Ethics and Paypal

[newprepper]

You are correct, So I will join you at the creek, sorry

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You are correct, So I will join you at the creek, sorry

 

 

I win!!!

 

BYOW

[newprepper]

don't I always?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

don't I always?

 

Of that, I have not the slightest doubt.

I think you invented "got your 6"

[RockMyAmadeus]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

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.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What does "without a purchase" mean to you?

 

Setting aside the wording used in posing the question, I would again refer you to my Post and please read carefully.

 

It may also help to read my reply to Prep.

 

You haven't answered my question.

[comicdonna]

Thanks for the well wishes, Raisethis2 and Nutmeg Coin.

[comicdonna]

RMA is a master debater.

[FishyOne]

The wages of any sin, even "the smallest", even one, is death. But that's an entirely different discussion.

 

Yep, there you go. Know Jesus?

 

I do. I'm not worried.

[FishyOne]

One last comment: Ebay/PayPal abide by The Golden Rule: "We have the gold, so we make the rules".

 

Anyone can blindly follow all laws and rules and never challenge anything. Had our forefathers done so, the United States of America would not exist.

 

The founders of our country broke the law by "stealing" from England what was rightfully theirs.

 

Their are countless examples throughout history where violating the "law" led to a greater good.

 

Anyone who blindly defends corporate greed should get a job at a major U.S. bank on Wall Street. Legalized "theft" is the major reason of the Great Recession and it's alive and well at Ebay/PayPal, on Wall Street, and at many corporations in America and around the world.

 

Capitalism is the best economic system devised by man but has many flaws. This "discussion" is an example of some of those flaws.

[newprepper]

One last comment: Ebay/PayPal abide by The Golden Rule: "We have the gold, so we make the rules".

 

Anyone can blindly follow all laws and rules and never challenge anything. Had our forefathers done so, the United States of America would not exist.

 

The founders of our country broke the law by "stealing" from England what was rightfully theirs.

 

Their are countless examples throughout history where violating the "law" led to a greater good.

 

Anyone who blindly defends corporate greed should get a job at a major U.S. bank on Wall Street. Legalized "theft" is the major reason of the Great Recession and it's alive and well at Ebay/PayPal, on Wall Street, and at many corporations in America and around the world.

 

Capitalism is the best economic system devised by man but has many flaws. This "discussion" is an example of some of those flaws.

 

what was rightfully englands?

[James_OldeTowne]

I used the word ethics, and continue to use it, on purpose, because what it really comes down to is this: there's precious little to STOP a person intent on using Paypal personal for purchases. Yes, the law may be against it, but it is essentially powerless to stop it from occuring. Therefore...and this is the crux of my argument...it is incumbent on the personal ethics of those using the service to not abuse it. Those personal ethics derive from the larger societal ethos nearly universally (in other words...no man is an island.)

Then I guess the only thing I can do with my final post is to affirm that I disagree with you. Your opening scenario just simply is not, in my view, a discussion of ethics, but rather a discussion over whether or not some method of using some specific feature of Paypal equates to stealing. Because someone chooses to violate a rule doesn't determine whether he is an ethical person or not, and this is a true statement in a general sense as well. It simply means he violated a rule and is subject to prosecution. "Ethics" plays no role!

 

When a ragged, lawless mob of American colonists stole the King's tea and threw it into Boston harbor, they illegally violated a rule ("thou shalt not steal"), yet they did so in an ethical manner.

 

I'm sorry... "rules" or "laws" do not, and cannot, equate to a system of ethics. Stealing may be illegal, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is ethical.

[FishyOne]

One last comment: Ebay/PayPal abide by The Golden Rule: "We have the gold, so we make the rules".

 

Anyone can blindly follow all laws and rules and never challenge anything. Had our forefathers done so, the United States of America would not exist.

 

The founders of our country broke the law by "stealing" from England what was rightfully theirs.

 

Their are countless examples throughout history where violating the "law" led to a greater good.

 

Anyone who blindly defends corporate greed should get a job at a major U.S. bank on Wall Street. Legalized "theft" is the major reason of the Great Recession and it's alive and well at Ebay/PayPal, on Wall Street, and at many corporations in America and around the world.

 

Capitalism is the best economic system devised by man but has many flaws. This "discussion" is an example of some of those flaws.

 

what was rightfully englands?

 

Everything in the 13 English colonies. England owned it all and taxed it heavily. "Illegal" actions by settlers on the east coast of America were a clear violation of English Law. A new nation resulted from a war in which England defended their legal rights.

 

There use to be a law in the United States that allowed the legal ownership of slaves. Many in northern states broke the law, harboring black slaves from their rightful owners who resided in the south. For thousands of years no one questioned slavery. It was considered ethical and legal for many centuries.

 

Today many persons accept corporate greed as legal and ethical. Will that change too?

 

[rons]

I confess I have misused the paypal gift on occasion. I feel so dirty Perhaps I should be banned from the boards for an audacious act that "cheated" paypal from another $12.87 profit. Please mark me as questionable in any future dealing as I might be lower than pond scum. But, as a favor, please consult the many folks I have dealt with here personally and reconsider. PC can be deadly. IMHO.

[bochiman]

Threads like these are always interesting, yet sad, to read.

 

Too many opinions, and many of which are not fully educated but are very emotionally charged, and too many attacks on others.

 

I find that, while I still read them, to see if there is anything to learn, I often just learn about some of the dark sides of certain folks due to egos and what is posted.

I now mostly avoid posting to threads like this.

 

Really?!? Too many opinions? I see 2, those who agree it is theft, and those who don't care. Then you can throw in the attacks on the OP as extras.

 

What is not fully educated? The posters or their opinions? There is really nothing to educate about, paypal has 2 forms of payment, one for purchases which they charge a fee for, and 1 that is for gifts, no fee. That's it

 

As far as dark sides go, everybody has one, some may be bordering on eggshell instead of full blown black, but everybody has one.

 

I find your post very condescending with out adding anything of value to the conversation, just you looking down your nose at everybody else

 

But thanks for joining the attacks on everybody else

 

Yes, too many. There should be 2 sides, but people have branched out.

 

Fully educated? Reading comprehension should tell you that many posts have been partial truths or posts that don't have full info anyway. Yet some are given as truths until misproven.

 

Dark sides? Sure, everyone may have them. Too bad that egos and attacks on ideas/people seem to bring them to the forefront in a very vengeful way. Again, just read some of the posts and see where people go for another person's throat, pretty directly.

 

Condescending? Not meant that way. Could be. Just like everyone else posting though, I don't really care Bottom line is that I wish people could be a bit more civil with each other online. Pipe dream, I know. I do see you post in many of the heated threads, so maybe it is just good ol' entertainment for some?

 

Joining the attacks on everybody else? So, you do admit that many of the posts are just attacks on others. Thank you.

 

Now, unlike some, I have said my piece in this thread and will go back to just hanging out and reading the threads (using the mouse and not the keyboard), and hope for interesting threads that are educational or fun. I've reached the point where I don't need the internet drama to feel good....too busy in real life with too many things.

 

G'day

[lehigh96]

 

1. I didn't realize there were rules on how one must post.

 

2. The fact that you are angry about how someone else chooses to post is a very serious problem for you. To state that one must make a "positive contribution" (by your definition) or they risk the wrath of Lehigh96...well, who's really running roughshod over whom...?

 

3. Let me make it very clear that I don't have to defend my posts, especially to someone who thinks it's their duty to dictate how other people should post. No one has to defend how they post to anyone but the moderation team of this board. Whether I've helped thousands, or none at all (and the answer is much closer to the former), is no one's business, provided I follow the rules of this forum.

 

4. I seriously doubt you've seen even 1/100th of my posts on this board, so you are hardly qualified to make pronouncements on what you have actually seen.

 

1) I never said there were rules on how one must post. I simply stated that your posting style bothers me. But I never stated there was a rule preventing your from acting like a clown.

 

2) What wrath, what are you talking about? I toss a zinger your way and your cry like I little girl and call it wrath. What a baby! Your posts bother me and lessen my enjoyment of these forums. If you don't like that or the fact that I will respond by criticizing your posting style, tough mess.

