Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
I'm a little shocked at the attitude here. Remember, we're talking about BST where YOU can set the TERMS OF PAYMENT. You can take checks, but you don't want to. So you desire the ease and security of the PayPal transaction and then claim it has no value to you. It obviously does or it wouldn't be YOUR choice.> @bronco2078 said:
@bronco2078 said:
if you nattering old women screw up the friends and family deal , I'll have to go back to trading my black market AK-47's for cocaine
Nobody wants that!
You can use cash. Only an idiot would sell an AK-47 in a traceable transaction.
in the early days you could find both listed on ebay
Their legal position changed. When The ATF shows up, tell them you only accept the laws as they were at your birth.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Embedded in the original terms that YOU AGREED TO was the right for them to notify you of changes to the TOS. So, like all TOS, you agree to the initial terms of service and subsequent changes. They notify you of all changes as they happen. You also have the right to end your use of the service at any time.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
it seems like you are treating ethics and morals as synonymous ?
Also I can absolutely refuse to pay child support , I don't have a child( that I know about heyyyyyyyyohhhhhhhh )
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Embedded in the original terms that YOU AGREED TO was the right for them to notify you of changes to the TOS. So, like all TOS, you agree to the initial terms of service and subsequent changes. They notify you of all changes as they happen. You also have the right to end your use of the service at any time.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
it seems like you are treating ethics and morals as synonymous ?
Also I can absolutely refuse to pay child support , I don't have a child( that I know about heyyyyyyyyohhhhhhhh )
Thank God
put down the champagne there is clearly a disclaimer
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I have to give Bronco sone kudos for a few laughs.
this is hard going , tag in anytime!
It reminds me of a job I had in my 20's. My uncle used to be Joe Friday , bow and scrape to the rich idiots that owned these huge homes on lake winniepesauke . There was this one guy who was president of a big company . He had to have a white sand beach , pure white sand he had trucked in from somewhere.
They passed a law no more dumping sand to modify the shoreline. So he couldn't do it anymore. His renowned pure white beach which was visible from the mount washington was sullied and unattractive (scenic boat route from end to end of the lake)
whenever there was a storm the rain would wash some of his white sand into the lake
after the storm I would be dispatched to wade into the lake and recover the precious white sand with a tiny shovel and a 5 gallon bucket apparatus "Mr white" had devised with holes drilled in it with ever so fine screening over the holes to allow water to drain out of course.
I would do it ( I was being paid quite well and under the table of course ) but after a while I think he tired of helpful suggestions . Obviously he had to watch to make sure the help wasn't mingling the slutty brown sand with his pure white . My suggestions were an effort to drive him away which were not very successful. (Lots of piss taking as the brits would say) references to the great escape , training turtles to retrieve the sand etc.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Embedded in the original terms that YOU AGREED TO was the right for them to notify you of changes to the TOS. So, like all TOS, you agree to the initial terms of service and subsequent changes. They notify you of all changes as they happen. You also have the right to end your use of the service at any time.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
it seems like you are treating ethics and morals as synonymous ?
Also I can absolutely refuse to pay child support , I don't have a child( that I know about heyyyyyyyyohhhhhhhh )
Thank God
put down the champagne there is clearly a disclaimer
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
You're the lawyer, but I would have assumed that both were technically crimes. The difference to me is in who the victims are and the level of damage inflicted in either case, and those are highly salient factors in my stance on their ethicality.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
Party A and Party B reach an agreement over goods/services to be provided ("Hot new mint issue") and the compensation to be paid for such goods/services ("Selling Price"). Party B decides he can make more money (by selling to Party C for a higher price) and bails on the agreement.
Scenario 2.
Party A and Party B reach an agreement over goods/services to be provided ("Paypal services") and the compensation to be paid for such goods/services ("Paypal fees"). Party B decides he can make more money (by not adhering to the agreement, i.e. intentionally avoiding the fees) and bails on the agreement.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
You're the lawyer, but I would have assumed that both were technically crimes. The difference to me is in who the victims are and the level of damage inflicted in either case, and those are highly salient factors in my stance on their ethicality.
