If you did that here in Australia, paypal enthusiasts would report you
to ebay with the "report this item" link.
You should realise that not everybody is anti-paypal. It takes vastly
less effort for buyers.
On 4/12/2009 7:09 PM a_a_a spake thus:
Not everybody is anti-PayPal, but there's *enormous* and widespread
dislike of it which can't be ignored. eBay's gonna have to deal with it
sooner or later.
I'd guess that most buyers who prefer PayPal haven't thought it through
very thoroughly, and a lot of them could be convinced that it's not such
a Great Thing after all.
So there are actually stool pigeons there who'll turn you in? How nice.
Sellers dislike the cost, but why should buyers dislike it?
Then convince me for a start.
Not stool pigeons, just ordinary buyers who object to sellers defying
I (and several others I know) would simply not buy from a seller who did
that, on the grounds that if the seller can't be relied upon to comply
with one rule, they can't be trusted to comply with any other due
process either. Thus sellers who act like that are reducing their market
base, and if they end up with a less competitive auction as a result,
they may well lose more than the paypal charge would have been.
Because it's screwing unwilling sellers. No man is an island, and you
can piss me off by goring my neighbor's ox just as easily as if it
That's how you spell "stool pigeon". Not the "objecting" part, but
certainly the "turning in" bit. Those are two different things.
"Due Process"? Not according to any definition I could find.
Look; when I worked a union job I couldn't be trusted to obey rules
for unions that were made not by the unions themselves or by
disinterested third parties, but by the very people who had a vested
interest in seeing that unions remained -if not non-existent- then
just as powerless as possible.
Likewise, I cannot be relied upon to obey speed laws that were made
not to promote the public safety but to fill the coffers of greedy
local governments. (Saw 158 MPH on a stretch of deserted two lane
blacktop this morning.) The 158 MPH may not be typically Americasn,
but the attitude is.
Similarly, when laws in the American deep south said that blacks were
second class citizens, who were not allowed to vote and who could be
lynched without fear of retribution, you could not rely upon me to
respect *or* obey them. Not only that, but I actively worked until
those laws were changed.
And I *certainly* can't be relied upon to obey an arbitrary set of
rules that were designed exclusively by and for a multi-million-dollar
corporation who intends to strip their customers of every red cent
that they possibly can -while still remaining in business.
Maybe it's an American thing; but when we see what we consider to be
an injustice -and there's a possible way to game the system- many of
us take it an almost sacred duty to do exactly that.
Marching in lockstep to a tune we don't call is not our style.
Does not follow. Wanting to continue to give your customers a choice
of ways to pay is not the same thing as refusing to use PayPal.
A seller who offers what the widest spectrum of buyers want -and many
buyers dislike PayPal- will attract more customers than someone who
We were talking about people refusing to offer paypal. Not offering your
customers paypal at all is forcing them into payment methods that are
typically much more inconvenient and much less safe. So that makes the
seller selfish in my view, and it is hypocritical then to accuse the
buyer of selfishness.
Well, since you carefully snipped everything *except* that without
rebuttal, I guess we are *now*. And you're still wrong. Offering
PayPal -or not- should be the seller's option, good business idea on
their part or no.
Bullshit. Nobody reaches out through their computer and "forces" a
buyer to do *anything*. (Look around: do you see my disembodied hands
reaching for your throat? No? I rest my case.)
In the real world, if the potential buyers don't like the options
offered to them they simply don't buy.
And, if they're like me, they email the seller, politely tell them why
they won't be bidding -in my case because I refuse to use PayPal- and
point out that they *can* accept paper payments if they wish to do so.
The key words here are "in my view", and as you're the only one so far
to mention selfishness, to use the word "hypocritical" to try to slant
your straw man argument, or to approve of turning in people who do
things you dissaprove of "in your view", "your view" is more than a
We were then. I did not start that line of discussion.
Just as it should be ebay's option to prohibit it; sellers are not
forced to use ebay, and if you don't like ebay's policies, go elsewhere.
Exactly what I said, which is why it is bad business as well as being
contrary to rules.