 

3) If you don't feel the need to defend your posts, then why are you. Btw, time to wake up. You haven't helped anyone on the NGC coin forum. All you do is come here post your drivel and boost your post count.

 

4) With over 30K posts, I am sure you are right. But the large majority of your posts were made on the Comics forum which I don't even read. Nice try dreck collector!

 

So while you are a legend in your own mind, ask yourself this question: "what have the members of the NGC Coin Forum learned from my posts?" If you are as honest as you claim in this thread, you will admit that the answer is "nothing."

 

You're inventing statements and proscribing them to me. This is called a "straw man" argument, and it's a logical fallacy.

 

At no point did I "claim" ANYTHING about me. You invented that statement out of thin air, based on supposition, and now are stating that I "claimed" it.

 

Not saying that I'm not, mind you...just pointing out the fallaciousness of your statement.

 

As to what I have and have not "taught" others...that's not for me to decide. If someone has learned from my posts, great. But I would not be so arrogant as to presume that anyone needed me to teach them anything. This is an internet message board, not a classroom.

 

And...again, I must belabor the fact that there are no requirement as to what one MUST post.

 

Ooooh, straw man argument, logical fallacy! The hallmarks of the professional internet forum geek. Such a sad little life you lead.

 

It is for you to decide what you have taught others huh? This is a forum. Your reputation and credibility are based on what others think of you, not what you think of yourself. I think you are a complete joke, and I am sure that I am not the only one here who thinks so. What do people think of me? They probably don't like that I don't follow some stupid rule about never calling other people names. I call things as I see them. If that means a clown is called a clown, then so be it. But make no mistake, every member of this forum will recognize that I make a positive contribution with regards to sharing numismatic knowledge which is the purpose of this forum.

 

Your purpose on this forum is simply to feed your own ego and give meaning to your pitiful existence that leads you to post over 30 thousand times in 8 years. Seriously, do you ever leave your house? Or your computer for that matter?

 

Furthermore, I never said that using paypal gift isn't tantamount to theft. I simply stated that I and most of the board members of this forum don't care.

 

Again...I wasn't aware they had elections for board spokesman.

 

You do not speak for "most." You speak for you. Presuming you speak for "most" is the sign of an arrogant man.

 

Your calling me arrogant. Hey pot, meet kettle!

 

I doubt Paypal would consider it theft since they routinely freeze peoples accounts for the sole purpose of generating interest on those funds while they are frozen.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous accusation?

 

You mean besides the hundreds of written testimonials of Paypal users who detailed their experience of having their funds frozen that are posted all over the internet?

 

Naturally, this prevents the rightful owner of that money from transferring those funds into an interest generating account of their own. Now that is theft.

 

 

I suspect...and am fairly certain of this...that all of these things that you have claimed about me are nothing more than projections about character flaws that you dislike about yourself. That's nearly always the case, especially on internet message boards.

 

Like I said before, I am sorry that whatever circumstances in life led you to the point where you think it's your right to dictate to other people how they must post on an internet message board, but the problem lies solely with you.

 

I ask again...who's really the one trying to harass, cajole, and insult others into behaving as he sees fit?

 

Best wishes.

 

I have no character flaws, so you are wrong, despite your belief that you are an expert on internet message boards. Dictate how others should post? Nope, just criticizing your trolling ways. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all.

 

Good luck on getting a life.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

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.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What does "without a purchase" mean to you?

 

Setting aside the wording used in posing the question, I would again refer you to my Post and please read carefully.

 

It may also help to read my reply to Prep.

 

You haven't answered my question.

 

Actually, I did.

Unfortunately, I did not answer to your personal satisfaction.

I apologize.

Back to the Creek.

[Hard Times]

The problem with feeling bad for PayPal is that they don't follow their own rules, they force their monopoly on eBay, and they help commit fraud against sellers by not allowing common sense to prevail.

 

As a seller I'd rather take any other form of payment than PayPal. They're awful.