There can be rare exceptions (though as far as I know, not like in situations being discussed here) but... “Breach of contract is not a crime or even a tort. Punitive damages are generally not an available remedy. The only remedies are to make the non-breaching party whole.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
I'm not "accepting" their Terms and Conditions, in spite of what a court might rule. I have a philosophical problem with letting large, powerful entities dictate rules to me, especially when I consider said rules unreasonable. PayPal has made a lot of money off of me over the years, and they have provided a valuable service in return. If they don't value me as a customer, they have the power to kick me off the platform. Meanwhile, I'm fine with the status quo.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
Coinjunkie,
Now you’re looking at the glass as half-empty. Another interpretation of Jmlanzaf’s comment could be that those who don’t agree with him are less open minded (not necessarily “close-minded”) 😄
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
I just wanted to see if I could make the first comments quoted even smaller.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@MFeld said:
Coinjunkie,
Now you’re looking at the glass as half-empty. Another interpretation of Jmlanzaf’s comment could be that those who don’t agree with him are less open minded (not necessarily “close-minded”) 😄
close-mind·ed
adjective
1.
having or showing rigid opinions
Can we vote? Does ANYONE think Derry or Coinjunkie or Bronco (or me) are going to CHANGE their opinion on this?
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
That's actually NOT unilateral. PayPal posts all changes and gives you a time period to cancel the "contract". So, it is a bilateral change in the relationship if you accept the new terms.
In your case, you are refusing to use F&F properly WITHOUT acceptance, tacit or otherwise, from PayPal. That is unilateral.
@derryb said:
Is driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone unethical? After all, one did agree to obey traffic laws when he was granted a driving license.
Yes. In fact, it is both unethical and illegal. Although if you are speeding an injured person to a hospital, it becomes ethical.
Fee free payments benefit the BST buyer as the seller does not have to pass the 2.9% fee on to him. So is it possible that if a BST seller tries to help his buyer save money by accepting a fee free payment that it becomes ethical, or is it not the same thing as speeding for the benefit of someone else?
Also, which of the two parties is being unethical in a fee free paypal transaction involving a BST coin sale, the one receiving the fee free payment or the one making the fee free payment. Which one broke their agreement with paypal, or are they both criminals?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
That's actually NOT unilateral. PayPal posts all changes and gives you a time period to cancel the "contract". So, it is a bilateral change in the relationship if you accept the new terms.
So one party gets to dictate ALL of the terms without any input or voting power from users, and then my choice is 100% acceptance or 100% refusal. Yeah, that sounds pretty bilateral, not to mention (dare I say) ethical.
In your case, you are refusing to use F&F properly WITHOUT acceptance, tacit or otherwise, from PayPal. That is unilateral.
As stated earlier, PayPal has profited handsomely from my business as I've been essentially "no maintenance" from the beginning. If they are unhappy with me, they are free to kick me off, which according to your definition, would also be bilateral.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
I am willing to change my opinion if I can be persuaded to do so by a well-reasoned argument. The fact that that didn't happen during this particular discussion doesn't mean I'm close-minded by nature.
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
That's actually NOT unilateral. PayPal posts all changes and gives you a time period to cancel the "contract". So, it is a bilateral change in the relationship if you accept the new terms.
So one party gets to dictate ALL of the terms without any input or voting power from users, and then my choice is 100% acceptance or 100% refusal. Yeah, that sounds pretty bilateral, not to mention (dare I say) ethical.
In your case, you are refusing to use F&F properly WITHOUT acceptance, tacit or otherwise, from PayPal. That is unilateral.
As stated earlier, PayPal has profited handsomely from my business as I've been essentially "no maintenance" from the beginning. If they are unhappy with me, they are free to kick me off, which according to your definition, would also be bilateral.
@derryb said:
Is driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone unethical? After all, one did agree to obey traffic laws when he was granted a driving license.
Yes. In fact, it is both unethical and illegal. Although if you are speeding an injured person to a hospital, it becomes ethical.
Fee free payments benefit the BST buyer as the seller does not have to pass the 2.9% fee on to him. So is it possible that if a BST seller tries to help his buyer save money by accepting a fee free payment that it becomes ethical, or is it not the same thing as speeding for the benefit of someone else?
**
Also, which of the two parties is being unethical in a fee free paypal transaction involving a BST coin sale, the one receiving the fee free payment or the one making the fee free payment. Which one broke their agreement with paypal, or are they both criminals?**
No. It is not the same as speeding to save a life anymore than stealing a coin and giving it away is ethical because you gave it away.
