Should PayPal Gift Option be permitted for sales?

[sirupatespecial]

I voted no. I would never use it. If you are gonna screw Pay Pal you'll probably screw a buyer eventually.....However, it's not Bladeforums place to decide how private transactions are done. Plus, the feedback forums wouldn't be nearly as entertaining!

 

[Brisket]

There is a bit more mod involvement than you may think. We get in like stealthy ninjas, send PMs requesting changes, merge threads, and remove discussions and leave before anyone knows we were even there. On occasion, we issue warnings and infractions like shuriken. Herding cats is a tough job.

I know y'all do a lot besides the sneaky ninja stuff and are greatly underappreciated as well. I'm certainly not advocating putting a much larger work load on the mods than they already have. My point is if there is a rule established to ban the solicitation of paypal gift purchases for goods then the members of the forums will help enforce it by posting on the exchange thread notifying the seller. You know we all enjoy telling someone they are doing something wrong. If there not a rule but just a caution or suggestion then nothing will change IMO and the exchange will continue to attract those who wish to take advantage of others.

 

[wolf-man-12]

You know my stand on this matter as I got an infraction for saying anything to a member about it.!** BAN IT..**********

 

[Blue Sky]

I voted against a rule. You cannot regulate good sense, and an unenforcable rule is just that, unenforcable and a waste of time.

 

[Hard Knocks]

Since this has popped back up........

......still in 100% agreement with Brisket.

 

[pbcg]

I generally agree that it's not BFC's or the Mods job to regulate and enforce PP's terms of service.

I get that.

But, it's not BFC's or the Mod's job to protect intellectual property rights either but the sale and trading of Fakes is prohibited isn't it? Because it's theft right?

I see BFC as a community first and not another e-bay. As a community we should be looking out for one another. I'm not big on more rules either but if it helps the community then I'm for it. Just like I support the rule against allowing fakes in the exchange.

I can see only good thing's coming from not allowing the use of the gift option.

 

[JCP1969]

100 % agree with brisket. :thumbup:

 

[Esav Benyamin]

A self-policing forum is a happy forum. Or at least, a happy moderator. Anything you guys take care of is good.

EXCEPT posting in someone's sale thread that he's doing it wrong. THAT is "interfering with a sale" and is a warning or infraction. Hit him with a Visitor Message or Private Message or email. Don't mess with his sale, which is usually legitimate otherwise.

 

[pbcg]

A self-policing forum is a happy forum. Or at least, a happy moderator. Anything you guys take care of is good.

EXCEPT posting in someone's sale thread that he's doing it wrong. THAT is "interfering with a sale" and is a warning or infraction. Hit him with a Visitor Message or Private Message or email. Don't mess with his sale, which is usually legitimate otherwise.

Esav,

Is it acceptable to make an offer in a sales thread saying you'll take it if you don't have to pay fee's or use gift?

Example: "I'll take it", provided you don't ask me to pay YOUR fee's or pay using the gift option in violation of PP's term's of service.

Would the above be acceptable in a sales thread provided you were serious about buying the knife as long as you weren't being asked to pay fee's or use gift?

 

[RevDevil]

I'd recommend email or Pm in that case, but if you have serious intent on buying I would not be opposed.

 

[pbcg]

Thanks Rev!

 

[Esav Benyamin]

We don't like lowballing in the thread, which might include discussions of financial terms. But I'm with RevDevil on this one: if you say "I will take it -- at your price -- but PayPal "goods" not "gift" and no fee to me" then I myself would not call it a violation on your part.

But then, RevDevil and I also agree: this gift or 3.5 or 4.0 or 5.0 % is really petty, and demeans the forums. If you tell him so politely as I bolded above I say you're OK.

 

[RevDevil]

Thanks Rev!

Thanks for bringing up that situation. That was a good question and had not given it much thought.

We don't like lowballing in the thread, which might include discussions of financial terms. But I'm with RevDevil on this one: if you say "I will take it -- at your price -- but PayPal "goods" not "gift" and no fee to me" then I myself would not call it a violation on your part.

But then, RevDevil and I also agree: this gift or 3.5 or 4.0 or 5.0 % is really petty, and demeans the forums. If you tell him so politely as I bolded above I say you're OK.

:thumbup: We want to make it easy for people to list and sell their items, while the consumers remain respectful and tactful.

 

[Zidfeldts]

When you are selling a knife and ask for gift or plus fees I feel it makes you look small as a seller. You don't pay Interac fees or charge card fees when you are buying at a store; that is figured into the price.

 

[SVTFreak]

Just increase asking price and offer to cover fees and shipping. Be surprised how people will jump on that and usually you get more in your pocket after.

