posted on June 9, 2002 04:27:47 PM new
The above post violates The AuctionWatch User Agreement and should be removed.
8.6. Breach. You will breach this Agreement if you:
a) Harass, threaten, or intimidate another member or AuctionWatch staff. During debate or disagreement, always address the issue at hand, not the individual.(If the infromation is false.)
g) Post private information about any person that is not readily available to the general public. This includes, but is not limited to, phone numbers, addresses, full names, email addresses, and an auction ID or auction user ID. (If the infromation is true.)
Action should be taken against the poster in accordance with paragraph which states, 8.7. Suspension. We may, in our discretion, permanently or temporarily revoke the posting privileges of an account if you breach this Agreement, or if we believe the circumstances warrant such action.
posted on June 9, 2002 04:39:22 PM new
How can just because the person in question has not had problems happen, it does not mean that the thousands of people, and that is right, thousands of people that have had problems.
This company is destined to follow other successful companies like Global Crossing and Enron. Except this company will effect Millions.
posted on June 9, 2002 04:46:23 PM new
Well, since I do not work or make false press releases, I do not feel like I have anything to worry about. Nor do I buy stock.
Also, last time I checked, we still had freedom of speach, and I also know how to spell perhaps.
posted on June 9, 2002 05:30:33 PM new
Plus according some articles, it turned out that Fred was right when we was talking about Lucent Technology. He also created false press releases.
How many people think PayPal won't be here in three or four years?
posted on June 9, 2002 06:14:27 PM new
tchaser200 -
I had posted a thread the other day - and you had replied - but I think your message just said 'oops' or something. This coonr person kept insisting they weren't sultan55 - and he kept asking for proof. My post was all the evidence anyone needed to prove that they are in fact one and the same person. But coonr had spent so much time denying it, he felt like a fool. So he got Auction Watch to delete that thread and another one by someone else. Now, however, he is making a bigger fool out of himself with all this cut-n-paste crap.
To Auction Watch: The post at the top of this page from coonr @ 4:27:47pm and all of the ones just like it also violate the Auction Watch User Agreement as follows:
8.2. Respect the Community. AuctionWatch takes pride in its Community. Please remember that you are expected to treat your fellow Community members and AuctionWatch staff with respect and consideration.
All similar posts from said user should be removed, AND;
Action should be taken against the poster in accordance with paragraph which states, 8.7. Suspension. We may, in our discretion, permanently or temporarily revoke the posting privileges of an account if you breach this Agreement, or if we believe the circumstances warrant such action.
My debate with Coonr is we disagree about PayPal. He seems to think that this is the best company that ever existed and I think that if they do not change the way they do business it will lead to one of the biggest bankruptcies in the history of the United States. I think that the company does not care about the customers, that they change policies on a whim, and that they make sure if they effect a customer, it is something that is not covered under consumer law.
Personally, I have no idea who he is or anything like that. I do commend him on the twenty years in the military because it does take a lot to do that (and you can not retire at a pay grade of E1). The little crack about Fred was kind of funny, but it actually turns out that the fake press releases that he made end up being correct regarding lucent technology. The article I read on him, as Coonr suggested, stated he was found guilty. He was right and found guilty. Meanwhile all the other brokers that caused people to lose money, were wrong and nothing happened to them.
PayPal needs to change some of the policies that in place. Since there are so many people that have had the same thing happen to them, how can all of these people be wrong. To me, quoting a term of service that changes whenever someone passes gas is not a good thing.
When I first signed up for PayPal, it was free and on the front page it always free and safe. Now, it just says sign up for you free account and after you use it for a while it is no longer free.
Is is safe, well, to quote a former President, that depends on what you definision of is is. In my opinion, it is not as safe as other payment sources.
For sellers, using paypal is not as safe as having your own Merchant account. There you have control of the credit card and billing address. If the buyer does not want to give you the verified address in PayPal, you can refuse the payment. However, if you are auctioning off items (this is Auction Watch), you then take the risk of getting a negative rating in refusing the payment. So in my opinion, paypal is not as safe as CCNow, or other services. Also, as a seller, you have to understand if there is a problem with and you want some help from the either the FTC or the Attorney General of your state, you are out of luck. Since you are selling, your are no longer a consumer and therefore not covered under consumer law.
For buyers, you have to understand from the beginning and do not believe any of the stuff that states you are protected, that you have same protection that you would have if you were using this the method with out paypal. Your paypal balance, is the same as using cash. If you place a complaint and there is no money in the account, you are out of luck. When using the eCheck, this is the same as writing a check and the same stop payment policies of your bank. Credit card, you have the same protection as your credit card. If you use a debit card, that is the worst.
