Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #41
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Good point Luc, I didn't think about cross-currency payments. Duly noted.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  2. #42
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    I would love to see some specifics on that. I have done literally hundreds of transactions as gift as both buyer and seller. If anyone was to trip it I'd think I would!

    *Besides, wouldn't that be illegal or something? It'd have to be in their TOS and seems highly suspicious, more so than normal even!
    PayPal User Agreement

    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.

  3. #43
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Okay, but does it say they will start charging you a fee? That's the part that I'm curious about.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  4. #44
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    Okay, but does it say they will start charging you a fee? That's the part that I'm curious about.
    No, or at least not in the User Agreement.

    EDIT: However, removing the ability to use gift amounts to the same thing - if you're only allowed to receive non-gift, you will necessarily be paying the fee.

  5. #45
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    But Frank was saying the buyer, upon selecting "gift," would be charged an extra 3%, which would be a fee added (not taken away). In your example you are talking about a seller, not a buyer. I'm just legitimately curious if/how they are doing that.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    We are getting way off topic here... but PayPal runs an enormously complex financial system that a lot of people (as evidenced in another thread about PayPal) here simply don't appreciate. Just like with stealing music on the Internet, some people think it is OK to not pay for something that is the life blood of those who produce the service/product just because it is easy. It is wrong, and I won't do business with people who are unethical. If you are buying something from someone, it is not a gift. If they give it to you, it is a gift. If you don't want to pay the PayPal fees, then don't use PayPal! Simple, AND ethical.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    That is what has happened to me Corran. I think PayPal can tell (sometimes) when you're paying for something as opposed to just giving people money. It also distinguishes and charges whether it is checked as a gift or a payment owed.

    I know this is critically important to you so let me check top be sure. I just gifted you $1000. Let me know if it comes through or if they take a cut. I paid in Rubles from my friend Vladimir Putin's account.

    In any event, if we've been paying for purchases using the Gift option, we are breaking their rules. Not that I care that much, but I'll own up to it.

  8. #48
    Andi Heuser
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Düsseldorf,Germany
    Posts
    342

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Why not block any comments on the sale threads?

    Only the seller can give additional information, pictures, price release etc.
    Limited bumps, maybe in the first week every day and then once weekly.
    After the sale is completed the buyer should have access to give a feedback,
    if the buyer wants to be private he can give feedback to moderator or other known and respected person, the moderator or person remarks eg. : "buyer gives positive feedback, quality of item is OK, fast shipping".

    When problems occur the buyer and seller should try to settle this with themselves without public comments.
    They should try to be friendly and fair and objective,
    when someone said rude words there's ALWAYS the possibility
    to make an excuse and keep on and sort it out.

    If that doesn't work there should be a kind of ombudsman who cam mediate.
    But only when the buyer and seller have made really enough efforts themselves.
    Not run to the ombudsman after the first email whining: "this crook called me a dumb".
    This is not a kindergarten

  9. #49
    indecent exposure cosmicexplosion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    664

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    i think there should be some way of letting people know if a seller is a fraud, or lacks integrity, if people on this forum have been burnt, then as a group, the tribal logic is to stick together.

    i am however not interested in psyco-dramas caused by misunderstandings that cause people to yell at one another.

    i am interested in avoiding problems.

    maybe the moderators can come up with a solution where by a seller can simply be barred from selling, if he is deemed a scoundrel.

    i mean they ban people for talking in the wrong way

    my two cents plus paypal fees.
    through a glass darkly...

  10. #50
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    But Frank was saying the buyer, upon selecting "gift," would be charged an extra 3%, which would be a fee added (not taken away). In your example you are talking about a seller, not a buyer. I'm just legitimately curious if/how they are doing that.
    You're right, my bad. What I posted obviously doesn't answer that.

Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
    By Heroique in forum On Photography
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2009, 12:06
  2. What's in the box? Another Efke victim...
    By muskedear in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2-May-2007, 15:10
  3. The one third into the scene rule
    By Leonard Evens in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2006, 06:52
  4. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •