General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Boboset]

So you can't ask for personal payment still.

 

You can send friends personal funds for book(s) assuming that the payer is fine with waiving the purchase protection guaranteed by the goods and services method and that the payee is alright receiving personal funds.

 

Big catch, payees who receive many (?) personal payments and those with a generally very active pp account that receive personal payments could have their account shut down as a result of this.

 

However, like Sharon plans on doing for future charity payments, friends should probably inform paypal of impending personal transactions if they believe they're reaching this undefined threshold in either quantity of transactions or overall $. Paypal obviously wants their cut from as many transactions as possible, but they did establish the friends/family option for a reason and they have to respect its use to a point.

 

That sums up what I've read here.

 

This a good discussion minus the vitriol. RMA, you know I enjoy many of posts here greatly, but I'm confused by your choice to vilify Swick so severely because you find yourself on opposite sides of this discussion.

[Jeffro.]

The only thing that still bugs me about that PayPal response is this bit: "But in the long run if the seller is doing these frequently then his PayPal account will be having some issues." Why would he be having issues? Too many friends? What kind of issues?

 

Probably because if PP finds out a seller is abusing personal in this way, they will get shut down.

 

 

Maybe they have a limit in how many "friends" they allow you to have.

 

Are we talking Facebook friends or people that you see at least once a week?

 

 

I think it's gotta be closer, like "suck the snake venom out of a wound" friend.

 

I was thinking the "overlook all of my flaws, insanity and/or illegal behavior in the pursuit of chilly stapled pamphlets" friend.

[Jeffro.]

There are people here I consider friends. "REAL LIFE" friends even.

 

But carry on with your crusade.

 

Next up on the agenda is the siege of Tyre. Oil up that armor gents.

[Dr Chaos]

There is a board rule prohibiting sellers from soliciting personal Paypal payments.

 

I am not sure what responsibility, if any CGC and the board administrators should have beyond that.

 

Ebay / Paypal is a very large corporation with their own lawyers.

 

Why should anyone here have to be the police when it comes to Paypal?

[Jeffro.]

[revat]

There is a board rule prohibiting sellers from soliciting personal Paypal payments.

 

I am not sure what responsibility, if any CGC and the board administrators should have beyond that.

 

Ebay / Paypal is a very large corporation with their own lawyers.

 

Why should anyone here have to be the police when it comes to Paypal?

 

its not like he's going to call the police on you or inform the mods or paypal corporate. BUT if you saw a someone you know (or even a stranger) taking an extra orange at the market or whatever, you might point out that its not right. Whether or not anyone modifies (or even agrees that its not right) their behavior is up to the individual.

 

I think that's where he's coming from. He views it as a dishonest action, and he's pointing out, and giving his reasons why thinks that way.

[Logan510]

I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, but I think that would take a direct explicit statement from PayPal that it's indeed OK for me to use Personal to buy goods from a friend. I don't think that statement will be coming.

 

 

 

 

 

It didn't come, Ed. Paypal was describing a one-time courtesy, which they have every right to do.

 

They didn't say it was ok for you to use Personal to buy goodS from a friend.

 

They said it was ok to buy AN item from a friend, because that's the language Swick used. Those Paypal reps don't understand the situation, and so...graciously...they've allowed an exception to the term, which people will now use to justify doing it any and every time they feel like.

 

Look at the language used: "AN item." "ESPECIALLY (if) it is your friend" :THE item" "A book"

 

And Roger even says it's not something you can do "in the long term."

 

And why do they respond like this...?

 

Because that's the language Swick himself used: "A book." "someTHING"

 

He doesn't bother to mention the actual situation, because then, of course, they would say no.

 

Very crafty, but ultimately, illegitimate. Like C4F said, "the store owner may give you the occasional free coke (it being their choice, not yours)...but you can't back up a truck to load up"...and you certainly can't just TAKE a coke without bothering to ask first, which is what is happening here.

 

 

 

They don't want sellers to make a habit of it, for sure. I know a couple of guys here that never asked for a personal payment ever but had that ability stripped from their accounts because too many people paid them that way and their account was used as a merchant.

 

Their stances on the answer to the question seem different to payers as opposed to payees. They don't want to dissuade payers from using their services by disallowing the off personal payment for a borderline usage from someone they consider a friend, but they don't want payees soliciting that type of payment on a large scale.

 

I don't think it's a "how good a friends are you?" type question as a "how often is this happening?" and "Is there a pattern of fee avoidance for an otherwise merchant transaction?"

 

For the record, however, some of the very best people I've met in the world have been through this site and I consider them very good friends regardless of how often I see them. I don't think whether or not we meet weekly for a cup of coffee defines friendship. I wouldn't trade some of the folks I've met here for anything.