If you understand this from the beginning and understand this fully, the question is why would use PayPal. A merchant account would cost you more, well, a little more depending where you get it. If you research hard, you may find one cheaper then PayPal. Plus you get the control.
To me, and having done this for a while, PayPal used to be a better service and a lot more friendlier. I know that now here will come the cutting and pasting of Terms of service from either PayPal or Auction Watch, but I am willing to bet that there are more people out there will agree with this than not, and I am not talking about the stuff release from PayPal. Everything I went through is doing a lot of independant research, that includes PayPal's TOS. I did not look at press releases though.
Also, there is no way you could even give me PayPal stock. I could make some quick money, but I do have some morals.
posted on June 9, 2002 07:07:17 PM new
The above post by ltlcrafty1 violates The AuctionWatch User Agreement and should be removed.
8.6. Breach. You will breach this Agreement if you:
a) Harass, threaten, or intimidate another member or AuctionWatch staff. During debate or disagreement, always address the issue at hand, not the individual.(If the infromation is false.)
g) Post private information about any person that is not readily available to the general public. This includes, but is not limited to, phone numbers, addresses, full names, email addresses, and an auction ID or auction user ID. (If the infromation is true.)
Action should be taken against the poster in accordance with paragraph which states, 8.7. Suspension. We may, in our discretion, permanently or temporarily revoke the posting privileges of an account if you breach this Agreement, or if we believe the circumstances warrant such action.
posted on June 9, 2002 07:24:23 PM newMy debate with Coonr is we disagree about PayPal. He seems to think that this is the best company that ever existed and I think that if they do not change the way they do business it will lead to one of the biggest bankruptcies in the history of the United States. I think that the company does not care about the customers, that they change policies on a whim, and that they make sure if they effect a customer, it is something that is not covered under consumer law.
How will hteir current pratices lead to bankruptcy? They are not earning quaterly profits? Don't sound like their doomed.
Personally, I have no idea who he is or anything like that. I do commend him on the twenty years in the military because it does take a lot to do that (and you can not retire at a pay grade of E1). The little crack about Fred was kind of funny, but it actually turns out that the fake press releases that he made end up being correct regarding lucent technology. The article I read on him, as Coonr suggested, stated he was found guilty. He was right and found guilty. Meanwhile all the other brokers that caused people to lose money, were wrong and nothing happened to them.
This thread is not about me. I will not carry on a debate about me or answer personal attacks, except to report them.
My point was Moldofsky was found guilty, because he was posting false information to a public chat forum. The same case could be made against many here.
PayPal needs to change some of the policies that in place. Since there are so many people that have had the same thing happen to them, how can all of these people be wrong. To me, quoting a term of service that changes whenever someone passes gas is not a good thing.
How many people? Whenever a case has been examined in detail, the user has brought the problems on them self in some way.
When I first signed up for PayPal, it was free and on the front page it always free and safe. Now, it just says sign up for you free account and after you use it for a while it is no longer free.
I think we now see where your resentment is. You should also note that since it was advertised as 'always free' the company was merged with another. Sorry, but no business survives with adapting to the times and situation at hand. You insist Paypal should change. Apparently you think those changes should only be the ones you agree with.
Is is safe, well, to quote a former President, that depends on what you definision of is is. In my opinion, it is not as safe as other payment sources.
How are the other payment services any safer? Perhaps you would like to start a new thread for that debate.
For sellers, using paypal is not as safe as having your own Merchant account. There you have control of the credit card and billing address. If the buyer does not want to give you the verified address in PayPal, you can refuse the payment. However, if you are auctioning off items (this is Auction Watch), you then take the risk of getting a negative rating in refusing the payment. So in my opinion, paypal is not as safe as CCNow, or other services. Also, as a seller, you have to understand if there is a problem with and you want some help from the either the FTC or the Attorney General of your state, you are out of luck. Since you are selling, your are no longer a consumer and therefore not covered under consumer law.
It is just as safe as a merchant account if used properly. If the address does not match on your merchant account, and you refuse to ship, you may still get that NEG your worried about. It is not nearly as expensive as CCNow or Merchant account for probably 99% of the users.
For buyers, you have to understand from the beginning and do not believe any of the stuff that states you are protected, that you have same protection that you would have if you were using this the method with out paypal. Your paypal balance, is the same as using cash. If you place a complaint and there is no money in the account, you are out of luck. When using the eCheck, this is the same as writing a check and the same stop payment policies of your bank. Credit card, you have the same protection as your credit card. If you use a debit card, that is the worst.
So you have just proven Paypal is as safe for the buyers with some additional safegurads.
If you understand this from the beginning and understand this fully, the question is why would use PayPal. A merchant account would cost you more, well, a little more depending where you get it. If you research hard, you may find one cheaper then PayPal. Plus you get the control.
Show us one with no set up fees, no application fees, no equipment costs, no monthly minimums, and similiar or better rates.
To me, and having done this for a while, PayPal used to be a better service and a lot more friendlier. I know that now here will come the cutting and pasting of Terms of service from either PayPal or Auction Watch, but I am willing to bet that there are more people out there will agree with this than not, and I am not talking about the stuff release from PayPal. Everything I went through is doing a lot of independant research, that includes PayPal's TOS. I did not look at press releases though.
Not cut and paste from the TOS or AW.
Also, there is no way you could even give me PayPal stock. I could make some quick money, but I do have some morals.
I agree with almost everything you said. Except commending him on his 20 years with the military. I just think that ANYONE should have more class and especially someone with a military background would have more common sense than to personally attack the original poster of this thread and call her a liar when she said her nephew died in the Pentagon on 9/11. That sickens me. It showed a total lack of respect and compassion.
As for paypal - as you have said - they violate their own terms of service and change them as it suits them. Take the example of a user trying to close a restricted account. No money is due to anyone - their terms of service say "You may close your account at any time by clicking on..." it also goes on to say "If there is an investigation pending AT THE TIME YOU CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT...". Yet, if you try to close your account while it is restriced, you are not able to. Damon claims the terms of service state that you are not able to close a restricted account. I've asked him numerous times to "show me where it says that". At that point, I get no further communication from him.
As the discussion in the thread "Is PayPal violating Visa's Policies.." shows, they are also currently violating policies and laws that make it illegal to charge on-line gambling to a credit card. They get away with it because the charge comes through on the credit card as "PayPal", not the name of the casino.
They have the worst customer service I have personally ever experienced, and I hear that echoed over and over again. A company CANNOT continue to treat it's customers like crap and not expect it to have some kind of backlash. The only question is how long will it take?
posted on June 11, 2002 04:51:46 PM new
My problem with PayPal is not that they have charged a fee, my problem is that fact that they mis-lead people and tell people that there service is safe, but when you have a problem as dealerjim had, their answer is that thier service is no safer than any other pay service. To tell people it is safer just because they have the buyer complaint (although they make sure you understand that they can not guarantee recovery) is a joke.
Regarding my opinion that adventually they will go bankrupt but thier quaterly statements look good, I do remember that the quarter before Enron declared, Enrons statements looked great as well. An look at the law suits now.
I personally think that the company needs to make some changes
1.) Make sure the credit card billing address is always in any payment to a seller. You stated that if I had a merchant account and I did not ship the item to a buyers shipping address he would give me a neg. The difference is that without that billing address, the credit card could not be processed.
2.) Take some risks, by that, but some teeth in the buyer complaint. PayPal has more weight then the buyer, and they could put more pressure on the seller.
If PayPal does not change, sellers will stop offering the service. How many times on Ebay do you see more and more auctions saying that they will not accept Paypal.
Also, how can people continue to just blow off the growing amounts of people that are having problems? If all was right with this company, there would not be a class action lawsuit.
Or is just a lot of people that did not understand the latest best selling novel called paypal TOS
posted on June 11, 2002 05:56:41 PM newthechaser200I personally think that the company needs to make some changes
1.) Make sure the credit card billing address is always in any payment to a seller. You stated that if I had a merchant account and I did not ship the item to a buyers shipping address he would give me a neg. The difference is that without that billing address, the credit card could not be processed.
Seller's have had such an option since January 2001. You simply select "confirmed addresses only" in your payment receiving preferences. The default setting is 'accept' or 'deny' on a case by case basis if no confirmed address is given. There is also a setting that lets you accept all payments regardless of whether or not a confirmed billing address is present. The seller has those 3 choices.
The seller also has the option of excluding international buyers if they choose.
2.) Take some risks, by that, but some teeth in the buyer complaint. PayPal has more weight then the buyer, and they could put more pressure on the seller.
Accounts open after October 11th, 2001 are more liable to buyer complaints PayPal can go after funds in the seller's bank account.