Neither are criminals. It is a civil issue not criminal. They are both in violation of the terms. And, if the motivation of the sender is to save money at PayPal's expense, she is definitely equally culpable.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
I am willing to change my opinion if I can be persuaded to do so by a well-reasoned argument. The fact that that didn't happen during this particular discussion doesn't mean I'm close-minded by nature.
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@JoeLewis said:
TPayPal's terms of service CLEARLY state that if you are selling goods or services you are to use the fee-based payment.
Sellers don't make the ultimate decision of which type of payment to send, the sender of the payment does that.
So if in listing my coin, I say "if paying by paypal add 2.9% to cover their fee," and the buyer sends me a fee free paypal payment I'm supposed to do what, cancel the sale and refund his payment? Dream on.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@JoeLewis said:
TPayPal's terms of service CLEARLY state that if you are selling goods or services you are to use the fee-based payment.
Sellers don't make the ultimate decision of which type of payment to send, the sender of the payment does that.
So if in listing my coin, I say "if paying by paypal add 2.9% to cover their fee," and the buyer sends me a fee free paypal payment I'm supposed to do what, cancel the sale and refund his payment? Dream on.
That would be the sender violating the Terms. It is a violation. You can choose to not report it or not care. But there is no doubt it is a violation.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
I am willing to change my opinion if I can be persuaded to do so by a well-reasoned argument. The fact that that didn't happen during this particular discussion doesn't mean I'm close-minded by nature.
LMFAO
The clear wording of the Terms should be all anyone needs.
Part of the reason your argument is not persuasive is because you continually confuse the issue. No one is arguing that it's not technically a violation of the Terms. The question is one of ethics. Again, your position seems to be that any violation of any rule is, by definition, unethical. If one accepts that as an inviolable truth, then there is no argument. But I don't, so telling me that I should just because you do is a weak argument.
@JoeLewis said:
TPayPal's terms of service CLEARLY state that if you are selling goods or services you are to use the fee-based payment.
Sellers don't make the ultimate decision of which type of payment to send, the sender of the payment does that.
So if in listing my coin, I say "if paying by paypal add 2.9% to cover their fee," and the buyer sends me a fee free paypal payment I'm supposed to do what, cancel the sale and refund his payment? Dream on.
That would be the sender violating the Terms. It is a violation. You can choose to not report it or not care. But there is no doubt it is a violation.
Here. I'll let you have the last word.
But I'm not done. If I choose to not report it is that also unethical? And don't you think that if Paypal really cared about this "abuse" of their fee free payments that they would police it's usage?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
I am willing to change my opinion if I can be persuaded to do so by a well-reasoned argument. The fact that that didn't happen during this particular discussion doesn't mean I'm close-minded by nature.
LMFAO
The clear wording of the Terms should be all anyone needs.
Part of the reason your argument is not persuasive is because you continually confuse the issue. No one is arguing that it's technically a violation of the Terms. The question is one of ethics. Again, your position seems to be that any violation of any rule is, by definition, unethical. If one accepts that as an inviolable truth, then there is no argument. But I don't, so telling me that I should just because you do is a weak argument.
No. You are leaving out the very important fact that you don't have to use PayPal. You are choosing PayPal not dealing with an unethical rule being thrust upon you. Somehow you are turning this into Nuremburg.
Your argument is worse than weak, it defies logic. Somehow your choice of PayPal is not a choice.
You don't like the terms, make a different choice.
I have a philosophical problem with letting large, powerful entities dictate rules to me, especially when I consider said rules unreasonable.
Er, ah, then CJ, you can't live in this world, capitalism is all about powerful entitites dictating the rules, even if said rules are unreasonable and usually are to some or most. If the past few years have taught us anything....... I have a desert island in the South Pacific for sale, you interested?
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
I am willing to change my opinion if I can be persuaded to do so by a well-reasoned argument. The fact that that didn't happen during this particular discussion doesn't mean I'm close-minded by nature.
LMFAO
The clear wording of the Terms should be all anyone needs.
Part of the reason your argument is not persuasive is because you continually confuse the issue. No one is arguing that it's technically a violation of the Terms. The question is one of ethics. Again, your position seems to be that any violation of any rule is, by definition, unethical. If one accepts that as an inviolable truth, then there is no argument. But I don't, so telling me that I should just because you do is a weak argument.
No. You are leaving out the very important fact that you don't have to use PayPal. You are choosing PayPal not dealing with an unethical rule being thrust upon you. Somehow you are turning this into Nuremburg.