 

And some people you want to avoid as much as possible to keep the friendship

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yes I am going to use this service if I deem it fit. I am not saying that I use it all the time, actually I may have used it a handful of times in my life, and with people that I consider to be a friend. The situation is for your friends and simple charities, not everyone man, come on.

 

No one is talking about charity situations. That is a moot point.

 

I don't take personal paypal from things I sell here, or on the streets, etc. to people I am not friends with. The hundreds of people thing was an exaggeration man, not real. If PP sees that a person is doing it on a regular basis then a red flag will be raised and their account will be looked into. I understand it being a problem with sellers here asking or coercing a buyer into personal paypal, and then not making good on their end yes that's a problem and needs to be dealt with. I'll own that I have used personal paypal in the past, and I am not a thief, I do not abuse the privilege of PP's services.

 

Did you take something that didn't belong to you without asking...?

 

Did you use Paypal's services without paying for them...?

 

What do you call that?

 

What is "abuse"? Who gets to define it? 2 transactions? 5? 10? 500?

 

The terms are crystal clear, and the answers from Paypal actually reinforce them: These Paypal reps thought....because that was the way it was asked them...that Swick was talking about a single, one time purchase.

 

He didn't say...at all...if it was ok whenever he felt like it, with any and all of his "friends", which is what his question SHOULD have been if he was being honest.

 

No, Paypal made a classic "exception that makes the rule" statement. AN item. A (single) book. SomeTHING (not thingS).

 

And it's Paypal's right to do that. It's their call. And, according to the answer, Swick has been granted the right to do this ONCE, because that was the answer given to him: "Yes, you can still use the send money tab in sending a payment (that means ONE payment) for AN item (that means ONE item) especially (if) it is your friend (ONE friend, not friendS) as long as you receive THE item (ONE item.)"

 

And, from the other: "Yes, you can pay your friend (<----friend, not friendS) for a book (<---A, not as many as you like.)

 

Swick very carefully and purposely dodged the real issue: he wanted BLANKET approval to send Personal payments to ANYONE he deems is a "friend" at ANY time, for ANY amount of items.

 

He carefully used language that made it seem as if he were asking for a ONE TIME DEAL, and got exactly the answer he was trying to get, so he could post it here in "triumph" and say "SEE!!? They said I could do it, SEE!!??"

 

And that Paypal GRACIOUSLY granted an exception doesn't mean that the terms are no longer valid. It is their right to do so...not yours, not mine, not anyone else's...

 

My account is in good standing and it will continue to be that way. If you want to pass judgment against me, and several others around here, and call us thieves then that is your right as an individual.

 

I have already said, on at least one occasion, that I'm not condemning or judging anyone. Calling the situation for what it really is isn't doing that. Just because I want to say "hey...there's a problem here, and it's a very serious one, and we ought not to be doing A while simultaneously doing B" isn't "passing judgment."

 

I really don't care. There is no winning in this debate, your opinion is right in your own mind and maybe some others, but not in mine and others.

 

I understand that you feel this way....but if someone uses your services, and doesn't pay you for them, without bothering to ask you first...how would you feel about that...?

 

Why won't anyone answer that question? Answer: because it's the heart of the matter, and there is no defense.

 

People will continue to use personal paypal until the end of paypal or until paypal stops it all together.

 

And if people continue to use Personal payments to buy goods or services, and (here, I'll add this new caveat here, though it isn't new, because I've said it before) don't get Paypal's permission to do so before each and every instance, I will continue to say that it's stealing, because it is.

 

As far as making a new rule around here about what ever it is you want stopped then go for it and take it up with the mods.

 

Who said anything about making a "new rule" about what I want "stopped"?

 

That rule already exists:

 

"9. List acceptable forms of payment (NOTE: Personal PayPal payment 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#Post1460472

 

Listen...I'm genuinely sorry that this upsets people. I wish it wasn't an issue. But, it is, and it needs to be addressed each and every time it comes up, or we until abandon the whole PL/HOS list entirely. Since I know the latter isn't going to happen, the former does.

 

It is not right to complain about someone screwing us over, when we have no problem using Paypal's services without paying for them, justifying it in your own mind.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So you can't ask for personal payment still.

 

You can send friends personal funds for book(s) assuming that the payer is fine with waiving the purchase protection guaranteed by the goods and services method and that the payee is alright receiving personal funds.

 

You should probably read the entire conversation, and if you have, read it again.

 

Where do you get "book(s)" from...? What, in those conversations, leads you to believe that you, or anyone else, has the BLANKET right to send Personal payments to as many friends, for as many items, and at any time they want...?

 

Read it again.

 

Big catch, payees who receive many (?) personal payments and those with a generally very active pp account that receive personal payments could have their account shut down as a result of this.

