FYI I got scammed using PayPal Friends and Family

For Your Information
That’s what I meant. More in response to the poster piling on to the OP for accepting F&F after being talked into it. It was a WTB situation, so the fella never stated anything publicly here. The scammer broke the rules not the original poster… other than going along with it.

Candidly that rule isn't very clear. 'We don't condone it but we can't stipulate how you're paid so just don't say it in your ad.' Doesn't appear that anyone broke any rule.
 
Candidly that rule isn't very clear. 'We don't condone it but we can't stipulate how you're paid so just don't say it in your ad.' Doesn't appear that anyone broke any rule.
and again, the person ripped off was the one paying, not the one asking for how things should be paid.

But mostly I'm just taking issue with the attitude of one of the above posters piling on to a fellow member who got ripped off in a transaction. Like any of us are above momentary lapses in judgment because we trusted other people in our small hobby. It's not what this place is about.
 
not sure that this "little" forum needs a feedback system etc. there was recent-ish discussion of this. the idea, at least in some minds, is that we know each other or of each other, and that the emporium should be a place for informal transactions between friends and acquaintances. its very very niche, and not intended to be a substitute for ebay, usam or agon. if there is the occasional scammer who pops on and bamboozles someone, it will get publicized such as in this thread. hard to imagine a scammer running a series of successful scams in this well-regulated place.

feedback tends to be over-skewed to the positive anyway - because the implicit threat of retaliatory feedback keeps much negative experience hidden. exercise due diligence. if someone just joined and has no posting history. if the deal is too good to be true. if there is pressure. stay away. or at least be aware of the risk.
 
That’s what I meant. More in response to the poster piling on to the OP for accepting F&F after being talked into it. It was a WTB situation, so the fella never stated anything publicly here. The scammer broke the rules not the original poster… other than going along with it.
Definitely do not want to give the impression of piling on. This is an absolute travesty and an assault on the collegial and friendly community that we all strive to protect.
 
Definitely do not want to give the impression of piling on. This is an absolute travesty and an assault on the collegial and friendly community that we all strive to protect.
Oh I wasn't referring to you, my friend.
 
Candidly that rule isn't very clear. 'We don't condone it but we can't stipulate how you're paid so just don't say it in your ad.' Doesn't appear that anyone broke any rule.
What part of that statement seems vague to you? It speaks to the reality of the situation. We don’t allow FF to be posted and do not condone its use as the method of payment. We are admitting that we cannot stop it from occurring but we do not approve of its use.
 
What part of that statement seems vague to you? It speaks to the reality of the situation. We don’t allow FF to be posted and do not condone its use as the method of payment. We are admitting that we cannot stop it from occurring but we do not approve of its use.
agree that the rule is appropriate as is. could consider adding a warning about the user of F&F assuming it's risk.
 
and again, the person ripped off was the one paying, not the one asking for how things should be paid.

But mostly I'm just taking issue with the attitude of one of the above posters piling on to a fellow member who got ripped off in a transaction. Like any of us are above momentary lapses in judgment because we trusted other people in our small hobby. It's not what this place is about.

Yes, I understood what you wrote. My point was that it doesn't really appear that anyone broke any rule. "Anyone" includes the scammer asking for F&F in a private conversion.

What part of that statement seems vague to you? It speaks to the reality of the situation. We don’t allow FF to be posted and do not condone its use as the method of payment. We are admitting that we cannot stop it from occurring but we do not approve of its use.

Just following it logically:
  1. We don't condone F&F
  2. "We cannot and will not interfere with how you are paid"
  3. "we cannot allow it stated in your AD"
#1 and #2 are a contradiction. By stating #2 you are unequivocally canceling #1. Therefore the actual rule is 'don't ask for it in your ad'.

If someone really wants to get nit-picky the primary rule is stipulated to only be in effect if one is doing it "to avoid paying PayPal its rightful service charge".
 
Yes, I understood what you wrote. My point was that it doesn't really appear that anyone broke any rule. "Anyone" includes the scammer asking for F&F in a private conversion.



Just following it logically:
  1. We don't condone F&F
  2. "We cannot and will not interfere with how you are paid"
  3. "we cannot allow it stated in your AD"
#1 and #2 are a contradiction. By stating #2 you are unequivocally canceling #1. Therefore the actual rule is 'don't ask for it in your ad'.

If someone really wants to get nit-picky the primary rule is stipulated to only be in effect if one is doing it "to avoid paying PayPal its rightful service charge".
Alright bud. The primary person who raises any objections is you. So I invite you to offer more than criticism and offer a solution. If you have an issue with the wording, feel free to offer more appropriate language that will satisfy. Being opposed to something and not offering any suggestions comes off as just being opposed for the sake of opposition. Most folks understand the intent and spirit of the rule as written. But if you can help us reach the minority that may not, you will be doing a good service for the community at large.
 
Alright bud. The primary person who raises any objections is you. So I invite you to offer more than criticism and offer a solution. If you have an issue with the wording, feel free to offer more appropriate language that will satisfy. Being opposed to something and not offering any suggestions comes off as just being opposed for the sake of opposition. Most folks understand the intent and spirit of the rule as written. But if you can help us reach the minority that may not, you will be doing a good service for the community at large.

I didn't have an objection or a criticism of this rule. I thought it was as intended and didn't know that this gap existed until people expressed their interpretations in this thread today. If the net of this rule is to not allow stipulating F&F in an ad, as I've always interpreted it, it's fine. If the net is that asking for F&F at all is not allowed then it is not clear for the reasons I've given, which are also the suggestions of what would need to be changed. Of course, if you go with the latter you'll also need to deicide what kind of teeth it'll have.

