RockMyAmadeus

How I feel after opening this thread and everyone's still dancing around paypal personal. Interestingly enough, Judgment Day anniversary is only ten days away. August 29, 1997! Duh duh..duh duhDUNT. Duh duh..duh duhDUNT.

Yup. That's how it works. Of course, you'd be stepping over dollars to pick up dimes, but hey....whatever works for you. So....how much are you going to pay Swick for his time and effort, and how will you pay him...?

Does it have to be either/or...?

Artist charges $10 per sig. I get 20 books signed. Artist charges $200. Facilitator pays that $200. That $200 is paid back by me to the Facilitator via Paypal personal, and has nothing to do with the charge the Facilitator may charge me for their service. The facilitator didn't make any money on that aspect of the situation. They simply paid the artist on my behalf. That's one of the things Paypal personal is for, specifically, as defined. Another example: I pay a plumber to fix the toilet on family property, as the caretaker. My family member pays me back via Paypal personal. Again, I'm not selling the toilet, nor the service. I'm only "facilitating" the actual transaction between my family member and the plumber. No popcorn necessary. Seems there's a business opportunity in there somewhere....being a professional middleman. I could run around paying for stuff on behalf of people...and when they reimburse me they can pay by paypal personal and maybe add in extra for my time and travel expenses. Complete Fee AVOIDANCE!!! Oh ....would that mean I was providing a service? Cripes!!! I think my new get rich slow scheme has hit a pothole! I can't tell whether you're being serious or sarcastic or both. The separate fee that the facilitator charges for handing that $200 to the artist IS a SERVICE, and should be paid as a good/service. Obviously, they don't get to "add in some for their time and travel expenses" to a personal payment. When I do work on someone's books, and they ask me to send the books to CGC on their behalf under my account, I ask for TWO payments: one for the CGC charges, which is a PERSONAL payment...and the other for MY services, which is a GOOD/SERVICE payment, for which I pay the fee. There's no chance you thought I was serious. None. There's a 2.9% chance I thought you were. (I meant about whether you were tweaking me, or agreeing with me. )

Artist charges $10 per sig. I get 20 books signed. Artist charges $200. Facilitator pays that $200. That $200 is paid back by me to the Facilitator via Paypal personal, and has nothing to do with the charge the Facilitator may charge me for their service. The facilitator didn't make any money on that aspect of the situation. They simply paid the artist on my behalf. That's one of the things Paypal personal is for, specifically, as defined. Another example: I pay a plumber to fix the toilet on family property, as the caretaker. My family member pays me back via Paypal personal. Again, I'm not selling the toilet, nor the service. I'm only "facilitating" the actual transaction between my family member and the plumber. No popcorn necessary. Seems there's a business opportunity in there somewhere....being a professional middleman. I could run around paying for stuff on behalf of people...and when they reimburse me they can pay by paypal personal and maybe add in extra for my time and travel expenses. Complete Fee AVOIDANCE!!! Oh ....would that mean I was providing a service? Cripes!!! I think my new get rich slow scheme has hit a pothole! I can't tell whether you're being serious or sarcastic or both. The separate fee that the facilitator charges for handing that $200 to the artist IS a SERVICE, and should be paid as a good/service. Obviously, they don't get to "add in some for their time and travel expenses" to a personal payment. When I do work on someone's books, and they ask me to send the books to CGC on their behalf under my account, I ask for TWO payments: one for the CGC charges, which is a PERSONAL payment...and the other for MY services, which is a GOOD/SERVICE payment, for which I pay the fee.

