RockMyAmadeus

I see your point, but I doubt many charity thread are going to be tax deductible on the boards. So if Paypal says it is ok to send friends and family for a charity thread sale, and the seller/donator never sends it, the person should suck it up because it was a charity thread? That just doesn't sound right.... Paypal doesn't say it is ok to send Personal for a charity thread "sale." If you buy something...regardless of why....it's a purchase. A purchase is not allowed to be sent via Paypal personal. If Paypal waives that fee on a case by case basis, that is PAYPAL'S decision to make, not a user's. If someone can convince Paypal to set aside their TOS for a specific transaction, more power to them, but that would be a negotiated situation of which Paypal was a party, not a disregarding of Paypal's terms on one's own accord, simply because one decided "charity." And it brings us back to the question...if you're buying something, with the expectation of receiving something...it's not charity on your part, regardless of what you call it or what you pay. You're simply buying something. And if you make an issue of it after the fact, it definitely wasn't charity. You purchased something you didn't get. I agree with all of that you've said, but to me, that still doesn't justify barring a PL nomination in the event that the purchaser does not receive their item. You can argue which wrong is greater (I think not shipping the books is the greater wrong), but that doesn't change the fact that only 1 of the 2 board participants in the transaction was wronged; and therefore, only 1 board member's actions is a threat to future board members. The Probation List is there to warn board members of other members who are dangerous to deal with; not to announce whether someone may or may not be a hypocrite. That goes back to my emphasis on the Probation List being about interaction between two board members. PayPal, being a third party, is not relevant to the Probation List. I agree with you...not sending out merchandise IS the greater wrong in a single case situation. Granted. And I agree with what you've said here, as I have said at many points in this conversation. But that doesn't negate the lack of consistency, and if we're to maintain integrity in one area, we ought to maintain it in every area, and hold everyone to the same standard. Two wrongs don't make a right, but pretending one of the wrongs didn't happen or isn't important or isn't a wrong is as grave an injustice as the other, because it has a general corrupting influence and, more importantly, is cumulative. In the former, once the offender is found out, that pretty much puts the clamps on that particular offender, even if they managed to take down a few members at once. But if unethical behavior is allowed to flourish because "hey, XXXX does it, and XXXX is a respected board member, and YYYY also says there's no problem with it, so I guess it's ok!" then how long before everyone is using Paypal personal for purchases, because no one has a problem with it? After all...people have openly declared that they will continue to steal from Paypal by using Personal for purchases, and not caring one bit about it. Indeed, almost no one has taken a stand with me and said "listen...Paypal provides a service, we should pay for that service, and using that service without paying for it really is stealing from them." That is corruption, on a grand scale. And it wouldn't be half as bad, if we maintained no PL/HOS at all...at least we would be consistent. But it's made worse by giving lip service to fair play and justice, but ignoring it when it's convenient. What is the greater injustice, accumulated? What's worse? One blow from a rotten seller? Or death by 1,000 tiny cuts to Paypal? A person who has no problem using Personal for purchases will do it as often as they like, and the only thing stopping them is their own conscience. I have zero doubt that the amount of money that's been stolen from Paypal...3% here, 3% there, pretty soon we're talking real money...positively dwarfs the amount of money individuals have lost from bad transactions here on the boards. Dwarfs it. I have no way to prove that, but I suspect it's absolutely true. How many people have never had a problem with sending money via Personal, but have cumulatively stolen hundreds, or thousands, from Paypal over the years? "Hey, Fred, I'll sell you that book for $1,000, but I don't want to pay the $29 in fees it will cost me. How's about sending it to me Personal?" I suspect that answer is: not an insignificant amount.

I see your point, but I doubt many charity thread are going to be tax deductible on the boards. So if Paypal says it is ok to send friends and family for a charity thread sale, and the seller/donator never sends it, the person should suck it up because it was a charity thread? That just doesn't sound right.... Paypal doesn't say it is ok to send Personal for a charity thread "sale." If you buy something...regardless of why....it's a purchase. A purchase is not allowed to be sent via Paypal personal. If Paypal waives that fee on a case by case basis, that is PAYPAL'S decision to make, not a user's. If someone can convince Paypal to set aside their TOS for a specific transaction, more power to them, but that would be a negotiated situation of which Paypal was a party, not a disregarding of Paypal's terms on one's own accord, simply because one decided "charity." And it brings us back to the question...if you're buying something, with the expectation of receiving something...it's not charity on your part, regardless of what you call it or what you pay. You're simply buying something. And if you make an issue of it after the fact, it definitely wasn't charity. You purchased something you didn't get.

I called no one's name out, and made it a point to state several times that this had nothing to do with anyone personally. No one has been "accused" of anything, despite what they may claim. I know that will disbelieved by some, and the detractors feel it necessary to call me a liar, but that's the way it goes. We all have to account for ourselves in the end. The facts remain: I have made this an issue for many years, and will continue to make it an issue, until it's no longer an issue, whether it's Fred, Steve, Mark, Sam, or the man on the moon involved. And if one is making a donation, which is exactly what the Paypal personal is for, why would one expect merchandise in return, and if one WAS donating, why on earth would one make an issue of it if publicly if one didn't get the items? Either it's a business transaction, or it's a donation. It cannot be both. Making an issue of not getting merchandise puts a bit of a kibosh on the whole "donation" aspect, dunnit...? The item is the donation, not the payment for the item. No different than any charity auction where items are donated and people bid (often more than they would in a standard transaction) for those items. 1. The items weren't donations by the owner. They were being sold by the owner, on behalf of himself. That isn't charity, that's commerce. 2. If the items WERE the donation, and "payment for the item" is NOT, as you state, then payment for the item is a regular purchase, and not eligible for Paypal personal. The donation would be on the part of the owner of the items, not the buyer. People bidding in charity auctions are bidding because they expect something back in return. They are buying something. That is, they are purchasing something. Whether they pay more than they would otherwise isn't the point. They are BUYING SOMETHING. That makes it a PURCHASE, regardless of what they call it in their head. They exchange money for goods. Whether they overpay for that item "for charity" doesn't mean they don't get something in return. And in any event, that still doesn't mean the buyer is making a donation. They exchange money for goods. Buying things for money is buying things for money...not a donation. And thus, Paypal's terms of "without a purchase" would apply. A person can't decide, unilaterally, that "I'm buying something, but I'm really only doing it to help someone out, because:charity " and thus set aside Paypal's TOS of their own accord. If that were the case, then I could simply decide that my Batman #232 9.6 that I paid $2,000 for is really only worth 15 cents, and the rest is a "donation, because I want to help the seller out." No, that's why the terms are what they are: to prevent people from deciding on their own what is, and what is not, a certain transaction. The rules say "without a purchase." If you're buying something...it's a purchase, regardless of the amount you pay, or why you paid it.

Understood completely. However. If the spirit of the act is to help someone out....would it be fair to make an issue of it? If one "didn't really want the merchandise", and was "just doing it to help someone out", then what does it matter if the merchandise never came? If the spirit of the act is a transaction...then it's not a donation. What is the motive when one decides if something is a transaction, or is a donation? Again: it cannot be both. It cannot be "this part is business, and this part is donation" unless they are separate transactions, and then the business part would be strictly business. Was there a "charity thread"? Or just a regular sales thread, whereby someone had to sell for a stated need? If the former, who cares if the merchandise never shows up, though granted, in principle, one should receive it? Isn't the goal to help someone? And isn't that person helped even if that person was really a liar and a thief? Is charity only charity if it's to "good" people? Is charity no longer valid if it ends up in the hands of people we find out aren't so good? Is our giving lessened by finding out that the recipient was less than honorable? In which case, do we demand it back? And if we demand it back...was it really charity to begin with? What does that say about OUR motives, if charity is conditional upon our determination of the worthiness of the recipient? (And, oughtn't that determination be cemented prior to donation?) Is "charity, with strings..." really charity? Regardless of alllll of that philosophical meandering, and whatever justification may come, Paypal's TOS is still clear: Personal means without a purchase. One cannot simply decide "well, this purchase is really more of a donation, so Paypal's terms don't really apply in this case." That's not for an individual to determine on their own. If there's a purchase...it's not a donation. If it's a donation....merchandise shouldn't be coming back. If you're giving someone money, with the expectation of receiving something, anything, in return...it's not a gift, it's a purchase, whether you believe your purchase was a "donation" or not. It's really pretty cut and dried. Again, not about anyone or any particular transaction. This issue comes up time and time and time again, and needs to be addressed.

The are 346 9.8s of all flavors of Star Wars #1. There are 373 Spectacular Spiderman #1s. There are 150 Nova #1s. There are 99 Ms. Marvel #1s, although Ms. Marvel is a late player to the game. There are 210 X-Men #121s. (And this all assumes no duplication!) I don't know if that is "far, far more 9.8 copies than every other bona fide BA key", but Star Wars #1 has been the most important book of 1977 since the beginning. Of course, it's going to have more higher grade copies than most....but it still doesn't beat PPSS #1. It probably will...but a lot of the other "bona fide Bronze Age keys" from this era still aren't worth slabbing. When I say "bona fide keys" I am referring to books that indeed are (and have been) slab worthy in nearly every grade other than 9.6/9.8 since the advent of CGC. (I don't consider PPSM to be a "key" either BTW, and I'm a foaming at the mouth Spider-man fan). In that regards, SW 1 blows every other book out of the water with its copious amounts of 9.8's that have already been slabbed even prior to the speculative movie hype that has bloated its apparent "FMV" to its current levels. Here's just a small sampling for comparison: ASM 129, 9.8's- 93 IH 181, 9.8's- 26 GL 76, 9.8's- 2 X Men 94, 9.8's- 26 Conan, 9.8's- 37 WWBN 32, 9.8's- 11 TOD 10, 9.8's- 24 Marvel Spotlight 5, 9.8's - 2 Star Wars 1, 9.8's- 346 In many cases the tremendous amounts of SW 1, 9.8's exceed those keys books' numbers in 9.8, 9.6, 9.4, etc. combined. -J. There is a phenomenal, substantive, massive shift in collecting dynamics that had happened by 1977. Every single book you cite is from 1975 or prior, and NONE OF THEM ARE #1s except Conan #1, which came out in an entirely different mindframe, 1970. No, you're never going to see "X-Men #94" in anywhere near the numbers of Star Wars #1 in 9.8. Star Wars #1 was a #1, smack dab in the middle of the era when #1s were all the rage. Star Wars #1 was nearly an immediate colossal success, ensuring that high grade copies would be safely tucked away for a long time. Every book you mentioned except Conan #1 was essentially ignored by the hobby of the day, slowly succumbing to attrition over years and sometimes decades. Why, then, would it be a surprise that, under these conditions, Star Wars #1 would have a far higher survival rate than the books you mentioned? It's apples to welding goggles. This is all well and good, but it only takes one book to completely undermine most of your statements- GSXM 1. It is a "#1" issue, it is post 1975, it has been a well entrenched bona fide BA key for decades, and even it has "only" 128 copies in 9.8 on the census. 1. GSXM #1 is a squarebound book. Squarebound books are their own beasts entirely. 2. As I said up there, 1975 was a cutoff point, of sorts, for #1s. 3. Also as I said up there, X-Men did a slow burn until about 1978 (heh. Slow burn.) It had several years of attrition to get banged up. In 1976, GSXM #1 was worth the same as GS Defenders #1 (in fact, in the 1978 OPG, GSXM #1 is $1.80 in Mint, and GS Defenders #1 is $2.25.) No. The books came out fully two years apart. X-Men #94 has an August, 1975 cover date, SW #1 has a July, 1977 cover date, and GSXM #1 has a "Summer 1975" cover date, making at least two years between GSXM #1 and SW #1. Details, yes, but important ones. Compared to the books you listed? Absolutely. Compared to the average 1976-1979 Marvel #1? No, not at all.

I called no one's name out, and made it a point to state several times that this had nothing to do with anyone personally. No one has been "accused" of anything, despite what they may claim. I know that will disbelieved by some, and the detractors feel it necessary to call me a liar, but that's the way it goes. We all have to account for ourselves in the end. The facts remain: I have made this an issue for many years, and will continue to make it an issue, until it's no longer an issue, whether it's Fred, Steve, Mark, Sam, or the man on the moon involved. And if one is making a donation, which is exactly what the Paypal personal is for, why would one expect merchandise in return, and if one WAS donating, why on earth would one make an issue of it if publicly if one didn't get the items? Either it's a business transaction, or it's a donation. It cannot be both. Making an issue of not getting merchandise puts a bit of a kibosh on the whole "donation" aspect, dunnit...?

I agree completely. When this board is firmly committed to justice for ALL parties, then I will heartily endorse and agree with your positions. Until then, it is the rankest hypocrisy to complain about one party stealing from you, when you, yourself, stole from another party in the course of the transaction. That doesn't absolve the first party. They still need to address the issue. But to publicly complain about it, after having done the same thing to another party in the transaction, is blatantly hypocritical, and should be addressed as such. Many people have done it, over many years, and many more people have justified it over many more years. That doesn't change anything. I completely understand your point about paypal personal. However, isn't removing any recourse from the person who paid "Personal", in defense of paypal's policies, and allowing the party who took the money and didn't perform ALSO become a situation where there isn't justice for all parties involved. Isn't defending Paypal only, and not all parties against theft and wrongdoing hypocritical? There's a recourse for improper personal paypal payments, through paypal, and they enforce it rather regularly. However denying PL recourse entirely, due to improper use of personal paypal, is denying both notice to the boards and compensation to the buyer of a (for example for ease of % fees paypal charges) $100 wrong due to failure of payment of a $3 fee. That equates to disproportionate punishment when, as personal payment limits ability to recoup loss, one of the only ways product or funds my be returned to the buyer is through the PL. Eliminating the ability to list on the PL list for this reason handicaps everyone the list is meant to protect, and protects everyone it was meant to handicap. I completely understand your point about redress for the buyer, and said so several times earlier. My proposed "rule change" will get nowhere, nor was it ever intended to. And I never said a buyer didn't have the right to "be made whole." I said they shouldn't be allowed to put someone ON THE PROBATION LIST (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual mechanics of someone "being made whole", outside of some nebulous peer pressure that may or may not actually exist.) However...if more people wake up to the reality of stealing from Paypal through the abuse of the Personal payment system, and stop letting it be openly acceptable at any level, then this will have served its purpose. As I said before...this board has composed endless discussion about making sure that buyers and sellers are protected, and not taken advantage of. That's a good, noble thing. But in the course of that dialogue, the idea that it was ok to steal from another party in the transaction...in this case, Paypal...became so acceptable that few ever questioned it, and hardly anyone ever challenged it, and in the course of all of these, people have openly declared their intent to continue to steal from Paypal. In light of the one (the PL/HOS), how could the other be tolerated? "It's not stealing." Oh, yes, it is. You're depriving Paypal of their rightfully earned fee for using their service, by using a payment method that explicitly states that it is not to be used to buy things. You are taking service from Paypal without paying them for it. There is no other definition for theft than that. I don't like Paypal. I think they are a horrible company, that has done horrible things over the years. But they provide a service, and if I choose to use that service, I choose to pay for that service. Choosing to not pay for that service, while still taking advantage of that service, is stealing. And all the fancy dancing around the issue won't change that. If we're to maintain integrity on ANY side, we ought to maintain integrity on ALL sides, or it all becomes a joke.

This has nothing to do with "Sharon", or anyone else personally. That "Sharon" was the catalyst for this round is not relevant. She is not the first, and will not be the last. Why make comments like this? To stir the pot.

So, what you're suggesting is: Community Protection > PayPal Interests PayPal can afford their own lawyers. They don't need our help. Right. It's ok to steal, as long as we're stealing from the right entities. Not my point at all. My point is warning someone here who may have had zero to do with a transaction is more important to this community than the breaking of PayPal rules. Let's stop mincing words and calling it "breach" and "breaking Paypal rules", etc, as if there's nothing more involved than a disagreement over terms. It's stealing. There is actual money involved, digitized though it may be. And when you don't pay the fees that you agreed to pay when using Paypal's service, you're stealing. I don't care what words are used. Doesn't change a thing for me. The community here has every right to be protected from shadyness no matter how a buyer makes payment. They are completely separate events. They are? Then why involve Paypal at all? Why not send a money order? Or a check? Or cash? If they are "completely separate events", how is it that Paypal came to be involved in the first place? There's no correlation at all? What the right hand does has no bearing on the left? Injustice for any is still injustice for all.

I agree completely. When this board is firmly committed to justice for ALL parties, then I will heartily endorse and agree with your positions. Until then, it is the rankest hypocrisy to complain about one party stealing from you, when you, yourself, stole from another party in the course of the transaction. That doesn't absolve the first party. They still need to address the issue. But to publicly complain about it, after having done the same thing to another party in the transaction, is blatantly hypocritical, and should be addressed as such. Many people have done it, over many years, and many more people have justified it over many more years. That doesn't change anything.

When people say "well, why the hell did you pay that guy with a Personal payment?" instead of "oh, you poor thing, that guy stole your money", then that will be the point at which we have resolved the issue properly. I fully understand the concept of "nevertheless...", and am perfectly fine with that being the case...if and when this board makes a firm decision to stop pretending that using Paypal personal to pay for merchandise is perfectly acceptable, and instead decides to end it.

So, what you're suggesting is: Community Protection > PayPal Interests PayPal can afford their own lawyers. They don't need our help. Right. It's ok to steal, as long as we're stealing from the right entities. Not my point at all. My point is warning someone here who may have had zero to do with a transaction is more important to this community than the breaking of PayPal rules. Let's stop mincing words and calling it "breach" and "breaking Paypal rules", etc, as if there's nothing more involved than a disagreement over terms. It's stealing. There is actual money involved, digitized though it may be. And when you don't pay the fees that you agreed to pay when using Paypal's service, you're stealing.

Right, because you see no problem with stealing. That's really what it comes down to. Why don't you use a Money Order, then, to "save him the fees" legitimately? There's no difference between your statement, and me saying "I don't think it's fair that my friend has to pay Customs fees, so I'm going to declare the item I'm selling him a gift, so he doesn't have to pay anything for it, even though it's not a gift, and he paid me for it." No difference at all. And many reading this do just that. How you can equivocate it away, I don't know. Aren't you a lawyer...? Paypal provides a service. In exchange for that service, they ask to be paid a set fee. Choosing to set aside that set fee because you can is stealing from Paypal. It doesn't get any clearer. "Well, if they didn't want people to get away with no paying fees for merchandise, they shouldn't have that option." That really says a lot about the person making that statement, but that aside, the fact is, Paypal explicitly states that this option is not for buying a good/service. Therefore, using it to buy a good or service, for no other reason than to not cause someone to pay the fees for the service Paypal provides, is theft.

None of this is relevant. The terms say "without a purchase." That means, "you don't buy something." Whether they're your friend, brother, dog, wife, or bed buddy isn't relevant. Still can't believe this is being debated, and with no one willing to stand up for what's right ("we don't agree with you"), on a board that endlessly talks about "making people whole."

That one makes sense....the two $2500 sales with the same serial number sold a month apart don't. A side effect of weird high sales, repeating over and over is helping legit sellers get a nice price from anyone who doesn't look too closely at the sales data. $1892 is probably right, but it looks like a steal. Those were both mine, someone who just signed on that day ended at my price, It turns out that it came from the same IP address and someone is manipulating these auctions on ebay / Buy it now. I don't expect to get that, I do expect to get offers to consider I did relist it again & yes it is the same serial number There is someone selling a 9.8 right now on eBay and is up to $1,825 with 4 hours left So someone's messing with your auctions and making it look like the book is selling for $2500 a pop? That stinks. All that effort to sell undermined. Sorry to hear that. There has been someone out of North Carolina who has been hitting BINs, and walking away. Happened to many of us in the past three months.

The are 346 9.8s of all flavors of Star Wars #1. There are 373 Spectacular Spiderman #1s. There are 150 Nova #1s. There are 99 Ms. Marvel #1s, although Ms. Marvel is a late player to the game. There are 210 X-Men #121s. (And this all assumes no duplication!) I don't know if that is "far, far more 9.8 copies than every other bona fide BA key", but Star Wars #1 has been the most important book of 1977 since the beginning. Of course, it's going to have more higher grade copies than most....but it still doesn't beat PPSS #1. It probably will...but a lot of the other "bona fide Bronze Age keys" from this era still aren't worth slabbing. When I say "bona fide keys" I am referring to books that indeed are (and have been) slab worthy in nearly every grade other than 9.6/9.8 since the advent of CGC. (I don't consider PPSM to be a "key" either BTW, and I'm a foaming at the mouth Spider-man fan). In that regards, SW 1 blows every other book out of the water with its copious amounts of 9.8's that have already been slabbed even prior to the speculative movie hype that has bloated its apparent "FMV" to its current levels. Here's just a small sampling for comparison: ASM 129, 9.8's- 93 IH 181, 9.8's- 26 GL 76, 9.8's- 2 X Men 94, 9.8's- 26 Conan, 9.8's- 37 WWBN 32, 9.8's- 11 TOD 10, 9.8's- 24 Marvel Spotlight 5, 9.8's - 2 Star Wars 1, 9.8's- 346 In many cases the tremendous amounts of SW 1, 9.8's exceed those keys books' numbers in 9.8, 9.6, 9.4, etc. combined. -J. There is a phenomenal, substantive, massive shift in collecting dynamics that had happened by 1977. Every single book you cite is from 1975 or prior, and NONE OF THEM ARE #1s except Conan #1, which came out in an entirely different mindframe, 1970. No, you're never going to see "X-Men #94" in anywhere near the numbers of Star Wars #1 in 9.8. Star Wars #1 was a #1, smack dab in the middle of the era when #1s were all the rage. Star Wars #1 was nearly an immediate colossal success, ensuring that high grade copies would be safely tucked away for a long time. Every book you mentioned except Conan #1 was essentially ignored by the hobby of the day, slowly succumbing to attrition over years and sometimes decades. Why, then, would it be a surprise that, under these conditions, Star Wars #1 would have a far higher survival rate than the books you mentioned? It's apples to welding goggles.

I'm not. See above.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472&gonew=1#UNREAD ...then those who deliberately choose to use Paypal personal for merchandise give up their right to place anyone who then doesn't ship said merchandise on the Probation list. Here is my reasoning: PP isn't appropriate for merchandise. It is against Paypal's TOS. Fees are how Paypal provides this service. Avoiding those fees is, therefore, stealing from Paypal. So...if one steals from Paypal, why should they then be able to turn around and claim they, too, were stolen from? I suspect, if the books were to be opened, the amount of fees stolen from Paypal by using Personal payments for merchandise or services would dwarf the amount of money lost by those who simply never shipped. Yes, I understand that some people view Paypal as "an evil corporation, that doesn't deserve their fees." But the reality is, if you feel that way, you should avoid Paypal entirely, rather than stealing from them. And if you steal from Paypal...why should you then have the right to turn around and claim "Foul!" on someone else? Seems reasonable to me. Thoughts? I honestly can't see how someone shouldn't be offered the same protection of using the PL or the threat of PL list inclusion by using Paypal personal. Paypal may frown upon it, but if they truly wanted to stop it, they would do away with the option all together. I let my buyers use it so much, I lost my option to use it. I hate that for buyers that want to save me a buck or two, but I haven't lost any sleep over it. Paypal is required to have a fee free transaction apparatus. You're not stealing a USPS money order and using it in this scenario. You're using another method, independent of the USPS Money Order. The analogy doesn't work. So, because moderation is lax, that makes it ok? By all means, feel free to argue your own particular rule changes. I will point out that "sending cash, money orders, or Western Union transfers" do not involve an act of bad faith, deliberately designed to deprive an entity of their justly earned payment...aka "stealing." These kinds of things are precisely why. On the contrary. It is absolutely consistent.

If I say "hey there, KPR Comics, I'll handle your business transactions between your customers for convenience, and a small fee" and then you circumvent my clearly labeled terms of service, how have you not stolen those fees from me, fees that YOU AGREED to pay by using my service? If you don't like the fees, and don't want to pay the fees...don't use Paypal. If you want the convenience...pay the fees. How am I even arguing this....??

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472&gonew=1#UNREAD ...then those who deliberately choose to use Paypal personal for merchandise give up their right to place anyone who then doesn't ship said merchandise on the Probation list. What superb timing on this suggestion. Gosh, wonder how that came about? Because it's an issue that I've spoken against multiple times on this board, over many years, and it has come up once again. The parties involved are utterly irrelevant. Right, because the clause "it is not appropriate for item purchases", which you just quoted, has no meaning. He really meant "it's not appropriate as a PAYMENT OPTION", rather than the clearly stated "it's not appropriate for ITEM PURCHASES." "Oh, the rule just says you can't list it as an OPTION. There's NOTHING that says you can't ask for it privately, or accept it if it comes, or any other workaround to deprive Paypal of their rightfully earned fees." Except, of course, Architecht and Paypal's own TOS. Other than that, however...boy, can we dance, dance, dance. Silly hyperbole. The issue with Paypal is a simple, straightforward one, that is easily resolved, by those with the desire to resolve it. 16. "Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase. Examples of Personal Payments include sending a gift to a friend or paying a friend back for your share of a lunch bill. It is blatant hypocrisy to maintain a Probation list for members stealing from one another, while stealing from Paypal is allowed, ignored, swept under the rug, pretended it's not "really stealing (as I call it)", and various and assorted other excuses. It's wrong, it's hypocritical, and it needs to be addressed publicly, even if the end result is only to drive the practice underground (which it already is.) At least then, it won't be an open "eff you!" to anybody.