 

[bld522]

I voted yes. I understand the PayPal rules, but I believe that sellers ought to be able to post the net price they're willing to sell their goods for and buyers should be able to use any method of making payment for their own convenience that's acceptable to the seller. If a buyer wants to use a method of making payment that incurs extra charges, payment for those extra charges should fall on the BUYER, not on the seller. For example, if a buyer wants to pay for an item using a personal check and that's OK with the seller, the buyer should have to pay the costs of mailing the check, not the seller. Likewise, if a buyer wants to pay for an item using a money order and that's OK with the seller, the buyer should have to cover the costs of purchasing the money order, not the seller. So if a buyer wants to use PayPal for their own convenience and protection to pay for an item, why is it suddenly the responsibility of the seller to cover the costs of the transaction? PayPal rules notwithstanding, that's just never made any sense to me.

When I sell an item, I post a price followed by "net to me" and I leave it open to the buyer how he wants to pay for it. Then I negotiate the payment terms via PM or e-mail. That way, the payment arrangement is a private matter between me and the buyer. It also allows me to keep all my options open, often to the benefit of the buyer. As far as I'm concerned, that's the way payment should always be handled.

 

[CloudsRest]

As a new seller here, when I saw the trend of asking for "gift" payments or "+4%," I thought that was an OK practice because so many people do it. I did it with my first few sales (just a few days ago I might ad), but after seeing this and another thread about the practice, have edited my current listing to include the fee price in my asking price. While it occurred to me that the gift option would be less secure, I was of the mentality, 'when in Rome...." If I had known about people's sentiments, I would have avoided all mention of gift payments and paypal fees from the start.

The reason I'm posting this is that I'm sure plenty of other people here are the same way--just copying what they see done, but willing to do things differently if it's something people are upset about. I think that we first need to make people aware of buyers' sentiments towards the selling practices here, and threads like this are a good start. It might be worth putting something in the exchange section too to catch more people's attention, as I have read on other forums that many people come here to sell and don't bother perusing the other forum sections.

 

[FLymon]

I voted yes. I understand the PayPal rules, but I believe that sellers ought to be able to post the net price they're willing to sell their goods for and buyers should be able to use any method of making payment for their own convenience that's acceptable to the seller. If a buyer wants to use a method of making payment that incurs extra charges, payment for those extra charges should fall on the BUYER, not on the seller. For example, if a buyer wants to pay for an item using a personal check and that's OK with the seller, the buyer should have to pay the costs of mailing the check, not the seller. Likewise, if a buyer wants to pay for an item using a money order and that's OK with the seller, the buyer should have to cover the costs of purchasing the money order, not the seller. So if a buyer wants to use PayPal for their own convenience and protection to pay for an item, why is it suddenly the responsibility of the seller to cover the costs of the transaction? PayPal rules notwithstanding, that's just never made any sense to me.

When I sell an item, I post a price followed by "net to me" and I leave it open to the buyer how he wants to pay for it. Then I negotiate the payment terms via PM or e-mail. That way, the payment arrangement is a private matter between me and the buyer. It also allows me to keep all my options open, often to the benefit of the buyer. As far as I'm concerned, that's the way payment should always be handled.

I get what you are saying, but the reason the seller should pay the PayPal fees is that PayPal primarily is a way for you to sell, as an individual, to someone who wants to pay with their credit card. The seller has the convenience of being able to sell to someone they otherwise would not be able to.

If a seller wants to advertise they will accept PayPal they should offer the item at a price they will accept for PayPal, and offer a discount for check/money order/beads/whatever. That would keep them in compliance with the agreement they made with PayPal. If as a seller you don't agree with the terms of service for PayPal, don't use it.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

If a seller wants to advertise they will accept PayPal they should offer the item at a price they will accept for PayPal, and offer a discount for check/money order/beads/whatever. That would keep them in compliance with the agreement they made with PayPal. If as a seller you don't agree with the terms of service for PayPal, don't use it.

As I understand PayPal's TOS, offering a discount for not using PayPal is the same as asking the buyer to pay the seller's PayPal fees.

Listen, just post a price TYD (to your door) all-inclusive of money for goods, shipping and handling, insurance, and that's it.

If you guys use PayPal, and the convenience and the speed makes it worth while, don't weasel on the fees. If you use check or money order or even put cash in an envelope (stupid, stupid, stupid) then waiting for the payment to arrive before the goods get sent is the price for avoiding PayPal.

It's nickels and dimes! If the knife is so expensive that the fees add up to real money, well, sure, but you're spending real money already, do it right. I hope you're also insured and using Registered mail, too, on any big ticket items.

 

[hhmoore]

If a buyer wants to use a method of making payment that incurs extra charges, payment for those extra charges should fall on the BUYER, not on the seller......So if a buyer wants to use PayPal for their own convenience and protection to pay for an item, why is it suddenly the responsibility of the seller to cover the costs of the transaction?

Well, PayPal is every bit as much of a convenience for sellers, possibly more so because it offers the option of credit card payments to people that wouldn't ordinarily be able to accept that payment option. Factor in not having to wait for the check/money order, then wait to see if it's going to clear, and the selling just got a whole lot easier. Aside from those things, though, your argument still falls flat because a very large percentage of the sellers are indicating PayPal Preferred or PayPal Only...making it their choice to incur those fees.