I agree completely. IMO this is the relevant distinction, and while not perfect, it is broadly conform to the reality of private versus public transactions. It does not solve all the issues though. If you act and transact like a business, meaning systematically and with regularity, you are a merchant, if you act and transact only occasionally, fitfully, circumstantially, like a private individual would, you are not a merchant. Each transaction on its own proves nothing, and thus Paypal/Venmo is only being truthful in having an ambiguous definition, as a pattern of behaviour is the only measure possible. I agree that it is possible to argue that "personal" paypal can comprehend purchases of good and services from private individuals but that would only be on the assumption that there was no pattern of behaviour suggesting that it is in fact evidence of an ongoing business. RMAs argument has been consistent that the issue is not a single transaction, but a pattern of behaviour. So if you are essentially running a business you cannot say "hey, but each individual transaction was to somebody I know personally as a friend" because if it is regular and constant you are acting like a merchant, whether they are really your friends or not. So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal. If your purchases or sales are genuinely fitful, occasional, circumstantial (charity, hard times, sudden car repairs etc) than I believe Paypal has allowed for this reality in their policy. They will, up to a point, give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or until a pattern of behaviour shows otherwise. I'm sorry this discussion became so dramatic as there are interesting parallels between how governments handle these issues in private tax declarations/audits and how Paypal approaches regular versus personal payments. If occasionally Joe sells his best friend John a stack of used trades because they are fanboy readers, it is highly unlikely the government will care enough to pursue Joe for the 5% GST normally collected on all retail sales. If however over time Joe's finances show larger and larger purchases of inventory that are then resold for larger and larger incomes, they will sooner or later pursue him if it is undeclared. Above a certain amount, I think its 35k?, he would also have to pay the government the GST he would be expected to have collected. Its all thresholds of patterns of behaviour, and another reason it is hard to make damning judgments of singular acts, at least in this context. Good catch, Ed. I was perusing Venmo's site and terms yesterday, but I didn't see that one. Yes, Crassus, this is a good summation of the issue. Though, personally, I would suggest that one ought to pay for a service ANY time one uses it, Paypal has allowed for the occasional and infrequent transaction between friends to be a "pass." It's like yard sales. Several municipalties have rules regarding the frequency of these sales, and most of the time, governmental tax agencies don't bother with the occasional sale. But....if you're having a yard sale every other weekend, then you're going to be having a problem. Same here. The problem then comes down to "what is the line between frequent and infrequent"? As I said, that line is ethically solved by treating every purchase as a purchase, but aside from that, it is really up to Paypal to determine what is acceptable and what is not...not the individuals using Paypal. Paypal graciously allows exceptions to their rules, but they are exceptions to their rules, not "workarounds" for people who don't want to pay just because they don't have to. In other words: If Paypal gives someone the right to use a Personal payment for a purchase, whether it's one time, or every time, that is not stealing, because it's Paypal's right to give or deny that ability to users of their service. If someone takes that "right", on their own, without asking Paypal's permission...that is stealing, even if it is a single act, and even if Paypal forgives them after the fact. It's not their right to decide on their own what Paypal will and should allow. It's all about motive and intent. And we're back to the coke from the store owner again. And...frankly...if a buyer was actually friends with, and cared about, his or her selling friend, they wouldn't put his/her Paypal account at risk of losing the ability to do Personal transactions by sending them Personal payments for purchases at all. As mentioned before, there are people here who have lost that ability, and it makes it very hard to pay them back for Artist fees, or grading fees, or any of the other "pass through" fees that Personal was intended for. They complain about the fee, but if they hadn't been chowderheads to begin with, they wouldn't have lost the ability. Very, very good discussion, gentlemen. If everyone kept a level head, a lot of serious issues like this could be hammered out, without the need for any drama. A boy can dream, right...? Please explain why these "pass through" outlays which are out-of-pocket business expenses associated with someone (your friend) doing business and getting paid for doing it......is considered by you to be the same as paying back someone for lunch and not subject to fees? Artist charges $10 per sig. I get 20 books signed. Artist charges $200. Facilitator pays that $200. That $200 is paid back by me to the Facilitator via Paypal personal, and has nothing to do with the charge the Facilitator may charge me for their service. The facilitator didn't make any money on that aspect of the situation. They simply paid the artist on my behalf. That's one of the things Paypal personal is for, specifically, as defined. Another example: I pay a plumber to fix the toilet on family property, as the caretaker. My family member pays me back via Paypal personal. Again, I'm not selling the toilet, nor the service. I'm only "facilitating" the actual transaction between my family member and the plumber. No popcorn necessary.

As I said before.... Calling an ACT stealing doesn't mean you are calling someone a THIEF. People obviously get hot and bothered at being labeled "thieves", and rightfully so. Being a thief is a bad thing, and should be discouraged at all levels of society. We have all stolen. We are not all thieves. There's a real, genuine difference between the two. There are thieves reading this as we speak, people who see no problem with "getting ahead" at the expense of others, whenever and wherever they can. And there are people who are not thieves, who nonetheless justify the occasional theft here and there, but do NOT take any and every opportunity they have to steal. It is about intent and motive, not (necessarily) acts.