I don't agree with (or observe) 100% of the laws passed by the US government, but I'm not going to renounce my citizenship in this country, either. I detailed the history of how I came to be a PayPal user. When I chose to do so, the landscape was much different. Through inertia and convenience, I have remained a PP user in spite of many changes to their Terms which were disadvantageous to me. My decision to do so was based entirely on practical considerations. You're trying to turn this into a Greek philosophers summit.
Your argument is worse than weak, it defies logic. Somehow your choice of PayPal is not a choice.
You don't like the terms, make a different choice.
No, you've simply chosen to paint the issue as black and white, all-or-nothing, when in fact it isn't.
I have a philosophical problem with letting large, powerful entities dictate rules to me, especially when I consider said rules unreasonable.
Er, ah, then CJ, you can't live in this world, capitalism is all about powerful entitites dictating the rules, even if said rules are unreasonable and usually are to some or most. If the past few years have taught us anything....... I have a desert island in the South Pacific for sale, you interested?
Actually, most extant political and commercial systems are about powerful entities dictating rules. My point was that I'm not under any moral (ethical) obligation to observe them if I find them unreasonable or unjust. @jmlanzaf is arguing that if I don't agree with 100% of some entity's Terms, I must renounce affiliation with said entity. To me, that's as silly as it is impractical. YMMV.
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@bronco2078 said:
can we at least come together on one thing. The immediate cessation of quoting for no reason?
I just happened to hit quote and look at the mess that was there and its 75 layers deep
I'm tired of all the extraneous notifications
Sorry, I didn't realize the system nested stuff so deeply. It can be avoided by simply editing out all but the most recent layer or two, which I'll do going forward. Now that @jmlanzaf has bowed out, I imagine the thread will fade away soon anyway...
I have a philosophical problem with letting large, powerful entities dictate rules to me, especially when I consider said rules unreasonable.
Er, ah, then CJ, you can't live in this world, capitalism is all about powerful entitites dictating the rules, even if said rules are unreasonable and usually are to some or most. If the past few years have taught us anything....... I have a desert island in the South Pacific for sale, you interested?
Actually, most extant political and commercial systems are about powerful entities dictating rules. My point was that I'm not under any moral (ethical) obligation to observe them if I find them unreasonable or unjust. @jmlanzaf is arguing that if I don't agree with 100% of some entity's Terms, I must renounce affiliation with said entity. To me, that's as silly as it is impractical. YMMV.
You keep misunderstanding his point, and I think you know that. His point is that you entered (willingly) into and agreement, and then did not honor it when it was inconvenient for you to do so.
Now I don’t really care anymore about this topic because it is clear nobody is changing their viewpoint. I just wanted to point out that you keep misrepresenting his point.
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
My Grandma sends me money while I’m away at college through PPFF. She also pays me for mowing her lawn the same way. Have we violated the intent of PPFF? Certainly the letter of the terms has been violated.
People would not trade coins for money through PPFF if selling to strangers on Instagram, but feel they can trust forum members and are comfortable doing so in BST.
Does the friend/family/trusted individual relationship turn such a transaction into a dealing between friends, and thus not a typical “business” transaction?
I have a philosophical problem with letting large, powerful entities dictate rules to me, especially when I consider said rules unreasonable.
Er, ah, then CJ, you can't live in this world, capitalism is all about powerful entitites dictating the rules, even if said rules are unreasonable and usually are to some or most. If the past few years have taught us anything....... I have a desert island in the South Pacific for sale, you interested?
Actually, most extant political and commercial systems are about powerful entities dictating rules. My point was that I'm not under any moral (ethical) obligation to observe them if I find them unreasonable or unjust. @jmlanzaf is arguing that if I don't agree with 100% of some entity's Terms, I must renounce affiliation with said entity. To me, that's as silly as it is impractical. YMMV.
You keep misunderstanding his point, and I think you know that. His point is that you entered (willingly) into and agreement, and then did not honor it when it was inconvenient for you to do so.
Au contraire. I've already pleaded guilty to the charge in bold. The question is whether I'm being unethical in doing so. I've laid out the case in my defense, and he's made his case, which is that if I don't agree with rule changes imposed midstream, then my only "ethical" choice is to walk away. I demur. If you're trying to claim that he didn't say that, then I suggest you reread the thread.
