Hall of Shame and Probation Rules DISCUSSION 4 4

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would like to propose a new rule.

 

According to the terms of this sales forum, people are not allowed to use Paypal Personal to pay for merchandise, as stated here:

 

List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

 

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?

[HarveySwick]

I do not agree.

 

Someone relinquishing their monetary protection by paying with Personal Paypal instead of Goods/Services shouldn't be forced to relinquish their right to nominate someone for the Probation List.

 

The Probation List is used to warn other members of the community of a member who fails to live up to their obligations. It is valuable for that reason.

 

I understand you have issues with those who use Personal PayPal and, in particular, you have personal problems with SkyPinkBlu, but this is no reason a new rule should be added.

 

[Red84]

I would like to propose a new rule.

 

According to the terms of this sales forum, people are not allowed to use Paypal Personal to pay for merchandise, as stated here:

 

List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

 

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I do not agree.

 

Someone relinquishing their monetary protection by paying with Personal Paypal instead of Goods/Services shouldn't be forced to relinquish their right to nominate someone for the Probation List.

 

The Probation List is used to warn other members of the community of a member who fails to live up to their obligations. It is valuable for that reason.

 

I understand you have issues with those who use Personal PayPal and, in particular, you have personal problems with SkyPinkBlu, but this is no reason a new rule should be added.

 

 

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would like to propose a new rule.

 

According to the terms of this sales forum, people are not allowed to use Paypal Personal to pay for merchandise, as stated here:

 

List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

 

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?

[HarveySwick]

I do not agree.

 

Someone relinquishing their monetary protection by paying with Personal Paypal instead of Goods/Services shouldn't be forced to relinquish their right to nominate someone for the Probation List.

 

The Probation List is used to warn other members of the community of a member who fails to live up to their obligations. It is valuable for that reason.

 

I understand you have issues with those who use Personal PayPal and, in particular, you have personal problems with SkyPinkBlu, but this is no reason a new rule should be added.

 

 

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?

[CAHokie]

I agree that you should not use Paypal personal to buy merchandise because no matter how you dice it, you are cheating Paypal. That being said, why would we make a rule helping to protect scammers just because someone paid them that way? It feels like it would be intentionally creating a loophole to scam people and avoid any board repercussions.

[ebtorres]

I would like to propose a new rule.

 

According to the terms of this sales forum, people are not allowed to use Paypal Personal to pay for merchandise, as stated here:

 

List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

 

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?

 

My thoughts?

 

If I'm understanding correctly, then your proposal seems quite unreasonable.

 

Sometimes sellers on this here site will privately request payments via PP Personal; you're saying if I comply with the seller's request and send funds via PP Personal, then I am voiding my ability to nominate said seller to the PL if they end up not completing their end of the deal?

 

:shrug:

[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.

[revat]

I agree that you should not use Paypal personal to buy merchandise because no matter how you dice it, you are cheating Paypal. That being said, why would we make a rule helping to protect scammers just because someone paid them that way? It feels like it would be intentionally creating a loophole to scam people and avoid any board repercussions.

 

I'm not sure if I'm for or against this rule.

 

BUT if you really employed this rule, it wouldn't protect scammers (except perhaps in this case), it would (hopefully) force buyers to use the MORE protected method of payment. The average friendly buyer KNOWING they give up the right to protection of Paypal and PL, would be EVEN MORE LIKELY to choose the protected route, resulting in rightful fees going to paypal AND additional protection of Paypal and PL remedies.

 

 

I think most people realize they're giving up some of their recourse/remedies when they do PP.

[Red84]

I would like to propose a new rule.

 

According to the terms of this sales forum, people are not allowed to use Paypal Personal to pay for merchandise, as stated here:

 

List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal is NOT allowed as a listed option in your post as it is not appropriate for item purchases.)

 

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?

 

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.

[HarveySwick]

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

 

[ebtorres]

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

 

 

Seems reasonable.

[ebtorres]

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.

 

Well... actually...

 

Victim 1

 

Victim 2

 

Victim 3

 

Victim 4

 

[KPR Comics]

If buyer/friend funds the PP Personal payment w/a credit card, they pay a fee. Just sayin, your black and white rule has some gray.

 

[Red84]

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.

 

Well... actually...

 

Victim 1

 

Victim 2

 

Victim 3

 

Victim 4

 

 

Touché. So it does happen occasionally. .

[crassus]

If buyer/friend funds the PP Personal payment w/a credit card, they pay a fee. Just sayin, your black and white rule has some gray.

 

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.

[CAHokie]

If you use your bank account though it is completely free isnt it?

[KPR Comics]

Correct. Existing funds or tied Bank Account = zero fees all around. My point was just that saying its a scam to use friends and family for goods is not 100% accurate.

[Red84]

If you use your bank account though it is completely free isnt it?

 

Yes