As I allude to above, the missing link that would reconcile this apparent contradiction is the definition of "goods or services." IF those terms were defined as "objects or services purchased from a business or merchant," then there is no contradiction, because your friend is not a business or merchant. Is this what they really mean by "goods and services"...it sure would reconcile a few things if so. Of course, they leave us guessing, because they don't define "goods and services." Sure they do. If you exchange money for a tangible item...or you pay someone to provide a service to you....that's "goods and services." It's not about WHO you're sending money to that is the issue with Paypal...it is WHY you're sending money. That's why they don't bother with what someone's "friend" may be, and is this person a merchant, and is that person not a merchant, and all sorts of needlessly complex scenarios. If I say "Ed, I like your Tales from the Crypt #37. I'd like to buy it from you." You say "ok, sure. $200." I say "ok, here's the money." You say "ok, here's the book." That's a transaction, and subject to the fees. If I say "Ed, I'd like you to come over and mow my lawn." You say "ok, I'll be over Sunday. $20." I say "ok, deal." That's a transaction, and subject to the fees. It needn't be unnecessarily complex. Are you a merchant? Do you have a comic book store or a run a lawn mowing service? No. But did you exchange an item or a service you owned for money I owned? Yes. Then it's a purchase, and subject to a transaction fee.

Of course, this leads to its own free-standing discussion...that is, when does an individual become a merchant/business....? I would argue that buying and selling regularly here on the Boards is not sufficient to meet that definition. Again, it depends on circumstances and intent. Take me, for example. I buy and sell a lot from and to people on these boards. When I buy and sell, I am rearranging my collection, period. I am selling books I no longer want to collect, and buying books that I want to collect. In most cases, when I sell a book, I'm ecstatic if I can just break even - I guarantee you that in the majority of my sales, I lose money....and I do it a lot of times. I'm OK with that...I enjoy the books for awhile, and I view the "losses" as just part of the cost of evolving my collection. Is that consistent with me behaving like a business/merchant? I would argue not. I sell books to buy more books. If I didn't have to sell books to buy more books, I would never sell anything. But the fact that I sell, regardless of why, makes me a merchant, for the purposes of definition, by virtue of me exchanging money for goods and/or services. The solution, then, isn't whether one personally believes one is a "merchant" or not, because that justifiably opens the door to never claiming merchant status, for anyone. In that case, literally anything goes. So, if relying on one's own personal definition of oneself doesn't work, the solution is to rely on what Paypal (and others) define it is, for the purposes of using their services. And they say "if you exchange money for a good or service, even between friends or family (and, again, one could call ANYONE their "friend" to justify non-payment) you are a subject to our fees." And, since Paypal owns and provides the service, they can make exceptions as they see fit. Not as I see fit.

It's not a contradiction. Your friend isn't selling either a sandwich, or a "sandwich buying service", nor is he/she operating as a "loan agency." It's a pass through, and trying to call it a "sub-contract" stretches the meaning of that term far, far beyond all credulity. In other words, you didn't buy the sandwich from your friend and your friend isn't running a loan agency to help anyone buy sandwiches. If your friend was loaning, not just you, but everyone "lunch money", then you'd have a case. But they're not. It's all about intent and motive. And even if you managed to convince someone that this was, in fact, a "sub-contract"....again, stretching the meaning of that term past all credulity...it still comes down to the fact that it's Paypal's decision how they are going to allow users to use their services, not yours, mine, or anyone else's.

No one was called a thief. Thank you, though, for taking yet another unprovoked shot. What is that, like 32,765? And people actually defend your behavior with me. That's the amazing part!

Also...even I won't argue with lost causes. I wanted to see you try. I did. So did many others. But if they want to think that previews count, they can certainly believe that. Is it an ethical issue? No. So, you make your case, and then move on. Some people choose not to be reasoned with, and that's ok. If someone wants to believe the moon is made of bleu cheese salad dressing...despite all evidence to the contrary....that person probably cannot be reasoned with about much of anything, so you just move on. They can believe what they'd like, irrational as it may be. That puts the lie to the whole "you just argue to argue" claim, by the way. If there's no hope of reason...there's no point in arguing.