Why should I make any effort to help a seller who is so determined not
to help me or any other buyer who prefers paypal?
I expressed no view on turning in people (I merely factually stated that
it commonly happens), and indeed I had no firm view one way or the other
till I read your comments. However you have now led me to have a view
which does indeed approve strongly of "turning in" offenders. Thank you
for clarifying the matter for me.
On 4/12/2009 11:17 PM a_a_a spake thus:
[Just to be clear, I was the one who brought up the idea of not
accepting PayPal at all, not Twibil, whose original complaint was about
eBay's *forcing* buyers to *only* use PayPal]
Judging from some of the other responses here, PayPal isn't even all
that safe, which is why some were suggesting the circuitous method of
paying the PayPal account with a credit card, enabling the buyer to get
their money back in case of fraud or similar problems; something that
apparently isn't always possible with the nice caring folks at PayPal.
You're an idiot. It is *illegal* for eBay to force people into using
Paypal. It's called "restraint of trade" over here, and that's why
eBay still allows paper payments at all. It's also why eBay cannot
force sellers to use PayPal, much as they'd like to. They are legally
*required* to leave those loopholes open, and your idea that eBay
should be free to make whatever rules they wish -the law
notwithstanding- and that we should all act like sheep and obey their
desires without question is frankly insane.
Matter of fact, the powers that be in OZ feel the same way that I
do...and if you'd been paying attention you'd already know about it.
eBay *tried* to institute a "PayPal only" rule in OZ and NZ and were
promptly slapped down.
You seem to have a compulsion to obey the "rules", so we'll put you to
the test: I have just promulgated a new rule that says you aren't
allowed to post any more stupid opinions.
Are you going to obey it? Of course not.
Because despite the fact that it would be a grand idea -and would make
you look better as well- I have no authority to tell you or anyone how
to behave. Likewise, neither you nor eBay has any authority to make
extra-legal rules and expect people to obey them.
So you think you're "helping" a seller by bidding on their auction?
Interesting definition of "help". (Boy, no ego problem there!) But let
me guess why you'd do something like that anyway: because you really
want the item they're selling? (Duh)
It figures. Thank Gawd not all Aussies are self-satisfied rules-
obeying little sheep like you.
It's "Aussies" with a big A; and just as you can't blame America in
general for Sarah Palin, so it's unfair to blame OZ as a whole for one
little twit who has an overwhelming compulsion to obey "the rules".
*Any* rules. And apparently revels in turning in those who don't.
(Likely the only power he has. I knew a Walter Mitty book-keeper like
In fact, the various Aussie transplants I've known over here have all
displayed a well-developed sense of individuality and a fine distain
Why they're almost *American* that way...
Which is government interference in matters that should not concern them.
It is their site, they should be able to set whatever rules they like.
Which was inappropriate government interference.
They should be able to set whatever rules they like. ebay should have
every right to set the rules on their site.
Thank the non-existent gawd that not all Americans support government
interference in matters that should be no concern of government.
Gawd, what a load of Ayn Ranty bullcrap! Are you a 13 year old Ruper
Murdoch wannabe living in his mothers basement? That's what you come on
like. Get a little experience of the real world before your little mind
sets up hard right.
Oh, so you are another one of the people like twybil who believes that
government should interfere in private enterprise when the outcome of
that interference is beneficial to you.
I'll bet that if you or twybil found the government interference was
heading in a direction that you don't like, you would be screaming about
the injustice of it.
Ebay is a business (not any different than the store down the street)
as such they are permitted to operate as they see fit for their needs.
If that means that they only accept payments from PayPal then so be it.
If they decided that they want to be paid in cash, then that is the
method of payment that people using their business will have to use.
It's quite simple really. People that believe that businesses have to do
what they want them to are sadly mistaken, they are the ones that make
the decisions regarding their operations.
No. They may only operate within the limits of the law.
And that isn't legal, at least in the USA.
Watched the financial meltdown recently? Are you aware that it's
primary cause was a bunch of unregulated businesses doing what they
thought was best for *them* in the short term, and devil take the
That's *why* we have to have the government play watchdog.