 

However, like Sharon plans on doing for future charity payments, friends should probably inform paypal of impending personal transactions if they believe they're reaching this undefined threshold in either quantity of transactions or overall $. Paypal obviously wants their cut from as many transactions as possible, but they did establish the friends/family option for a reason and they have to respect its use to a point.

 

That sums up what I've read here.

 

This a good discussion minus the vitriol. RMA, you know I enjoy many of posts here greatly, but I'm confused by your choice to vilify Swick so severely because you find yourself on opposite sides of this discussion.

 

You should probably read the entire conversation, and if you already have, read it again. There has been no vitriol from me. If you're reading that, you're reading it incorrectly.

 

It doesn't matter who is making case. I have nothing *personally* against Swick. If you make the same argument, I'll make the same response. If you behave intellectually dishonestly, I'll say the same thing.

[Boboset]

I read the whole conversation. That's my summary of the facts as presented.

 

I didn't say there is a "blanket right" as I immediately followed that up with associated precautions.

 

 

[1Cool]

What I've learned is no matter what thread RMA is in you are guaranteed a lengthy discussion.

[HarveySwick]

I read the whole conversation. That's my summary of the facts as presented.

 

I didn't say there is a "blanket right" as I immediately followed that up with associated precautions.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

What I've learned is no matter what thread RMA is in you are guaranteed a lengthy discussion.

 

Depends on how much I care about the topic.

 

 

Better to be damned with understanding, than praised without.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I read the whole conversation. That's my summary of the facts as presented.

 

I didn't say there is a "blanket right" as I immediately followed that up with associated precautions.

 

 

This is what you said....correct any part that I get wrong:

 

You can send friends personal funds for book(s) assuming that the payer is fine with waiving the purchase protection guaranteed by the goods and services method and that the payee is alright receiving personal funds.

 

What part of that is NOT a "blanket right"? You say that "you can send friendS (plural) personal funds for book(s) (plural)"

 

Where is your qualification as to how many times this may be done?

 

There isn't any. You've said "You can send friends personal funds for book(s)"

 

And that's not what Paypal said at all. They said Swick could do it ONCE for AN item, A book, someTHING, THE item, A friend.

 

This is the distinction.

 

Paypal didn't say you can send friendS (plural) personal funds for book(s) (plural.)

 

In other words, they were allowing a one time exception because they did not understand the question being asked of them as actually intended by the asker.

 

Your "big catch" isn't relevant to that distinction, because it doesn't have anything to do with the payer and what is "allowed" for THEM.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I read the whole conversation. That's my summary of the facts as presented.

 

I didn't say there is a "blanket right" as I immediately followed that up with associated precautions.

 

 

 

Yes, because having a sober, honest, rational debate doesn't work when you don't have an argument to stand on, so we must resort to memes that misrepresent what has been said.

 

That's just the way it is.

 

PS. There are many people around here with lots of important things to say, but avoid have serious discussions about anything because of pettiness like this.

 

That's a great loss to the entire board.

[Boboset]

I read the whole conversation. That's my summary of the facts as presented.

 

I didn't say there is a "blanket right" as I immediately followed that up with associated precautions.

 

 

This is what you said....correct any part that I get wrong:

 

You can send friends personal funds for book(s) assuming that the payer is fine with waiving the purchase protection guaranteed by the goods and services method and that the payee is alright receiving personal funds.

 

What part of that is NOT a "blanket right"? You say that "you can send friendS (plural) personal funds for book(s) (plural)"

 

Where is your qualification as to how many times this may be done?

 

There isn't any. You've said "You can send friends personal funds for book(s)"

 

And that's not what Paypal said at all. They said Swick could do it ONCE for AN item, A book, someTHING, THE item, A friend.

 

This is the distinction.

 

Paypal didn't say you can send friendS (plural) personal funds for book(s) (plural.)

 

In other words, they were allowing a one time exception because they did not understand the question being asked of them as actually intended by the asker.

 

Your "big catch" isn't relevant to that distinction, because it doesn't have anything to do with the payer and what is "allowed" for THEM.

 

You're having a field day with the term "item" from the paypal messages. I interpret that as their straight forward definition of a transaction, as in the payer sends funds to the payee for an item. They're not saying you can only do it once, nor are they saying you can do it multiple times. It's purposefully vague. You interpret that as a one time allowance of the friends/family option for a single item. There was no clear language that defined an allowed number of transactions even if they did use the term "personal payments".

[Red84]

TOO MANY WORDS!!!

:ohnoez: :ohnoez: :ohnoez: :ohnoez:

[RockMyAmadeus]

Calling someone on a chatboard a thief when it might be a matter of interpretation, not so kind.

