get privacy laws and removing information attached to profiles, but taking
the username is what I have a problem with. I don't see any reason whatsoever
why it was necessary to go that far.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 24, 2020 13:20
 Subject: Re: Question about flags (parts 4495a and 4495b)
 Viewed: 27 times
 Topic: Inventories
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Inventories, WilliamRaine writes:
  would it be correct to submit a change request for the flags . . . since it appears that way in the instructions

No, part variant change requests should be based on actual sets contents and
not set instructions. Ideally, of course.

Set instructions don't always match set contents and inventories are intended
to represent actual set contents. A change request would need to be made based
on what was found in a brand new set.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 24, 2020 13:06
 Subject: Have A Heart
 Viewed: 276 times
 Topic: Catalog
 Status:Open
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
I can't help myself from returning to this topic.

It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").

The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.

The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.

Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?

BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.

BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.

I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
 


 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 24, 2020 11:49
 Subject: Re: Question about flags (parts 4495a and 4495b)
 Viewed: 43 times
 Topic: Inventories
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Inventories, WilliamRaine writes:
  I am replacing a few parts on set 7038-1 Troll Assault Wagon and noticed the
two flags included are listed as different variants....the dark blue is lefted
as "wave left" and the pearl gold as "wave right"

My set has the opposite style flags, and the instructions clearly show both flags
as the "wave left" variant.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the inventory page:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=7038-1

you will see the following sentence:

View a log of completed changes made to this inventory.

Clicking there will display the history of changes made to this set's inventory.

  Is this a mistake in the inventory, or did the set
really come with both flags pointing in different directions?

According to BrickLink's timeline the flag change happened roughly around
2008, which is the year this set was released. So it's quite possible that
some 7038-1 sets came with left flags, some came with right flags, and some came
with both.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 23, 2020 00:12
 Subject: Re: Attack of the Blusers
 Viewed: 90 times
 Topic: Suggestions
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
  Many historic accounts, such as major contributors or Dan's own personal
account were intentionally untouched by the process.

Thank you for sharing.

I was wondering why Swanberg's account retained the name. Since major contributors
will not be turned into blusers at some point, then I feel much better about
the whole thing.

I don't want to be a bluser.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Jan 22, 2020 16:31
 Subject: Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6524-1
 Viewed: 32 times
 Topic: Inventories Requests
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Inventories Requests, Redrobboe writes:
  Please make changes to the following inventory:
 
Set No: 6524  Name: Blizzard Blazer
* 
6524-1 (Inv) Blizzard Blazer
42 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 1988
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Traffic

* Delete 1 Part 3705 Black Technic, Axle 4
* Add 2 Part 3749 Black Technic, Axle Pin without Friction Ridges Lengthwise

Comments from Submitter:
change gives a more stable axle arrangement for rear wheels, Not clear on instructions as to what item to use for an axle.

What source are you using to request these changes?

Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More