PayPal "Gift"

Status
Not open for further replies.
HappyDaddy

HappyDaddy

Feedback: +8 / =0 / -0
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
1,987
Let me say up front that I hope this thread can stay in GBU, but, as it technically deals with a potential rules change, it may get moved to Tech Support. I also hope that the conversation (if there is any) will stay focused on the precise proposal and not devolve into a discussion of other matters or complaints about this deal or that person.

Very simply, I think that BFC should specifically prohibit any seller from posting in the sales thread a requirement that payment be by PayPal "gift." Here's why: The PalPal terms of service apply the prohibition against accepting "personal payments" (their term for "gift") to the seller. I find no prohibition against the payor. The remedies for breaching the terms of service in those circumstances all apply to the person accepting the payment, not the person making the payment. Imposing this prohibition would, in my opinion, remove any "stain" on BFC accruing from facilitating the knowing and intentional violation of PayPal's terms of service and, perhaps more importantly, I believe it would greatly reduce the use of "gift" payments and the associated problems that arise from it.

If a seller can't openly require "gift" payments, he is left with two alternatives concerning PayPal. He can either accept "goods and services" payment (and adjust his price to reflect fees if he wishes), or he can require an additional step in private communication with the potential buyer by which he informs the buyer of his "gift" requirement. It seems to me that the latter option would be too burdensome and aggravating for most and would be eschewed in favor of the former.

I understand the hesitancy on the part of BFC to get too deep in the weeds of policing Exchange transactions. However, I think this issue is unique and can be addressed without concern with opening the floodgates to a host of other niggling rules. Ultimately, I think BFC and its members/users would be better off for the change I suggest.
 
There's no rule in the exchange specifying PayPal as the way to make payments so why would they require a certain PayPal payment method. It's been stated by the mods in every thread regarding PayPal why they won't require the goods/services payment.

They aren't here to enforce Paypal's policies or force people to take or make a certain payment. They can suggest it, but won't require it.
 
From the RULES
8. Warning: You as a buyer are responsible for using Paypal as it was intended, according to their Terms of Service. Using the "Gift" option revokes any buyer protection you may have if something goes wrong and makes it easier to get scammed. Be smart and protect yourself, if you use gift and get scammed don't come crying to us about it as you've already been advised.
Click to expand...
While it isn't the step you are requesting, they have made the statement that buyers should not use that payment method.
 
This has been brought up many times before. I do not think it will change any time soon. It is not the Job of BFC mods to enforce the rules of other companies. Think of all the other forms of payment there are. Should BFC be involved in enforcing their policies as well? If paypal really wants to crack down on the use of their service out side of their TOS then that is on them. What is on this community is to discourage it at every corner and more importantly for the good members here to never use it. If those of us who constant the exchange never used it, that would mean something. It would mostly be used by noobs, the blissfully ignorant, the out right stupid, the cheap ass flippers, and the full on scammers. Frankly, those people don't impact my buying and selling because I don't deal with people like that. I also never send payments as a gift or accept payments as gift. It's not a problem for me, or BFC really.

Using friends and family when it is a payment is wrong, for whatever reason. If you use paypal use it correctly rather than steel from them. If you are against paypal goods don't use paypal, period. Don't complain about it and be proud to use gift to "stick it" to the man. Don't come up with other excuses to not use paypal correctly, as we have seen recently. Just don't use it.
 
I know what the rules are. I know what has been said about this issue in the past. My assertion is that the rule should be changed, and I've said why I think that. I've not said that only PP should be used. I've said that an ad requiring payment by PP "gift" should be prohibited.

Edited to make clear that this response was to the first two replies.
 
Thanks Rev - I've read that and it's a good discussion.

Craytab - I agree with what you say, with one exception. While I don't think it's BFC's obligation to enforce another entity's terms of service, I do think it's appropriate to prohibit ads that require a violation of the terms of service, particularly where that violation frequently leads to problems directly impacting those who use BFC's Exchange.
 
HappyDaddy said:
Thanks Rev - I've read that and it's a good discussion.

Craytab - I agree with what you say, with one exception. While I don't think it's BFC's obligation to enforce another entity's terms of service, I do think it's appropriate to prohibit ads that require a violation of the terms of service, particularly where that violation frequently leads to problems directly impacting those who use BFC's Exchange.
Click to expand...