 

Why is it that whenever I post anything that you even *suspect* refers to you, no matter how obliquely, you report it, but then feel free to talk about me and what it is I've said, and what it is you think I've said? Why must I be afraid to engage you in any way for fear of moderation, but you're free to talk about me and the things I say, and the things you think I say, without reservation...?

 

Why is that...? Does that seem very fair to you...?

 

Will this post be deleted, too...?

 

 

No one here has been called a thief. If I have called someone a thief, please point out the exact post number, and I will apologize for it.

 

Pointing out that something is stealing is not the same as calling someone a thief.

 

Again...if you have seen me call someone a thief, please point it out, and I will apologize for it. That isn't appropriate, and I'll take full responsibility for it if it's true.

 

But it's also important to understand the distinction between calling someONE a thief, and calling an ACTIVITY theft. If I say "you're stealing" that doesn't mean I'm calling you a thief. One is an act...the other is a description of a person. We've all stolen. We're not all thieves.

 

Then again some people know how to get along with others and some don't. That's something that keeps lots of other professionals in business as well.

 

Yes, that's very true, though I suspect that you and I have verrrry different ideas of just who is capable of "getting along with others", and the reasons why that is important.

 

Personally, I think people who accuse others of fraud in private, where that person doesn't have the chance to defend themselves, is much worse than unprofessional.

 

 

 

I don't feel like I'm stopping PP from making a living by asking for a check instead of having the person use PP. Perhaps PP feels that way as well.

 

Neither does anyone else. This is a non-issue.

 

I say "try" because I'm not perfect. Who knows, I may get distracted and make a mistake again. Stuff happens all the time. But IF it happens, it's going to be an error and not because I'm trying to save myself money.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. People are human. Mistakes happen.

 

It is the motive that is the issue, here, not the action. And the motive being thrown around is "I can send Personal payments for purchases, and I don't really care what anyone says."

 

The issue isn't people making mistakes, so why speak as if that has ever been the case?

 

I've bitten my tongue a lot on here, because the same person who has been railing about PP, thinks it's fine to use media mail for comics when the post office has now specified that comics do not qualify. He's said so in a long thread on the subject.

 

That is correct, I have said that...and no, the Post Office has NOT "specified that comics do not qualify." What regulates the Post Office is the DMM. If it's not in the DMM, it's just opinion. I've very clearly explained my reasons why that is, and they are very solid reasons. If you'd like to go into that discussion again, I'm more than willing to do so.

 

If you want to compare the situations, by all means, let's have an open, honest, FEAR-FREE discussion about it.

 

Using media mail saves that person money. I would not call them a thief, I'm sure they just rationalize the reasons. Perhaps it's just an error or another interpretation, but it's an error that takes away money from a business, USPS.

 

Am I using a service and not paying for it?

 

And do you actually know if I ship Media Mail to ship comics? Or just have a position about it?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You're having a field day with the term "item" from the paypal messages. I interpret that as their straight forward definition of a transaction, as in the payer sends funds to the payee for an item. They're not saying you can only do it once, nor are they saying you can do it multiple times. It's purposefully vague. You interpret that as a one time allowance of the friends/family option for a single item. There was no clear language that defined an allowed number of transactions even if they did use the term "personal payments".

 

 

"The" term "item"...? It wasn't mentioned once. In the context, the singular was used 7 times, to refer to "item", "payment", and "friend/recipient."

 

Not once was there anything about doing this multiple times. In fact, Roland went out of his way to explain..obliquely...that this wasn't allowed.

 

It's not "purposefully vague" in any way. Swick worded the question to make it seem like he was asking about AN item, A purchase...and so, the reps said "yes, for A purchase, it's not a problem."

 

If he had asked "can I do this any time I want, so long as it is my friend?" they would have said no.

 

 

 

[Boboset]

 

You're having a field day with the term "item" from the paypal messages. I interpret that as their straight forward definition of a transaction, as in the payer sends funds to the payee for an item. They're not saying you can only do it once, nor are they saying you can do it multiple times. It's purposefully vague. You interpret that as a one time allowance of the friends/family option for a single item. There was no clear language that defined an allowed number of transactions even if they did use the term "personal payments".

 

 

"The" term "item"...? It wasn't mentioned once. In the context, the singular was used 7 times, to refer to "item", "payment", and "friend/recipient."

 

Not once was there anything about doing this multiple times. In fact, Roland went out of his way to explain..obliquely...that this wasn't allowed.

 

It's not "purposefully vague" in any way. Swick worded the question to make it seem like he was asking about AN item, A purchase...and so, the reps said "yes, for A purchase, it's not a problem."

 

If he had asked "can I do this any time I want, so long as it is my friend?" they would have said no.

 

 

And personal payments?