I can hear my late father's voice. He has been dead for 21 years on the 21st of this month... saying ; " it doesn't matter if your brothers did it wrong or the whole world does it wrong, it will never be right for you to do wrong". Hmmmmm. Thinking I must have been about 8 yrs old then. (1963). ... seems true to this day and with regard to what's right. Oh well, I'll just make less than those others . Then he said : " it ain't no skin off your nose". . Throw morals and ethics out. Far be it from me to expect others to live up to a standard set for me, or PPs TOS.
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@ShaunBC5 said:
My Grandma sends me money while I’m away at college through PPFF. She also pays me for mowing her lawn the same way. Have we violated the intent of PPFF? Certainly the letter of the terms has been violated.
People would not trade coins for money through PPFF if selling to strangers on Instagram, but feel they can trust forum members and are comfortable doing so in BST.
Does the friend/family/trusted individual relationship turn such a transaction into a dealing between friends, and thus not a typical “business” transaction?
As was posted by MasonG, previously - see, in particular, the last sentence:
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
I'm a little shocked at the attitude here. Remember, we're talking about BST where YOU can set the TERMS OF PAYMENT. You can take checks, but you don't want to. So you desire the ease and security of the PayPal transaction and then claim it has no value to you. It obviously does or it wouldn't be YOUR choice.> @bronco2078 said:
Their legal position changed. When The ATF shows up, tell them you only accept the laws as they were at your birth.
Thank God
put down the champagne there is clearly a disclaimer
this is hard going , tag in anytime!
It reminds me of a job I had in my 20's. My uncle used to be Joe Friday , bow and scrape to the rich idiots that owned these huge homes on lake winniepesauke . There was this one guy who was president of a big company . He had to have a white sand beach , pure white sand he had trucked in from somewhere.
They passed a law no more dumping sand to modify the shoreline. So he couldn't do it anymore. His renowned pure white beach which was visible from the mount washington was sullied and unattractive (scenic boat route from end to end of the lake)
whenever there was a storm the rain would wash some of his white sand into the lake
after the storm I would be dispatched to wade into the lake and recover the precious white sand with a tiny shovel and a 5 gallon bucket apparatus "Mr white" had devised with holes drilled in it with ever so fine screening over the holes to allow water to drain out of course.
I would do it ( I was being paid quite well and under the table of course ) but after a while I think he tired of helpful suggestions . Obviously he had to watch to make sure the help wasn't mingling the slutty brown sand with his pure white . My suggestions were an effort to drive him away which were not very successful. (Lots of piss taking as the brits would say) references to the great escape , training turtles to retrieve the sand etc.
Oh, I have faith in womankind.
A young Bronco
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
C'mon man, use some common sense. You don't make any moral distinction between depriving a child and ex-spouse of support and not adding (unearned) dollars to a massively profitable corporation's bottom line?
@bronco2078 is pushing up his
LOL count! Thanks for the laughs.
It is the same crime: violation of a legal contract. Just because one violation is worse doesn't make the other one okay. Killing ten people is worse than killing one person, but you're a murderer in either case.
Neither is a crime. And if one violation is “worse” than the other, perhaps it was inaccurate to state that one is as ethical as the other. After all, there are degrees, aren’t there?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You're the lawyer, but I would have assumed that both were technically crimes. The difference to me is in who the victims are and the level of damage inflicted in either case, and those are highly salient factors in my stance on their ethicality.
I don't care which is MORE unethical. Some people refuse to even admit that it IS unethical. I would settle for "barely unethical".
Scenario 1.
Party A and Party B reach an agreement over goods/services to be provided ("Hot new mint issue") and the compensation to be paid for such goods/services ("Selling Price"). Party B decides he can make more money (by selling to Party C for a higher price) and bails on the agreement.
Scenario 2.
Party A and Party B reach an agreement over goods/services to be provided ("Paypal services") and the compensation to be paid for such goods/services ("Paypal fees"). Party B decides he can make more money (by not adhering to the agreement, i.e. intentionally avoiding the fees) and bails on the agreement.
What's the difference?
You seem to be beholden to the postulate that whenever a rule is violated, such an act is unethical by definition. I (and others) take the context of the rule into account in making such a judgment.
There can be rare exceptions (though as far as I know, not like in situations being discussed here) but... “Breach of contract is not a crime or even a tort. Punitive damages are generally not an available remedy. The only remedies are to make the non-breaching party whole.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And that stance disturbs me.
This is not an "order" or a "law". This is not Nuremburg.
You are both accepting and violating, willfully, the Terms and Conditions. No ethicist would accept your premise that any defect in the contract justifies the violation. You are free to not enter into the agreement. If you do accept the Terms and Conditions, you are honor bond to follow them.
You can’t make someone agree with you. If each of us could do that, this forum would be a lot less active.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
LOL. I'm well aware of that. I don't post for Coinjunkie or Derry, they are not budging. Other people are more open-minded.
I wonder if anyone would do business with anyone who felt contractual obligations could be unilaterally rewritten.
I'm not "accepting" their Terms and Conditions, in spite of what a court might rule. I have a philosophical problem with letting large, powerful entities dictate rules to me, especially when I consider said rules unreasonable. PayPal has made a lot of money off of me over the years, and they have provided a valuable service in return. If they don't value me as a customer, they have the power to kick me off the platform. Meanwhile, I'm fine with the status quo.
Translation: If you don't agree with @jmlanzaf , you're close-minded. And you wonder why people around here consider you a bit arrogant...
Well, the millions of PP users choose to do so, which indicates the answer is "yes".
Coinjunkie,
Now you’re looking at the glass as half-empty. Another interpretation of Jmlanzaf’s comment could be that those who don’t agree with him are less open minded (not necessarily “close-minded”) 😄
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I just wanted to see if I could make the first comments quoted even smaller.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Is driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone unethical? After all, one did agree to obey traffic laws when he was granted a driving license.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
No. What it means is that people who aren't going to change their opinion are closed-minded...which is the definition. From YOUR standpoint, I'm also closed-minded.
Yes. In fact, it is both unethical and illegal. Although if you are speeding an injured person to a hospital, it becomes ethical.
close-mind·ed
adjective
1.
having or showing rigid opinions
Can we vote? Does ANYONE think Derry or Coinjunkie or Bronco (or me) are going to CHANGE their opinion on this?
That's actually NOT unilateral. PayPal posts all changes and gives you a time period to cancel the "contract". So, it is a bilateral change in the relationship if you accept the new terms.
In your case, you are refusing to use F&F properly WITHOUT acceptance, tacit or otherwise, from PayPal. That is unilateral.
Fee free payments benefit the BST buyer as the seller does not have to pass the 2.9% fee on to him. So is it possible that if a BST seller tries to help his buyer save money by accepting a fee free payment that it becomes ethical, or is it not the same thing as speeding for the benefit of someone else?
Also, which of the two parties is being unethical in a fee free paypal transaction involving a BST coin sale, the one receiving the fee free payment or the one making the fee free payment. Which one broke their agreement with paypal, or are they both criminals?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
So one party gets to dictate ALL of the terms without any input or voting power from users, and then my choice is 100% acceptance or 100% refusal. Yeah, that sounds pretty bilateral, not to mention (dare I say) ethical.
As stated earlier, PayPal has profited handsomely from my business as I've been essentially "no maintenance" from the beginning. If they are unhappy with me, they are free to kick me off, which according to your definition, would also be bilateral.
I am willing to change my opinion if I can be persuaded to do so by a well-reasoned argument. The fact that that didn't happen during this particular discussion doesn't mean I'm close-minded by nature.
No. It is not the same as speeding to save a life anymore than stealing a coin and giving it away is ethical because you gave it away.
Neither are criminals. It is a civil issue not criminal. They are both in violation of the terms. And, if the motivation of the sender is to save money at PayPal's expense, she is definitely equally culpable.
LMFAO
Nope! I get to choose. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Sellers don't make the ultimate decision of which type of payment to send, the sender of the payment does that.
So if in listing my coin, I say "if paying by paypal add 2.9% to cover their fee," and the buyer sends me a fee free paypal payment I'm supposed to do what, cancel the sale and refund his payment? Dream on.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
That would be the sender violating the Terms. It is a violation. You can choose to not report it or not care. But there is no doubt it is a violation.
Here. I'll let you have the last word.
Part of the reason your argument is not persuasive is because you continually confuse the issue. No one is arguing that it's not technically a violation of the Terms. The question is one of ethics. Again, your position seems to be that any violation of any rule is, by definition, unethical. If one accepts that as an inviolable truth, then there is no argument. But I don't, so telling me that I should just because you do is a weak argument.
But I'm not done. If I choose to not report it is that also unethical? And don't you think that if Paypal really cared about this "abuse" of their fee free payments that they would police it's usage?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
No. You are leaving out the very important fact that you don't have to use PayPal. You are choosing PayPal not dealing with an unethical rule being thrust upon you. Somehow you are turning this into Nuremburg.