Okay but there are a couple issues there. Just because an ad specifies a certain type of payment does not mean that is how the payment was made once the sale is complete. This goes back to the age old argument of people wanting the price left up in a sellers ad so they can value their own knife. The problem is, just because an item is listed at a certain price and has sold, it does not mean it is sold at the listed price. We have no idea what went on in the background and nor should we. Terms and price are a private matter between buyer and seller.

Next, how often do these issues impact you or I personally? For me, never. As I said I never participate in these types on transactions. The cost to my wallet or items is zero.

There is the issue of our community reputation but I would say that the few folks who complain about the exchange or express concern about participating in the exchange don't know what they are talking about. They will either become educated or go away, neither of which hurts the community. If they can't realize the value here we do not need them here.

The only way I see this issue impacting me or you or any honest seller/buyer is if paypal stops supporting sales made on this specific forum. Which is so highly unlikely I am not worried at all.

The only impact in changing this rule would be to protect the dumbass people and thus more work for the Mods. Not worth it IMO.
 
I'm on the Exchange every day. I won't use gift and I also won't add 4% to the selling price. I just move on.
I doubt I'm the only one, but there are obviously members paying with gift......plenty of sales threads requesting one or the other every day.
Joe
 
Craytab- Again, I agree with most of what you say. There's no personal impact to me (or you) because I'd never pay by "gift." I also have little sympathy for those who do, and then have problems. Where I disagree is with the idea that prohibiting ads requiring "gift" payments would increase the workload on moderators. It might do so in the near term (shutting down threads that violate the rule). In the long term I think it would reduce the number of GBU threads that arise as a result of "gift" payments. Really though, I mainly think it's just the right thing to do. I don't think BFC should allow people to advertise a payment requirement that is unambiguously dishonest and problematic.
 
This is something that seems to be out of control on the Busse Exchange more than others. I wont buy anything using pp gift. I wont sell anything using pp gift or "friends and family". It's not ethical. It's lying and it's fraud.

I don't have an opinion either way about making rules against it but like someone else said, just don't use it.
 
HappyDaddy said:
Let me say up front that I hope this thread can stay in GBU, but, as it technically deals with a potential rules change, it may get moved to Tech Support. I also hope that the conversation (if there is any) will stay focused on the precise proposal and not devolve into a discussion of other matters or complaints about this deal or that person.

Very simply, I think that BFC should specifically prohibit any seller from posting in the sales thread a requirement that payment be by PayPal "gift." Here's why: The PalPal terms of service apply the prohibition against accepting "personal payments" (their term for "gift") to the seller. I find no prohibition against the payor. The remedies for breaching the terms of service in those circumstances all apply to the person accepting the payment, not the person making the payment. Imposing this prohibition would, in my opinion, remove any "stain" on BFC accruing from facilitating the knowing and intentional violation of PayPal's terms of service and, perhaps more importantly, I believe it would greatly reduce the use of "gift" payments and the associated problems that arise from it.

If a seller can't openly require "gift" payments, he is left with two alternatives concerning PayPal. He can either accept "goods and services" payment (and adjust his price to reflect fees if he wishes), or he can require an additional step in private communication with the potential buyer by which he informs the buyer of his "gift" requirement. It seems to me that the latter option would be too burdensome and aggravating for most and would be eschewed in favor of the former.

I understand the hesitancy on the part of BFC to get too deep in the weeds of policing Exchange transactions. However, I think this issue is unique and can be addressed without concern with opening the floodgates to a host of other niggling rules. Ultimately, I think BFC and its members/users would be better off for the change I suggest.
Click to expand...


I can definitely see your point, I am involved in other non-knife related forums where the paypal gift option is NOT to be used for any sort of transactions advertised on the forums website. I don't think BladeForums should be held responsible for simply hosting these ads, and as hhmoore said, it is addressed in the rules. I do agree however with what I believe you are trying to say.... IMHO no one should ask, request, or demand that a buyer uses the PP gift option....It's not great to demand that a buyer forgo all purchasing protection just because you want to save a few bucks. I believe sellers should just adjust their prices accordingly. At any rate 3% is not a large amount, and should make the buying selling process better for both seller and buyer.

I will also say that as far as I am concerned paypal and ebay are a necessary evil....and I am certainly not opposed to "sticking it to them" by using the gift option. Providing that the amount of money is small, and only if the seller/trader has some reputation to back it up.

In conclusion, I don't think BF needs to adjust any rules, I think people should just be more responsible for their own ads when selling in the trade section. Just my $0.02
 
HappyDaddy said:
Where I disagree is with the idea that prohibiting ads requiring "gift" payments would increase the workload on moderators. It might do so in the near term (shutting down threads that violate the rule). In the long term I think it would reduce the number of GBU threads that arise as a result of "gift" payments. Really though, I mainly think it's just the right thing to do. I don't think BFC should allow people to advertise a payment requirement that is unambiguously dishonest and problematic.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in sentiment, I do not in practicality. It would add a lot of work for the mods because they would have to micro manage 10 or so different subforums and then even more of the Hosted Knife Maker forums where sales also take place. Lots of warnings, then closed threads, and eventually infractions i assume would follow. Also, if we put a rule for Gift, might as well make one for PayPal's other stipulations like having the buyers pay fees or giving discounts for other payment methods.

I also do not think that it would noticeably reduce the number of GBU threads. People could and probably would still pay with Gift if the seller offered them a discount in private conversation.

I think of paying with Gift it sort of the same light as smoking. The risks are well known and documented. If one wants to ignore them then that is their prerogative. And if someone doesn't care to read and understand TOS of the financial service they are using, to their detriment, that is on them.

Vote with your wallet and click the back button on threads asking for GIFT and or 3% (or more:rolleyes:) for PayPal fees.
 
Benchwarmer - All good points, and presumably close to the reasons BFC hasn't prohibited them to date.
 
I think if you want to have an impact, the members here should just boycott ads that state gift and do the same for add the 4% nonsense. Even if it means passing on a knife that you really want. Personally, I never understood gift and add this and that. It's really petty when it comes down to the bottom line with relatively small amounts. Its not like trying to save the fee's on a million dollars. It has really gotten to the point of total absurdity in the exchange.
 
I think not prohibiting PayPal Gift payments for the sale of goods as many other forums have done casts a bad light on this forum and have stated so in previous discussions. In my opinion the argument that it is not the place of the forum to enforce rules of other companies is weak as this forum does enforce the intellectual property rights of other companies by banning the sale of counterfeit goods. That being said I recognize that it is the right of the owner of the forum to decide how he wants to conduct the forum and I freely choose to participate in the exchange in spite of my objections over this particular issue.
 
I understand the idea, but in the end, more bureaucracy = higher costs. More bureaucracy always leads to shifting points of entry of unsavory behavior anyway. Bad doesn't go away, it just shifts. Losers can adjust as much as management can. I've said it before; you can't eliminate BAD, you can only manage it to a certain extent. Also, it's always the same mistakes that lead to failures, and "gift" is nothing more than a manageable mistake. Don't do it. Besides, there is an easy workaround... Who cares what sellers demand? Buying/Selling is a mutual understanding, it's not one way. If a buyer sees too many risks or to many complications, walk away. I like the idea of simple, forthright, and understandable rules and education provided by BF management (they have always done this), which they will enforce. Outside of that, there is little else they can do.
 
I understand the OP's sentiment, but I firmly believe that enforcement will only create a nightmare for the Mods. They already provide ample warnings not to use the F&F Gift option. The effect of natural consequences is still the best teacher. GBU proves that.
 
When "Gift" is used, cheating Paypal, and the deal goes south I find it strange how the members will come here complaining of being "cheated".

Just be on the up and up all the way around and it makes things go smoother.
 
It is obviously true that there are many forms of payment that can be arranged as part of a transaction. In my experience, however, it seems that PayPal is by far the preferred method of payment. When I sell a knife, the first question that I get asked is 'what is your PayPal info?'. For the record, I never say F&F. Likewise when I buy a knife, if it is in the USA, I typically use PayPal. My personal use of PayPal aside, I think it is safe to say that most of us are in the same camp. If this is, in fact, accurate I believe that simply stating in the rules that BF discourages the use of PayPal F&F should suffice. BF would not have to police anything. At the same time, people who feel they have been "scammed" or "cheated" because a PayPal issue would not have a leg to stand on in the GBU. They could still complain, but their argument would have little basis for compassion or debate.

We already have a rule that states "Be prompt with your payment". Why not just add one that states "Using F&F is discouraged and not supported by BF".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top