General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[HarveySwick]

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

 

But carry on with your crusade.

[CAHokie]

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

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Dance, dance, dance, Paypal doesn't understand the situation, and thinks that Swick is asking about a "one time deal" from a "friend", and they're willing to GRACIOUSLY grant an exception to the rule in that specific case...which "Roger" clearly says will be a problem at "some point"...and some of you think that throws the barn door wide open to using Paypal personal for any and every purchase, from anyone and everyone.

 

 

People are fun.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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

 

But carry on with your crusade.

 

You've mischaracterized the situation to Paypal, and Paypal...contrary to their own terms...because you did not explain it to them...GRACIOUSY grants you a ONE TIME exception...and you grab onto it like a drowning man grabbing a life preserver...and say "SEE!? SEE!!? They SAID it was OK, because they're my REAL LIFE FRIENDS!" which isn't the point.

 

If you had HONESTLY explained the situation, instead of DISHONESTLY hiding details so that the Paypal reps didn't have a clear picture of what you were asking, you would have gotten a DIFFERENT ANSWER.

 

I know that, because I talked to them about it, too.

 

But carry on with your crusade.

[HarveySwick]

HarveySwick - 1 Post

RockyMyAmadeus - _______ Posts

 

Who is crusading?

[RockMyAmadeus]

HarveySwick - 1 Post

RockyMyAmadeus - _______ Posts

 

Who is crusading?

 

Irrelevant issue, only brought up to discredit. You now have 3 posts in this discussion today. So?

 

You're intellectually dishonest, and don't have a problem using someone else's services without paying for those services.

 

Just own it, already.

[revat]

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

 

But carry on with your crusade.

 

You've mischaracterized the situation to Paypal, and Paypal...contrary to their own terms...because you did not explain it to them...GRACIOUSY grants you a ONE TIME exception...and you grab onto it like a drowning man grabbing a life preserver...and say "SEE!? SEE!!? They SAID it was OK, because they're my REAL LIFE FRIENDS!" which isn't the point.

 

If you had HONESTLY explained the situation, instead of DISHONESTLY hiding details so that the Paypal reps didn't have a clear picture of what you were asking, you would have gotten a DIFFERENT ANSWER.

 

But carry on with your crusade.

 

I'm honestly not sure where I fall on the PP question, but I do think that RMA is right that if you said:

 

"I occasionally hold comic sales on an internet chat board and sell to other members of that chat board. If they offer to pay me via paypal personal, is that cool? I'm on regular on those forums and know some of them pretty well."

 

I feel the paypal rep would either ask more questions then deny you, or just deny you on the spot. Whether or not that tickles your moral fancy is up to the individual.

 

 

 

[HarveySwick]

That's the problem though, you're the one characterizing it as "stealing". I pay with goods on eBay using PayPal business all the time. If I bought from a seller here I didn't know or trust, I'd use PayPal business.

 

If I'm buying from a friend, I use... the "Friends and Family" option.

 

You can characterize your friends anyway you want. Just please stop calling people thieves and liars just because YOU believe one thing and others don't agree with you.

 

What am I to own? That I use a service. Yes, I use PayPal.

 

Feel free to continue on. I don't really feel the need or desire to engage you in discussion any further. If you want to vilify me, knock your socks off. You're clearly right and there is no convincing you to the contrary.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

Final thought that I've discussed with several friends in PM.

 

I'd imagine that PayPal's position is simple. Thinking about it from a legal perspective. It's all about Disclaimers, Releases and Waivers.

 

If a Seller manages to scam people by requiring PayPal personal, PayPal can be tied in with any legal claims because there could be an argument made that they did not give enough notice of the waiver of Buyer Protection.

 

But there is zero concern if a Buyer voluntarily waives the protection to pay a friend. PayPal is protected from any legal action.

 

Basically, a Seller here could just screencap their sales thread and screencap the buyer's offer of payment via Personal Paypal.

 

The seller did not REQUEST PayPal personal. The buyer willingly waived buyer protection by offering it.

 

A seller can't ASK for personal PayPal. A buyer CAN send a personal PayPal pmt.

 

That is why it is clearly spelled out in the "Receiving" section in PayPal's User Agreement, but there is no mention of it in the "Sending" section. It is intentionally omitted. The section quoted about purchase of goods and what not it to give an adequate warning (with regards to PayPal's legal protections) to Buyers. It allows PayPal to wash their hands of the matter.

 

You keep harping on the fact that it was implied a one time transaction. I don't believe that to be the case of their interpretation of my inquiries (I sent several).

 

But again, feel free to be entitled to your opinion of what PayPal does and does not allow and your opinion of me. I'm not going to try to convince you of either.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's the problem though, you're the one characterizing it as "stealing". I pay with goods on eBay using PayPal business all the time. If I bought from a seller here I didn't know or trust, I'd use PayPal business.

 

If I use your services, and don't pay you for them, what is that..?

 

It's a simple question, Swick, and at the heart of the matter. Everything else is side noise, meant to justify stealing.

 

If I'm buying from a friend, I use... the "Friends and Family" option.

 

Did you read anything I wrote? Will you acknowledge it? No, of course not, because it demolishes your argument.

 

You will do whatever you do, facts be damned.

 

You can characterize your friends anyway you want. Just please stop calling people thieves and liars just because YOU believe one thing and others don't agree with you.

 

What am I to own? That I use a service. Yes, I use PayPal.

 

I already told you what you should own. You refuse.

 

Feel free to continue on. I don't really feel the need or desire to engage you in discussion any further.

 

Not surprising. You don't have an argument to stand on, so not wanting to discuss it further isn't surprising. Does that sound arrogant...? It's still true.

 

If you want to vilify me, knock your socks off. You're clearly right and there is no convincing you to the contrary.

 

The points have been made, and they have been made well. Those interested in doing the right thing will do the right thing, and those not will use any justification to do what they do. I can't force anyone to do anything. I can, however, persuade, and as long as someone brings it up, I'll respond.

 

If you don't want me to respond...don't try to justify it publicly.

 

I have no interest in "vilifying" you or anyone. I really don't have strong feeling about you, one way or the other. I have an interest in doing the right thing or...at the very least...not continuing the hypocrisy of maintaining a Probation List/HOS, while simultaneously allowing people to use Paypal's services without paying for them.

 

Basic common sense...just simple common sense, that any 5 year old can understand...says that if EVERYONE used Paypal the way you think it is acceptable, PAYPAL WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

 

That ALONE should tell you something, but if it does not....I have no problem pointing out that using a service and not paying for it, no matter the justification, is stealing.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Final thought that I've discussed with several friends in PM.

 

I'd imagine that PayPal's position is simple. Thinking about it from a legal perspective. It's all about Disclaimers, Releases and Waivers.

 

If a Seller manages to scam people by requiring PayPal personal, PayPal can be tied in with any legal claims because there could be an argument made that they did not give enough notice of the waiver of Buyer Protection.

 

But there is zero concern if a Buyer voluntarily waives the protection to pay a friend. PayPal is protected from any legal action.

 

Basically, a Seller here could just screencap their sales thread and screencap the buyer's offer of payment via Personal Paypal.

 

The seller did not REQUEST PayPal personal. The buyer willingly waived buyer protection by offering it.

 

A seller can't ASK for personal PayPal. A buyer CAN send a personal PayPal pmt.

 

That is why it is clearly spelled out in the "Receiving" section in PayPal's User Agreement, but there is no mention of it in the "Sending" section. It is intentionally omitted. The section quoted about purchase of goods and what not it to give an adequate warning (with regards to PayPal's legal protections) to Buyers. It allows PayPal to wash their hands of the matter.

 

You keep harping on the fact that it was implied a one time transaction. I don't believe that to be the case of their interpretation of my inquiries (I sent several).

 

Rubbish. All the language you included speaks of a ONE TIME transaction. "A book" "someTHING"...and that's how the reps responded: "AN item." "A book."

 

You didn't explain the situation AS IT EXISTS at all. You artfully dodged the situation completely.

 

But again, feel free to be entitled to your opinion of what PayPal does and does not allow and your opinion of me. I'm not going to try to convince you of either.

 

Paypal does not sell insurance. They are not an insurance company. They are a service company. They provide a service, part of which includes buyer protection, because that's how Visa/MasterCard and the FTC works.

 

You don't have the right to unilaterally decide you are going to "waive" an "insurance policy", because Paypal doesn't sell, and you are not buying, an insurance policy...or Paypal would be a radically different company, operating under completely different rule.

 

Paypal does not sell insurance. Paypal sells a service. If you use Paypal, you should pay for their service.

 

That they may occasionally grant exceptions to their terms does not therefore give you the right to take those exceptions any and every time you feel like it, just because you can.

 

Your argument isn't valid. Sorry.

[Transplant]

A friend in need is a friend in deed

 

[comix4fun]

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Thank you.

 

PayPal doesn't want SELLERS abusing their service by asking buyers to pay with PP and depriving buyers of protection and open themselves up to liability of fraud.

 

No.

 

Their motive is far, far simpler, and has little to nothing to do...ultimately...with "depriving buyers of protection."

 

They want...to stay....in business.

 

That is why Paypal charges a fee.

 

They aren't running a charity. They are a business.

 

 

They do NOT care if a BUYER uses PayPal Personal to pay FRIEND!

 

That's right: provided it's THEIR decision. It is a GRACIOUS EXCEPTION to the rule, that they are willing to grant at THEIR discretion....not yours.

 

Do you just not see the end of your "logic"? Everyone is my friend, and therefore, I don't have to pay Paypal to use it ever, because...everyone is my friend.

 

They're saying that if a seller receives PP payments from hundreds of people, they will investigate further.

 

 

Oh really...?

 

Where did you see that? "Hundreds of people", that is..?

 

And why not? After all, if those "hundreds of people" are all my friends, what right does Paypal have to say otherwise...? That's the argument being made here.

 

 

The answer is ever so simple: you use a service...pay for the service.

 

Why is this so hard to grasp? Answer: because people feel entitled to do what they want, as they see fit.

[EC ed]

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.

 

 

I must say...this Coke analogy also resonates with me...

 

I must launch my own, independent investigation

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

That's right...Paypal graciously provides an exception to the terms...they provide the exception...it's their decision.

 

It's not one that anyone can unilaterally decide on their own.

 

It's ok if the store owner says "here's a free coke."

 

It's not ok to take a coke from the fridge without asking, and assuming the owner will be "just fine" with it, just because they said it was ok once.

 

That's a pretty good and useful analogy.

 

If one really had a concern, why not call up Paypal and ask about a specific transaction? It's easy to reach Paypal. If one really cared, they could ask Paypal's permission each and every time they wanted to.

 

If Paypal grants that exception every time you ask, GREAT! But it's THEIR...DECISION.

 

Not mine, not yours, not anyone else's.

 

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.

 

Granted, but the argument has nothing to do with the quality of one's friendship, and never did. There is a distinction that I made between friends in REAL LIFE (and I've met people through the boards, and they are very much my friends in real life) and ASSOCIATES on a message board.

 

It's not about judging the quality of friendship...it's about addressing the fact that, for those so inclined, the "friend card" can and will be used for any and every transaction, regardless of the actual quality...or lack thereof...of the relationship.

 

Paypal opening the door a crack....which is their decision to make...means that some (many?) here will take a sledgehammer and knock the door off it's hinges.

 

 

I mean, really, let's be honest: this isn't about Paypal, or care for Paypal. It's completely and totally self-serving. Swick doesn't care one whit about Paypal. He just wants to be able to send AND receive Personal payments for purchases...and so do others. That's really the bottom line.

 

They want to use the service, but not pay for it. All the rest of this is just window dressing.

 

 

[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.

That's exactly how I understood it.

 

But, if it's permitted behavior, how do you abuse it? What does "frequently" even mean? When does abuse begin?

 

Why can't they just state a clear policy, and interpret it consistently? Surely there is someone who works at PayPal who can figure out how to do that...

 

It's the same logic that allows some post offices to say that media mail is fine for comics and some to say it's not allowed.

 

In other words, "I have no idea what the rules are. I'm just going to make mess up and run with it"

 

 

[retrothecollector]

Thank you.

 

PayPal doesn't want SELLERS abusing their service by asking buyers to pay with PP and depriving buyers of protection and open themselves up to liability of fraud.

 

No.

 

Their motive is far, far simpler, and has little to nothing to do...ultimately...with "depriving buyers of protection."

 

They want...to stay....in business.

 

That is why Paypal charges a fee.

 

They aren't running a charity. They are a business.

 

 

They do NOT care if a BUYER uses PayPal Personal to pay FRIEND!

 

That's right: provided it's THEIR decision. It is a GRACIOUS EXCEPTION to the rule, that they are willing to grant at THEIR discretion....not yours.

 

Do you just not see the end of your "logic"? Everyone is my friend, and therefore, I don't have to pay Paypal to use it ever, because...everyone is my friend.

 

They're saying that if a seller receives PP payments from hundreds of people, they will investigate further.

 

 

Oh really...?

 

Where did you see that? "Hundreds of people", that is..?

 

And why not? After all, if those "hundreds of people" are all my friends, what right does Paypal have to say otherwise...? That's the argument being made here.

 

 

The answer is ever so simple: you use a service...pay for the service.

 

Why is this so hard to grasp? Answer: because people feel entitled to do what they want, as they see fit.

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

[skypinkblu]

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.

 

I have some very dear friends on here, people I talk to on the phone or in emails all the time, that I have never met. I also have some I have met, but because of distance, rarely see in person.

 

I think we all know that one of the things that keep lawyers and others in business is that there are different ways of interpreting things.

 

There are also different ways of "saying" things to people. Your way is kind. Telling someone that maybe they made an error, is kind.

 

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

 

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.

 

I don't think I've ever asked for personal PP. I'm saying I don't "think" because maybe I slipped up and I've forgotten. I know it's a rule on the forum not to ask, and I know PP says not to ask, so I accept that. Not a problem.

 

I know that I've been sent personal PP without having asked for it. If someone asks me, I do ask if they would mind sending a check instead.

 

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.

 

I'm not as comfortable receiving personal PP as I am a check, but that's because I had been told by other boarders that if it was used "too" much, PP would ask questions. I appreciate that the people who send me checks (or personal payments without asking are just trying to be nice, and I thank them. However, I like to avoid conflict if possible.

 

I know that personally, I'm going to try not to pay with personal payments unless it's a charity thread, or to pay someone back for a favor they did for me. I have been doing that for a while.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Life is full of interpretations. I've even read that some people view colors differently.