I agree completely. IMO this is the relevant distinction, and while not perfect, it is broadly conform to the reality of private versus public transactions. It does not solve all the issues though. If you act and transact like a business, meaning systematically and with regularity, you are a merchant, if you act and transact only occasionally, fitfully, circumstantially, like a private individual would, you are not a merchant. Each transaction on its own proves nothing, and thus Paypal/Venmo is only being truthful in having an ambiguous definition, as a pattern of behaviour is the only measure possible. I agree that it is possible to argue that "personal" paypal can comprehend purchases of good and services from private individuals but that would only be on the assumption that there was no pattern of behaviour suggesting that it is in fact evidence of an ongoing business. RMAs argument has been consistent that the issue is not a single transaction, but a pattern of behaviour. So if you are essentially running a business you cannot say "hey, but each individual transaction was to somebody I know personally as a friend" because if it is regular and constant you are acting like a merchant, whether they are really your friends or not. So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal. If your purchases or sales are genuinely fitful, occasional, circumstantial (charity, hard times, sudden car repairs etc) than I believe Paypal has allowed for this reality in their policy. They will, up to a point, give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or until a pattern of behaviour shows otherwise. I'm sorry this discussion became so dramatic as there are interesting parallels between how governments handle these issues in private tax declarations/audits and how Paypal approaches regular versus personal payments. If occasionally Joe sells his best friend John a stack of used trades because they are fanboy readers, it is highly unlikely the government will care enough to pursue Joe for the 5% GST normally collected on all retail sales. If however over time Joe's finances show larger and larger purchases of inventory that are then resold for larger and larger incomes, they will sooner or later pursue him if it is undeclared. Above a certain amount, I think its 35k?, he would also have to pay the government the GST he would be expected to have collected. Its all thresholds of patterns of behaviour, and another reason it is hard to make damning judgments of singular acts, at least in this context. Good catch, Ed. I was perusing Venmo's site and terms yesterday, but I didn't see that one. Yes, Crassus, this is a good summation of the issue. Though, personally, I would suggest that one ought to pay for a service ANY time one uses it, Paypal has allowed for the occasional and infrequent transaction between friends to be a "pass." It's like yard sales. Several municipalties have rules regarding the frequency of these sales, and most of the time, governmental tax agencies don't bother with the occasional sale. But....if you're having a yard sale every other weekend, then you're going to be having a problem. Same here. The problem then comes down to "what is the line between frequent and infrequent"? As I said, that line is ethically solved by treating every purchase as a purchase, but aside from that, it is really up to Paypal to determine what is acceptable and what is not...not the individuals using Paypal. Paypal graciously allows exceptions to their rules, but they are exceptions to their rules, not "workarounds" for people who don't want to pay just because they don't have to. In other words: If Paypal gives someone the right to use a Personal payment for a purchase, whether it's one time, or every time, that is not stealing, because it's Paypal's right to give or deny that ability to users of their service. If someone takes that "right", on their own, without asking Paypal's permission...that is stealing, even if it is a single act, and even if Paypal forgives them after the fact. It's not their right to decide on their own what Paypal will and should allow. It's all about motive and intent. And we're back to the coke from the store owner again. And...frankly...if a buyer was actually friends with, and cared about, his or her selling friend, they wouldn't put his/her Paypal account at risk of losing the ability to do Personal transactions by sending them Personal payments for purchases at all. As mentioned before, there are people here who have lost that ability, and it makes it very hard to pay them back for Artist fees, or grading fees, or any of the other "pass through" fees that Personal was intended for. They complain about the fee, but if they hadn't been chowderheads to begin with, they wouldn't have lost the ability. Very, very good discussion, gentlemen. If everyone kept a level head, a lot of serious issues like this could be hammered out, without the need for any drama. A boy can dream, right...?

This sounds like you wrote it. Did you write it? Or, did you solicit it? This is not a natural, spontaneous response.

Also...even I won't argue with lost causes.

No, really, you can handle it. I have faith in you. Those windmills won't tilt at themselves, you know.

Details - This is a video-based music game. It's approximately 15 minutes in length. - There are 10 songs, each approximately one minute in length. - Songs are identified by number in the video. The number will appear for 14 seconds. - Each song is worth 5 to 10 points depending on the degree of difficulty (see chart below). - Points will be earned by being the first to correctly post the song title, artist, and corresponding number here in the DFJ. For example, "3) Song Title, Artist." - Most of the songs in this particular game are easy to identify. Points Per Song 1) 7 2) 8 3) 5 4) 7 5) 5 6) 7 7) 10 8) 7 9) 8 10) 7 Advice on Playing - I've obviously never played this game before, but I'm guessing the best way to play would be to have two windows open: one playing the video; and the other opened to the DFJ, allowing you to post your answers without affecting playback of the video. - Crank the volume. The software used only allowed limited gain control, so there are a couple of tunes that are noticeably lower in volume than the others. Plus, you'll miss the whole experience if you play it like MUZAK in an elevator, and if I find out I'll make fun of you. If there's a lot of participation and interest, I might do more (probably with limited video content); otherwise, these are WAY too difficult to produce. The Music Game starts tomorrow, Wednesday 8/19/15 @Noon (PDT). Will any of this music be by Mozart? More specifically, will any of this be recordings OF Mozart, playing his own work.....? Um...no. Drat! I don't stand a chance, especially with all that hippie punk rock music that's sure to be involved. If it's not 80's pop, I'm lost. Cool story, bra!