Your argument is worse than weak, it defies logic. Somehow your choice of PayPal is not a choice.
You don't like the terms, make a different choice.
Here, you can have the last word also
I don't think you understand what that sentence means . After you type it , you stop
You care about this way more than paypal does for some reason
Er, ah, then CJ, you can't live in this world, capitalism is all about powerful entitites dictating the rules, even if said rules are unreasonable and usually are to some or most. If the past few years have taught us anything....... I have a desert island in the South Pacific for sale, you interested?
Best, SH
I don't agree with (or observe) 100% of the laws passed by the US government, but I'm not going to renounce my citizenship in this country, either. I detailed the history of how I came to be a PayPal user. When I chose to do so, the landscape was much different. Through inertia and convenience, I have remained a PP user in spite of many changes to their Terms which were disadvantageous to me. My decision to do so was based entirely on practical considerations. You're trying to turn this into a Greek philosophers summit.
No, you've simply chosen to paint the issue as black and white, all-or-nothing, when in fact it isn't.
LOL. Funniest thing you've said yet!
Actually, most extant political and commercial systems are about powerful entities dictating rules. My point was that I'm not under any moral (ethical) obligation to observe them if I find them unreasonable or unjust. @jmlanzaf is arguing that if I don't agree with 100% of some entity's Terms, I must renounce affiliation with said entity. To me, that's as silly as it is impractical. YMMV.
can we at least come together on one thing. The immediate cessation of quoting for no reason?
I just happened to hit quote and look at the mess that was there and its 75 layers deep
I'm tired of all the extraneous notifications
Sorry, I didn't realize the system nested stuff so deeply. It can be avoided by simply editing out all but the most recent layer or two, which I'll do going forward. Now that @jmlanzaf has bowed out, I imagine the thread will fade away soon anyway...
You keep misunderstanding his point, and I think you know that. His point is that you entered (willingly) into and agreement, and then did not honor it when it was inconvenient for you to do so.
Now I don’t really care anymore about this topic because it is clear nobody is changing their viewpoint. I just wanted to point out that you keep misrepresenting his point.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
My Grandma sends me money while I’m away at college through PPFF. She also pays me for mowing her lawn the same way. Have we violated the intent of PPFF? Certainly the letter of the terms has been violated.
People would not trade coins for money through PPFF if selling to strangers on Instagram, but feel they can trust forum members and are comfortable doing so in BST.
Does the friend/family/trusted individual relationship turn such a transaction into a dealing between friends, and thus not a typical “business” transaction?
Au contraire. I've already pleaded guilty to the charge in bold. The question is whether I'm being unethical in doing so. I've laid out the case in my defense, and he's made his case, which is that if I don't agree with rule changes imposed midstream, then my only "ethical" choice is to walk away. I demur. If you're trying to claim that he didn't say that, then I suggest you reread the thread.
I can hear my late father's voice. He has been dead for 21 years on the 21st of this month... saying ; " it doesn't matter if your brothers did it wrong or the whole world does it wrong, it will never be right for you to do wrong". Hmmmmm. Thinking I must have been about 8 yrs old then. (1963). ... seems true to this day and with regard to what's right. Oh well, I'll just make less than those others . Then he said : " it ain't no skin off your nose". . Throw morals and ethics out. Far be it from me to expect others to live up to a standard set for me, or PPs TOS.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
As was posted by MasonG, previously - see, in particular, the last sentence:
@MasonG said:
From PayPal's User Agreement:
Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family
The fees applicable to sending money can be found on our Fees for Sending Money to Friends and Family page and will be disclosed to you in advance each time you initiate a transaction to send money to a friend or family member. If you convert money in your Cash Account balance or in your business PayPal account balance from one currency to another before sending money, PayPal’s transaction exchange rate (including our currency conversion spread) will be used. If you use your credit card as the payment method when sending money, you may also be charged a cash-advance fee by your card issuer.
You can also use the send money feature in your PayPal account to pay for goods or services. You will not be charged any transaction fee for sending money to purchase goods or services as long as you choose the “send money to pay for goods and services” feature in your PayPal account. In that case, the seller will pay a fee. You must not use the “send money to a friend or family member” feature in your PayPal account when you are paying for goods or services.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Let's look at their UI. Two questions: