Hall of Shame and Probation Rules DISCUSSION 4 4

[KPR Comics]

Not sure, but under your scenario I have most definitely breached and for that you have whatever remedies are available per the terms of our contract.

[Junkdrawer]

I'm guessing the definition of a "Friend" needs to be defined, its obvious what "Family" means. Also two consenting parties exchanging tangibles does not imply that one or more parties is in fact a business.

[comix4fun]

I'm guessing the definition of a "Friend" needs to be defined, its obvious what "Family" means. Also two consenting parties exchanging tangibles does not imply that one or more parties is in fact a business.

 

 

 

They could have a questionnaire....and play it like 'The Newlywed' game.

 

You've got to answer 4 out of 5 personal questions about your "Friend" correctly to be considered a "Friend" for paypal personal purposes.

[HarveySwick]

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm guessing the definition of a "Friend" needs to be defined, its obvious what "Family" means. Also two consenting parties exchanging tangibles does not imply that one or more parties is in fact a business.

 

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."

[Iceman399]

I'm guessing the definition of a "Friend" needs to be defined, its obvious what "Family" means. Also two consenting parties exchanging tangibles does not imply that one or more parties is in fact a business.

 

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."

 

But I bought you dinner and your paying me back.

[CAHokie]

I'm guessing the definition of a "Friend" needs to be defined, its obvious what "Family" means. Also two consenting parties exchanging tangibles does not imply that one or more parties is in fact a business.

 

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."

 

I completely agreed with you that circumventing the Paypal rules is morally, even if not legally wrong. I just don't think that a rule is necessary to prevent them being added to the list. The list is to protect all of the members of the boards, and not just the buyer. When they nominate someone, it will come out how they paid, and then you can just tell them I told you so.

[HarveySwick]

Morally wrong.

 

If I buy something from a friend and I can save him the fees, I'm going to save him the fees.

[jsilverjanet]

I'm guessing the definition of a "Friend" needs to be defined, its obvious what "Family" means. Also two consenting parties exchanging tangibles does not imply that one or more parties is in fact a business.

 

 

 

They could have a questionnaire....and play it like 'The Newlywed' game.

 

You've got to answer 4 out of 5 personal questions about your "Friend" correctly to be considered a "Friend" for paypal personal purposes.

 

 

1. What is your friends full name?

2. What is your friends dob?

3. What city was your friend born in?

4. What is your friends marital status?

5. Where is the most exotic place your friend Has made 'whopee'

[Iceman399]

Morally wrong.

 

If I buy something from a friend and I can save him the fees, I'm going to save him the fees.

 

Unless I have to send you entry fee for Fantasy Football and then I STILL have to pay the fee.

[wombat]

I look at it like this. I want to know if someone is ripping people off on the boards. I don't care what PayPal rules were broken. It's like punishing innocent people.

 

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Morally wrong.

 

If I buy something from a friend and I can save him the fees, I'm going to save him the fees.

 

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.

[Red84]

I will re-post what I said earlier, because it is the heart of the matter:

 

The Probation List is there to handle disputes between Board Members. The PayPal personal issue would be a dispute between the buyer and PayPal. One has nothing to do with the other and therefore the PayPal personal issue should be irrelevant in considering a PL nomination for un-shipped books.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I look at it like this. I want to know if someone is ripping people off on the boards. I don't care what PayPal rules were broken. It's like punishing innocent people.

 

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.

[crassus]

I look at it like this. I want to know if someone is ripping people off on the boards. I don't care what PayPal rules were broken. It's like punishing innocent people.

 

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.

 

This is the point that needs to be addressed. Even assuming a wrongdoing in making payment "personal" the PL is indeed bigger than either of the parties involved, and the whole process of seeking justice is not limited by the behaviour of the parties involved, even less is justice set aside simply because one or both of the parties have committed a wrongdoing.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I will re-post what I said earlier, because it is the heart of the matter:

 

The Probation List is there to handle disputes between Board Members. The PayPal personal issue would be a dispute between the buyer and PayPal. One has nothing to do with the other and therefore the PayPal personal issue should be irrelevant in considering a PL nomination for un-shipped books.

 

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.

[crassus]

I will re-post what I said earlier, because it is the heart of the matter:

 

The Probation List is there to handle disputes between Board Members. The PayPal personal issue would be a dispute between the buyer and PayPal. One has nothing to do with the other and therefore the PayPal personal issue should be irrelevant in considering a PL nomination for un-shipped books.

 

I agree completely.

[wombat]

I look at it like this. I want to know if someone is ripping people off on the boards. I don't care what PayPal rules were broken. It's like punishing innocent people.

 

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I will re-post what I said earlier, because it is the heart of the matter:

 

The Probation List is there to handle disputes between Board Members. The PayPal personal issue would be a dispute between the buyer and PayPal. One has nothing to do with the other and therefore the PayPal personal issue should be irrelevant in considering a PL nomination for un-shipped books.

 

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I look at it like this. I want to know if someone is ripping people off on the boards. I don't care what PayPal rules were broken. It's like punishing innocent people.

 

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.