This was actually a pretty useful conversation. Lots of things brought out into the open and at least acknowledged, if not necessarily resolved. Plus, maybe a payment service that solves the problem of fees. If Venmo turns out to be the real deal, then thank you, Jaybuck, for mentioning it.

Details - This is a video-based music game. It's approximately 15 minutes in length. - There are 10 songs, each approximately one minute in length. - Songs are identified by number in the video. The number will appear for 14 seconds. - Each song is worth 5 to 10 points depending on the degree of difficulty (see chart below). - Points will be earned by being the first to correctly post the song title, artist, and corresponding number here in the DFJ. For example, "3) Song Title, Artist." - Most of the songs in this particular game are easy to identify. Points Per Song 1) 7 2) 8 3) 5 4) 7 5) 5 6) 7 7) 10 8) 7 9) 8 10) 7 Advice on Playing - I've obviously never played this game before, but I'm guessing the best way to play would be to have two windows open: one playing the video; and the other opened to the DFJ, allowing you to post your answers without affecting playback of the video. - Crank the volume. The software used only allowed limited gain control, so there are a couple of tunes that are noticeably lower in volume than the others. Plus, you'll miss the whole experience if you play it like MUZAK in an elevator, and if I find out I'll make fun of you. If there's a lot of participation and interest, I might do more (probably with limited video content); otherwise, these are WAY too difficult to produce. The Music Game starts tomorrow, Wednesday 8/19/15 @Noon (PDT). Will any of this music be by Mozart? More specifically, will any of this be recordings OF Mozart, playing his own work.....?

Is it weird that 2010 was 5+ years ago...? Stop the world, I want to get off.

PS. It's nice to know I still inhabit your sigline. When did I say that, like 2010...?

Totally unrelated: after 6 years, I have taken you off ignore. Yeah, yeah, I know you took me off a few years ago, but...habit, ya know...? It was tradition. Ah, Tranny....what would life be like without us....? Sadder and more taciturn, that's for sure.

Because I don't sell books that look like that to unsophisticated buyers as a raw 9.8. that's not what i am saying. put aside what you think that grade actually is. i see the spine ticks too and someone can make an informed decision. if you had a raw copy of that book you felt was a strong 9.8 candidate would you put it up for a $36 opening bid when that is practically what slabs are selling for? i'll give divad credit, he has cajones and sometimes it pays off. I might if I was absolutely sure it was a 9.8. Frankly, I would probably call it a 9.6 or better. It's been discussed ad nauseam here, he overgrades on some of his ebay listings. That's not cajones. That is either an inability to grade 9.8s or it is deliberately taking advantage of buyers who can't grade for themselves. You're the only thing ad nauseum around here. All you sell is manufactured plastic collectibles. You couldn't grade your way out the hole you live in. Uh, no offense. Next grading contest. You both enter and one comes out alive. I've already offered to select a number of divad's raw listings, have them sent to a neutral 3rd party and let CGC's grade be the judge of the results. I believe I offered to let the graded slabs be auctioned off for a charity of the winner's choice. He has declined. In fairness, RMA thinks this is not a fair test to divad as (I believe this was the objection) divad has everything to lose and nothing to gain. But, when someone comes touting extraordinary results from selling UHG raw books on ebay, many of which appear to be overgraded, I feel no compulsion to remain silent. To divad's credit, he provides reasonably large scans. I just think people buying his overgraded books (some but not all of his offerings) can't grade, don't pay attention or don't care. That doesn't make them any less overgraded. RMA sighting! Or is that citing...? I don't disagree with anything you've said...he just doesn't have anything to gain from such an endeavor. If there was some potential reward for him, it might make it worth it.

You ever watch a gif and say "Wait, show me what happened next...!" ...?