Assuming the inference of my "pattern" includes my objection to the 'only positive feedback' mechanism, I thought that was well explained. Here we are. I hope it is reconsidered to do this and the greater community the service of protecting people from bad actors while not over-indexing against those with little feedback. It was happenstance that it was PayPal in this case so I think this is the important area to address anyway.

I think it's admirable to want to limit the number and scope of rules and to avoid negative aspects, but I also think that only really works when it's only your like-minded friends walking through the front door, and that's the main reason why there's the perception that most people here understand the intent and spirit of what's written. I think larger forums that have more scar tissue have a lot of rules from the necessity of different interpretations of the world from different personalities. Don't we all know people that have divergent views from our own that cannot be reconciled?

Always happy to spitball solutions but the elected constraints can't make the problem unsolvable. In those cases all one can do is point out the systemic issue/blocker.
 
So the two points we aim to make are as follows.

1. We don’t allow F&F to be listed on an ad for the various reasons mentioned.

2. We will not impose on the decisions between two parties how they conduct their business in private.

Is it CYA in nature? Yes. Does it leave room for bad transactions? Yes. Does this put the onus of responsibility on the individual? Absolutely. I am a firm believer in fair warning being fair play. We are pretty communicative about what we do here and are usually pretty open to hearing from folks. So, I will ask if anyone else has something to add to the current wording of Rule 2 and if they have a suggestion to make it more clear?
 
Last year I tried to make an online purchase and the seller wanted it to be F & F. I told him I was not comfortable with that but that I would gladly cover the fees. He said his concern was not the fees, it was the tax implications, as he was doing a bunch of sales. I backed out.

Then he asked, "How about you send me the normal PayPal, but I won't accept it. I will just let it sit there. Then when you get the item and are happy with it, I reject your normal payment and then you pay me via Family and Friends."

I thought about it for a while, but still backed out. It just seemed sketchy to me, although I can't see how I could have gotten burned.

It does look like he has had multiple sales since, so maybe others will do this with him.
 
So the two points we aim to make are as follows.

1. We don’t allow F&F to be listed on an ad for the various reasons mentioned.

2. We will not impose on the decisions between two parties how they conduct their business in private.

Is it CYA in nature? Yes. Does it leave room for bad transactions? Yes. Does this put the onus of responsibility on the individual? Absolutely. I am a firm believer in fair warning being fair play. We are pretty communicative about what we do here and are usually pretty open to hearing from folks. So, I will ask if anyone else has something to add to the current wording of Rule 2 and if they have a suggestion to make it more clear?

What is the intent/purpose of rule 2?
 
What is the intent/purpose of rule 2?
What is it about the rule that seems to be unclear? I keep spelling it out and you keep not understanding. So before I can answer, explain to me what it is that you are either seeing or not seeing in the language. Again, most folks I have spoken to seem to understand what the rule is stating. The only person that has raised any objections is you. So I need you to clarify what exactly you are not understanding.
 
It looks like the $600 limit is part of the argument for not taking regular Paypal, so I Googled it and found this recent story. It looks like there is some movement in the Senate to raise the limit to a more sensible $10,000 and some instruction to use Form 8949 to itemize your sold items. Form 8969 does have a cost column, so one can figure out the net gross profit.

From the article:

Basically, if you made money on the sale you need to fill out a Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets and then add the gain to your 1040 form under Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses. If you sold your item for less than you paid for it, you’ll notate the difference in Part I, Line 8z: Other Income and reference the 1099-K form.

But the problem I see there is that capital assets are basically any goods, so if I have to report $200 on a receiver I bought at a garage sale for $100 and sold for $300 then I should be able to report a $3000 loss on my car I paid $3200 for and junked for $200 after driving it for 8 years. Or a $350 loss on the TV I tossed two weeks ago that died. Now while these loss examples may seem absurd, they fit the same criteria that the IRS is using to determine profits, and it just illustrates how complex this issue is and how little thought was given to all the ramifications of the $600 threshold. But I guess it's literally close enough for government work...

FWIW, it's not just Paypal and Ebay, but Venmo and Zelle too; any third party cash handler. I don't use a digital wallet, so I don't know if those services like Apple Pay also will be required to supplu 1099-Ks too.
Hopefully, this will all be figured out soon, as all of this should have been considered and codified BEFORE the legislation was passed, but that's the way our "representatives" work; Ready, Fire, Aim!! :face2



1680293811024.png
 
Last edited:
I mean, I think the gist has always been that we actively prohibit the demand for F&F use as part of a listing, and strongly discourage the use of it in sales overall. If two parties agree to its use on their own, caveat emptor.

Unless something has changed while I was out, that seems to still be what it is?
 
What is it about the rule that seems to be unclear? I keep spelling it out and you keep not understanding. So before I can answer, explain to me what it is that you are either seeing or not seeing in the language. Again, most folks I have spoken to seem to understand what the rule is stating. The only person that has raised any objections is you. So I need you to clarify what exactly you are not understanding.

Didn't ask what it meant, I asked what it was for - its purpose/intent. Context. At face value I don't see that there's any purpose for it, but it's benign in that sense. If it's intended as a CYA of some sort along the lines 'we're not party to your transaction, all transactions are between the buyer and seller only', then I'd have input. If the purpose/intent is neither of those then I can't guess what it is.

To be very clear, I've not raised a single objection here about the PayPal rule - I've only pointed out gaps in language vs. perception and am trying to provide more explicit help as was demanded. As I keep getting my head bitten off I'm going to bow-out. Best of luck with this.
 
Back
Top