• Guest, Help The DPF Community Thrive - Join Our Donation Drive Today!

    We're launching a special DPF Donation Drive to ensure our beloved forum continues to flourish. Your support is vital in helping us cover essential server costs and keep our community running smoothly — This is more than just a donation; it's an investment in the future of our community.

    Join us in this crucial drive and let's ensure our forum remains a vibrant and dynamic place for everyone.

    Please visit the DPF Donation Drive Thread for details and instructions on how you can make your donation today!

Should DPF require that sellers take payment as a 'purchase' rather than a 'gift'?

Should DPF require that sellers take payment as a 'purchase' rather than a 'gift'?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 42.7%

  • No

    Votes: 36 40.4%

  • Yes for presales but not for others

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • Total voters
    89
Should DPF require that sellers take payment as a 'purchase' rather than a 'gift'?

I don't expect 100% enforcement. However, DPF should be able to say, "We expect sellers to abide by Paypal's Terms of Service, therefore requested payment should be as goods, and prices set accordingly."

Then if there's a post where someone asks for gift in a sales thread, Mods can deal with that, same as if someone posted an Ebay link or didn't list prices in their thread. Also, by stating that payment is expected as goods, then all complaints about bad sellers can be simply resolved with the leaving of negative feedback, and directed to Paypal's resolution department. That should make things simpler for the moderators, because it seems like now when there are problems, people try to go through mods.

Good, it didn't disappear. Anyway, if someone decides on their own to pay as gift regardless of the stated expectation, then the already existing rules are even stronger. "You are on your own."

I just think the expectation is what needs to change.
 
Last edited:
For those wondering what fees are, here are a few links that might help:

Paypal Fees SaleCalc - first tells you how much you will actually receive, then lets you know what to send if you want them to receive the full asking amount.

This one I use all the time and is easy on the iphone and usually accurate too: Fee Calculator


ETA: Here's another straightfoward one I just found: http://feecalculatorpaypal.weebly.com/


Hope this helps! Fees are pretty inexpensive but obviously the more you send the more you pay ^.^
 
Last edited:
weird, I wanted to add something to my post, but even though the front page says I posted. It isn't showing up? So this is a test post.
 

This is a good point...the rule would actually reduce the workload for mods!
 
hopemax said:
I don't expect 100% enforcement. However, DPF should be able to say, "We expect sellers to abide by Paypal's Terms of Service, therefore requested payment should be as goods, and prices set accordingly."
Click to expand...

To me, this seems redundant. If they're already signed up for a PayPal account, shouldn't they have already agreed to abide by the PayPal TOU?

(Playing the devil's advocate here...)
 
To be fair, I don't think that enforcing Paypal's rules is DPF's problem. It should come down to whether having a rule requiring payment as a 'purchase' is an appropriate rule for DPF. If we don't have such a rule and someone wants to report a seller to Paypal, that's a separate issue.
 
Perhaps a simple guideline?

Pins at or near cost = gift
Pins double or more the cost of the pin = as goods

Anyone looking to double their money, or more, are in a business and should be treated as such with a payment as goods.
 
Lamorak said:
Perhaps a simple guideline?

Pins at or near cost = gift
Pins double or more the cost of the pin = as goods

Anyone looking to double their money, or more, are in a business and should be treated as such with a payment as goods.
Click to expand...

I'd be concerned about treating sellers differently, plus how do you determine cost for older pins? (a seller could have bought the pin on ebay rather than at the original retail cost)....and we certainly can't expect the mods to be navigating that mess...
 

I agree with this.
 
The mods are all volunteers and adding to what they need to enforce is IMO asking too much. If you don't want to pay by goods then don't it is your option. I have bought a lot of pins from people that pick up the pins at cost and don't feel they should have to pay a fee for that. I use either my balance or bank account so I don't pay a fee either. I feel maybe a sticky on top of the forum explaining the difference on sending money as goods verses gift would be a good idea. I feel that DPF was created for pin traders to have a site to go to not to start a business. I have sold a couple of items on here and someone wanted to pay as goods and volunteered to pay the fee. I never felt offended by that.
 

Perhaps I should clarify that the guideline was for buyers. I certainly don't expect mods to be involved in moderating the sales forum. Their only duty should be to field complaints about sellers or buyers that don't follow through on their transactions.

As for older pins, I believe the same rule could apply. If they are selling at current market value, you may consider sending payment as a gift. If they are selling way over market value, you should consider sending payment for goods. I, personally, would probably always send as payment for goods, since the older pins are likely to get into the price point where the comfort of buyer protection is present.
 
TheGrimGrinner said:
To me, this seems redundant. If they're already signed up for a PayPal account, shouldn't they have already agreed to abide by the PayPal TOU?

(Playing the devil's advocate here...)
Click to expand...

From sales thread

"No counterfeited or scrapped pins may be sold in this forum."

From Paypal's TOS



Looks like redundancy is already part of DSF SOP.

I'm guessing that this is a lost cause, but at the end of the day, people say that this is a great community that looks out for one another. But in this area, it seems like other considerations take over and it turns into the wild, wild, west and a lot of people are okay with that. Expecting payment be made in a way that protects buyers and where sellers honor obligations seems like a natural extension of a community that seeks some "ground floor" level of protection of its members. It seems like other rules are rules for that purpose.
 
Ok, first of all, didn't read the whole thread but just tossing out my thoughts. Sending a gift payment is no different than a seller asking someone to send cash in the mail. There is zero security for the buyer. I see that as a huge negative and personally do not go purchase anything that requires a gift payment. I want some protection behind my online purchases.

I would personally love to see everyone have to accept any type of PayPal payment, purchase or gift. Also, I hate it when people asks the buyers to pay the fees. Yes, PayPal has fees for sellers, either accept it and pay them or don't offer to accept PayPal. If it bugs you that much, add the fees into the quoted price.

I think a main reason that people want gift payments is to avoid the fees and just going with that angle, someone that doesn't know as much thinks that sending a gift just has them pay the fees and not understand the full scope of the changes in that it removes all buyer protection. Why should a buyer be asked to pay more and do a riskier transaction?
 
I've always paid in gift format, and usually use gift for payments recieved too. But that is always to keep the cost as low as possible on both sides. But, I always check feedback first <3 I really don't mind picking up stuff at cost, and if people think hey need to pay as goods, it's only fair that they take care of whatever fees are incurred. I do that for others when they help me out cause I wouldn't want anyone to take a hit for helping me out just my small opinion <3 "gift" is not always evil lol.

I guess I just view what I do as helping out a fellow pin trader usually, more so than selling. (Except when I do sell in my sales thread which usually is already at or below cost for the most part <3 )
 
Last edited:
Psycho Pixie said:
by monitoring. by having people report it when they see someone asking for payment via gift. by giving infractions, temp bans, and perma bans from sales threads....
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. Most of my transactions occur through PM. I guess a person could report it. It just seems like it would be a lot easier for someone to just tell someone they are transacting with they don't want to send payment as a gift.
 
Last edited:
I think there should have been another choice like it's between the 2 parties. Because that's how I see it. One reason I don't like goods is because everyone wants the buyer to pay your fees. It really should be in your price. It' s actually the rules of paypal. I have my own business that uses paypal a lot and I buy a lot of supplies and that is a big no no to ask your customer to pay the fees. I will pay the fees if someone asks or insists. But it is against paypal rules.
 

Someone said "if it ain't broke," But here's a devil's advocate question, since I was given one ... can a DPF member be a frequent buyer and do everything "above board" and follow Paypal's rules? Is that be a reasonable expectation? That you can be an active buyer and not break any rules? Right now, it doesn't seem to be the case. You either break one of Paypal's rules, or you don't buy through DPF. Is that what DPF wants?
 
I dont think the forum is responsible for this. But I will say that there would be less drama if everyone paid with purchase and just add the 3% themselves. Sheesh. 3%? Come on folks. Price your pins 3% higher. On a $10 pin that's all of 30 cents. If it won't sell for 3% more then you either have too much margin in your price (ie, lower your price) or you have an unsellable pin. Or if you're a buyer, factor in an extra 3% in your cost as insurance.

The reality of the situation is that the 3% protects everyone and it's a fair premium to pay for that protection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register