I agree. The last 3 days, paypal has pretty much put me through a nightmare. This is over a large transaction (nearly 30K). A buyer from Canada made the payment in 3 installments, because he was limited to 10K each time. Paypal limited my account. They said the transaction wasn''t normal for me. They contacted the buyer to confirm it was legit, and checked my ebay history. I have given them a link to my FS thread, a link to my registry, CGC's number to confirm my id here and the tracking number for the express package. This is not enough. They say I have to prove I own the books. Many were purchased 6 to 8 years ago with money orders. Since the fire two years ago, I have no reciepts. They recieved over 1K from me as their cut plus, charged the buyer more than the going exchange rate for his payment. So, as far as i'm concerned, they can have my paypal account.

 

I doubt any of the issues you describe here would be treated differently by MC, Visa, or a bank. They all charge for currency exchange, they all freeze up debit cards and credit cards for unusual transactions, and place limits on accounts when they deem the activity to be suspicious. All charge the vendor 2-3% for transactions just like PP. So I still don't get the angst everyone has against PP because they are really not all that different from these other ways you allow buisnesses to handle your money.

 

Best, HT

[Nutmeg Coin]

There is an interesting article on paypal on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal

 

Peter Thiel is somewhat controversial and as much as I dislike monopolies, we have to live in the real world.

[comicdonna]

The problem with feeling bad for PayPal is that they don't follow their own rules, they force their monopoly on eBay, and they help commit fraud against sellers by not allowing common sense to prevail.

 

As a seller I'd rather take any other form of payment than PayPal. They're awful.

I agree. The last 3 days, paypal has pretty much put me through a nightmare. This is over a large transaction (nearly 30K). A buyer from Canada made the payment in 3 installments, because he was limited to 10K each time. Paypal limited my account. They said the transaction wasn''t normal for me. They contacted the buyer to confirm it was legit, and checked my ebay history. I have given them a link to my FS thread, a link to my registry, CGC's number to confirm my id here and the tracking number for the express package. This is not enough. They say I have to prove I own the books. Many were purchased 6 to 8 years ago with money orders. Since the fire two years ago, I have no reciepts. They recieved over 1K from me as their cut plus, charged the buyer more than the going exchange rate for his payment. So, as far as i'm concerned, they can have my paypal account.

 

I doubt any of the issues you describe here would be treated differently by MC, Visa, or a bank. They all charge for currency exchange, they all freeze up debit cards and credit cards for unusual transactions, and place limits on accounts when they deem the activity to be suspicious. All charge the vendor 2-3% for transactions just like PP. So I still don't get the angst everyone has against PP because they are really not all that different from these other ways you allow buisnesses to handle your money.

 

Best, HT

I disagree. My bank has never made me prove where I got the money, when making a large deposit. I have supplied Paypal with more than sufficient information, that I own the books, and have owned most of them for quite some time. I refuse to contact 3 major auction houses and several collector friends, and ask them to tell paypal they sold me the books.

 

The buyer has confirmed payment, I have recieved payment, paypal has taken their cut and the package has been shipped express. I don't see what the problem is.

[newprepper]

I went through the same BS about 6 months ago when I put some CD's for sale on ebay, I had been selling militar stuff up until then. Since I branched out PP decided I was a risk and put 21 day freeze on my money or until feedback was received. I had and still have a 100% rating and am a top seller. I complained at least twice a week until they put my stautus back. I doubt you will resolve this quickly though.

 

The best part is, the CD's sold for like 3 bucks each.

 

I really like the part where PP waits until after the fact to let you know you can't have your money

[Kenneth F]

Let me spare the rest of humanity...

 

[DirtyGoldMan]

I do not use PayPal gift except on the very rare occasion in which it is indeed a gift.

 

I do use PayPal, but I prefer to transact with personal checks.

 

I am not on a crusade against those who abuse PayPal gift. That's a problem for the management of PayPal to address, if they even perceive it to be one.

[newprepper]

Let me spare the rest of humanity...

 

 

You are awful free with those nukes Kenneth.........

[lehigh96]

I do not use PayPal gift except on the very rare occasion in which it is indeed a gift.

