joe_collector

Agreed, it's the standard marketplace transaction of a seller taking payment for a book or other collectible, just like eBay or a dealer website. Yours is more a personal service, so I wouldn't say asking for 3% to cover Paypal would be out of line. But as you said, asking for 3% on a $500 book sale would be, as that's a business transaction.

The CGC Marketplace is making me nostalgic for EBay.

Me too, but I'm speaking of the Marketplace as a whole, and the potential for this fraudulent loophole to cause a lot of damage. I'm not sure that all buyers realize that Paypal can revoke their account if they're caught, and that using this payment method for a sales transaction means ZERO Buyer Protection in case of fraud.

So what does everyone think of this recent growth of "Paypal PERSONAL Only" sales on here? I'm not referring to the "it would be nice if you sent a Personal payment, but cool if not" comments, but strict requirements to disregard the PP TOS and your buyer protection, or not participate in the sales? These are NOT personal payments, but sales, you can have your account revoked or suspended for pulling this scam. I think by allowing sellers to freely disregard Paypal policy and terms of service, CGC is on a slipperly slope here, and a few scams later, it could really harm their reputation and that of the Marketplace itself. Thoughts?

Just a few months too late.

Probably because it's so lame and over-used: Me apologizing = Hell freezing over.

It's spelled F-L-A-T-U-L-E-N-C-E.

Ok, is it just me, or is this some language other than English above! It's about par for the course around here.

apologetic wuss. United Way Volunteer.

Hey, I apologize to everyone for butting in this thread - something about the scenario rubbed me the wrong way, but I still shouldn't have aired in such a public manner. Who knows, something good might come of this - crazier things have happened.

So what does everyone think what's going on over here: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3738590#Post3738590 Not saying this "seller gets a free pass for reneging" stuff is being abused, but it certainly could be, and gets us back to the " Rules" guideline being added. I have been privy to a scenario (not this one!) whereby a board member hit the BIN, then someone else PM'ed the seller later and offered *double* the amount, and the seller reneged on the original deal, saying that his "book had been damaged". I realize it's impossible to police this kind of fraudulent stuff, but I think it would be easier if sellers knew going in that in-thread BINs need to take precedence.

Agreed, and I would hope that others would follow the same advice. (thumbs u

No, and I give to charities a lot, including a direct withdrawal at work for United Way, but as the saying goes, there can be too much of a good thing. I hit the forums for a break from real life, to talk/argue/etc. funny books, and I would imagine I'm not alone. When real bad news hits a member of our community, I'm all for a discussion and help (like with Nik's untimely passing) but I also think running a Forum Auction for someone's second cousin is going a bit too far. Hey Vince, Just a little curious, did you ever donate anything to Nik's auction? As much as I would like to know the answer to this question, it really isn't anyone's business. I don't mind, and the answer is no, I was not able to buy anything at Nik's auction. If you remember, I was immediately heading off on a family vacation where I didn't have Net access, and when this was brought up (the auction was during a Canadian long weekend) I endured all sorts of insults along the lines of "I guess Nik should have picked a more convenient time to pass away" and similar. Pretty low stuff, even for the CGC Boards.

I guess I shouldn't argue over the change from the CGC Forums into the New United Way...

No, and I give to charities a lot, including a direct withdrawal at work for United Way, but as the saying goes, there can be too much of a good thing. I hit the forums for a break from real life, to talk/argue/etc. funny books, and I would imagine I'm not alone. When real bad news hits a member of our community, I'm all for a discussion and help (like with Nik's untimely passing) but I also think running a Forum Auction for someone's second cousin is going a bit too far.

The same here, and lately with all these forum drives, social conscience and never-ending charity auctions, it seems that the CGC Forums needs a new logo:

I can see your point, so why is Steve telling me to support this action because "Jan needs the money" - it makes no sense. And to anyone simple-minded enough to think that Danny is going to leave money lying around for authorities to find (in the event he goes to jail). Danny is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

Again, learn to read - it was an insult to you guys.

Steve, you need to reread my comment, rather than just skimming it and firing off like a drunken sailor. I am simply wondering, as others have as well - including several lawyers, if Jan and Danny Jr are the clients, why Mark is seeking to gather evidence against their 'source of income", curtailing it greatly, or possibly ending it totally if Danny actually gets jail time. The thread title is: It's finally time to put Danny Dupcak out of business auction, which leaves no question as to the purpose of the money spent. It's not "let's get Danny to fulfill his familial obligations" as you would expect in a child support case... If Jan "needs the money" as you put it, why are you supporting Mark's quest to 'get" that source of income? It looks as if Jan and her child are being used as pawns in all this, and that doesn't seem right.

1) The immediate case is *not* about bringing Danny to justice, but about getting additional child support for his illegitimate progeny. 2) Through this case, Mark hopes to get access to Danny's illicit financial network, including potentially-fraudulent comic business, thereby using that in future cases. People can spend their money any way they choose, and other lawyers have brought up the obvious ethical issues (like what if Danny goes to jail, thereby cutting off all support?), but I'm getting the feeling that since "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", no one really gives a rat's butt about Little Danny Jr in all this.

Kudos out to GACollectibles for another pack of 70's Byrne books.

Agreed, and giving a positive just so you can leave Star ratings (which expire and can be diluted by shills) is pretty lame. No one even reads positive comments, just negs.

When the following guideline was devised Links to outside sites for any purpose involving purchasing the offered books are not allowed. its purpose was to make sure a dealer didn't come on and post a free ad for their dealer site like this: Hey, it's XXX from www.dealerspam.com, here to offer some books that were previously listed on www.dealerspam.com and are now removed to keep with the guidelines. We at www.dealerspam.com truly respect CGC members and we invite you to try out our www.dealerspam.com website. Dealer XXX www.dealerspam.com But the wording is incorrect, as can be interpreted as limiting this to "involving purchasing the offered books" only, which is already covered in the previous "board-only offering" guideline. So as someone pointed out, dealers could list their websites, email addresses, post ads, etc. over and over and over, as long as they weren't related to the posted books for sale, which is again, not the purpose of the guideline when we first opened it for discussion.

If it's comic-related, then just post it in the appropriate era.

See, THIS is what happens when you coddle dickwad sellers: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3706400&fpart=1