You are incorrect in your assessment, and looking at the scenario backwards. It has to do with the TYPE of transaction you are making. If you are purchasing goods or services, you are REQUIRED to use the regular payment, by Paypal terms, and may NOT use the Personal option. If you're buying something...some good or service...someone always pays fees, regardless of the source of the funds. It has nothing to do with source of funds for a Personal payment, and whether or not there are no fees for this or that PERSONAL payment for either party...the issue is Personal payments are not to be used to purchase goods and/or services. If goods/services are being bought, you may not use Personal payment to do it. That's the bottom line. Why do we maintain a Probation List at all, for people who steal from others on the board, if stealing from some entity that isn't here to defend itself is wink, wink, nudge, nudged away? It is blatant hypocrisy. Yes exactly. Paypal gets its fees one way or another. Its a function of how the money is paid, by Paypal balance, by bank transfer or by CC, and many buyers primarily use the CC option for purchases. There is no way Paypal would allow any option to exist that would exempt everyone from paying fees, unless Paypal wanted it so. They are required to offer the "personal payment" option by banking law.

So, what you're suggesting is: Community Protection > PayPal Interests PayPal can afford their own lawyers. They don't need our help. Right. It's ok to steal, as long as we're stealing from the right entities.

This has not a single thing with to do with any particular member. I have spoken for years on this board against using Paypal personal for merchandise, so the claim that this has anything to do with a specific member would not be accurate. Stealing is stealing, is it not? Is one form of stealing ok, but another is not? That's what it boils down to. What if the buyer and seller are friends? Isn't that what the "Personal PayPal" option is labeled... Family and Friends? Paypal personal is not for merchandise, and there is no "well, I'm buying this from a friend!" clause in Paypal's TOS...you can clearly see the slippery slope that would be. This has been hashed out at great length on the boards. Here's the pertinent information: 4. Receiving Money. "4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments." 16. Definitions. ""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase. Examples of Personal Payments include sending a gift to a friend or paying a friend back for your share of a lunch bill." https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472&gonew=1#UNREAD ...then those who deliberately choose to use Paypal personal for merchandise give up their right to place anyone who then doesn't ship said merchandise on the Probation list. Here is my reasoning: PP isn't appropriate for merchandise. It is against Paypal's TOS. Fees are how Paypal provides this service. Avoiding those fees is, therefore, stealing from Paypal. So...if one steals from Paypal, why should they then be able to turn around and claim they, too, were stolen from? I suspect, if the books were to be opened, the amount of fees stolen from Paypal by using Personal payments for merchandise or services would dwarf the amount of money lost by those who simply never shipped. Yes, I understand that some people view Paypal as "an evil corporation, that doesn't deserve their fees." But the reality is, if you feel that way, you should avoid Paypal entirely, rather than stealing from them. And if you steal from Paypal...why should you then have the right to turn around and claim "Foul!" on someone else? Seems reasonable to me. Thoughts? Your logic is flawed. Assuming your presumption that paying with PayPal personal is wrong that does not change that not shipping books that were sold is also wrong. From a legal context; if you have a pile of cocaine and someone steals the cocaine from you they have still committed a crime by stealing the illegal goods. Of course those crimes don't get reported but that's besides the point. We're not talking about criminal law. We're talking about the integrity of maintaining a Probation list about people who steal from others, while at the same time, turning a blind eye to stealing from Paypal. Nominating someone to the PL for stealing from me, while at the same time stealing from Paypal, is not in harmony with integrity and honesty. There is no question about the act: it is against Paypal's TOS. Therefore, doing it is a violation of their terms, avoidance of their legally required fees, and therefore theft. So, one form is stealing is wrong, but another is ok?