 

I do use PayPal, but I prefer to transact with personal checks.

 

I am not on a crusade against those who abuse PayPal gift. That's a problem for the management of PayPal to address, if they even perceive it to be one.

 

Thank you for providing some sanity in this ridiculous thread.

[noow]

Yeah, I remember threads like this.. Ironic that the same people who tried to bash me are the same ones asserting to restore peace here.

 

Have a nice day everyone.

[Kenneth F]

Let me spare the rest of humanity...

 

 

You are awful free with those nukes Kenneth.........

 

ha ha ha... Reminds me of the old Division Computer Warfighter Exercises in Korea.. we could never get a solid link with the OPFOR in Seoul.. we order a Nuclear strike and the system would shut down. That is what I was attempting to do with this thread.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I was speaking with ebay earlier because I had gotten a few complaints from customers apparently (and there is no way to get to the bottom of what specifically a customer complains about with shipping cost). So now paypal is going to hang on to thousands of dollars in transaction money until the item arrives safe and sound at the customer's door, etc.. All because I generally ship everything priority, rarely overnight or first class. You have many customers who now expect free shipping even when they are buying items at or below dealer cost, and then complain if they do not get it.

 

While they gave me top buyer status, I was figuring they would honor the 20% discount on final value fees; then I asked customer service how much I actually saved in January with the 20% discount? She then went through the transactions where I was charged well over $2000 in ebay fees and she said none of the items but one qualified for the 20% discount because I had not run the listings indicating that the items would be in the usps system the next business day even though every single item sold was in the system as quickly as possible and always the next day.

[newprepper]

OUCH

[RockMyAmadeus]

I confess I have misused the paypal gift on occasion. I feel so dirty Perhaps I should be banned from the boards for an audacious act that "cheated" paypal from another $12.87 profit. Please mark me as questionable in any future dealing as I might be lower than pond scum. But, as a favor, please consult the many folks I have dealt with here personally and reconsider. PC can be deadly. IMHO.

 

It is a tragedy that speaking out against actual theft is reduced by some to merely "political correctness" in a smug, scoffing manner.

 

PC can be deadly. But theft always is. Oh, sure, the results may not be immediate...but it is deadly nonetheless.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I used the word ethics, and continue to use it, on purpose, because what it really comes down to is this: there's precious little to STOP a person intent on using Paypal personal for purchases. Yes, the law may be against it, but it is essentially powerless to stop it from occuring. Therefore...and this is the crux of my argument...it is incumbent on the personal ethics of those using the service to not abuse it. Those personal ethics derive from the larger societal ethos nearly universally (in other words...no man is an island.)

Then I guess the only thing I can do with my final post is to affirm that I disagree with you. Your opening scenario just simply is not, in my view, a discussion of ethics, but rather a discussion over whether or not some method of using some specific feature of Paypal equates to stealing. Because someone chooses to violate a rule doesn't determine whether he is an ethical person or not, and this is a true statement in a general sense as well. It simply means he violated a rule and is subject to prosecution. "Ethics" plays no role!

 

When a ragged, lawless mob of American colonists stole the King's tea and threw it into Boston harbor, they illegally violated a rule ("thou shalt not steal"), yet they did so in an ethical manner.

 

I'm sorry... "rules" or "laws" do not, and cannot, equate to a system of ethics. Stealing may be illegal, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is ethical.

 

Those American colonists who stole the tea were thieves. That the theft contributed to a positive outcome doesn't change that fact. Had the colonies lost the war, and in retribution, the Brits exacted brutal vengeance, those colonists would be considered criminals of the highest order for inciting war.

 

And they still would have been thieves. The perspective doesn't change the ethics. The ends doesn't justify the means.

 

And this isn't just about violating a "rule", such as jay walking or not stopping completely at a stop sign. It is stealing. It's one of the 10 Commandments for a reason: it always harms the one to whom it is done.

 

And ethics, by definition, is the set of rules which a society agrees to be governed by, according to what that society believes is right and wrong. That is the definition of ethics.

 

:shrug: