BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.

I still don't see how this helps buyers.

Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?

It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.

no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.

By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.

well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.

and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:40

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:38

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

23 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

*shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.

So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.

The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.

The flexibility is on the other side. A seller can set up their store to NOT
ship to Canada, but still be flexible on the issue on a case-by-case basis. And
a seller could state that the DON'T automatically accept all cancelation
requests, but still be flexible on a case by case basis.

This is precisely how things are right now. The only difference is that one category
is easy for buyers to filter, and the other is not.

--
Marc.

thing their saying is, if a seller does not ship to Canada a Canadian will not
see their store, if a store does not accept OCR's then nobody who may file
an OCR will see their store, their stores will be excluded from searches.

you want to allow OCR's fine, post it in your stores terms, but it does not
have to be something you either do, or don't do, each contract is unique
and not all are the same.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:35

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

Once again... if you want to discuss the ideas, please do. These personal attacks
are uncalled for.

I am at work. Do you want me to bring 53000 parts to work with me every morning?
I can post because I am between tasks and I have the internet.

--
Marc.

wish I had a job I could post all day on the forums and get paid for it.

my point is, don't go pointing out what problems others have if you have
problems of your own, clean up your yard first before telling your neighbor his
yard is filthy, and so on but I'm sure you get the gist of it.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:31

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:

yes right now sellers can be flexible just like you are flexible in that you
would rather be posting in the forums instead of processing the orders in your
store, seriously if your posting there are delays in shipping orders in your
store in your splash page you should not be wasting time in the forums, so far
you sound like a hypocrite tell people that you would do this and that because
your holier then thou, and yet you fail miserably at the one thing that matters
to me as a buyer, which is a timely processing and shipping time.

Can we just stop getting personal? Is it necessary? I'm all for job security,
but man...step back, and think about what you are doing.

Darren

actually this suggestion is an attack on sellers who will not do any old cancellation
of an order upon request, and to think it is anything other then someone who
wants to make others look bad while making themselves feel good is just fooling
yourself, I take offense with this suggestion in its entirety.

furthermore it was not an attack per se, but an observation of how the poster
is willing to make other sellers look bad and show how he thinks things should
be done when he is failing miserably with his own store and should obviously
be devoting more time to it.

but that is my opinion, and while straight forward it was neither an attack (maybe
a deflection of his attack)or an insult.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:20

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.

So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers?

That is not in my suggestion. Sellers can absolutely be flexible precisely as
they can today with the list of countries they ship to, as an example.

As both a seller and buyer in over 10,000 orders on BrickLink, I have
encountered order cancellation requests (both proper and improper) in way less
than 1% of my orders.

If that is true, than this suggestion would have so little impact on you that
it is irrelevant whether it was implemented or not.

So, basically zero impact for most sellers. A benefit to sellers who want to
systemize their terms, and a benefit to buyers who want to more easily search
for stores whose terms meet their needs.

--
Marc.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:11

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, 'we're better then the
others' and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding

Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?

I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.

Do I think that allowing buyers to back out of a purchase is better than not
letting them? I do. I am not the only one. Stragus does, John P absolutely did
whEn he had an active store. And I would like a systematic way to tell that to
potential buyers.

If sellers are comfortable with their terms -- be it processing times, lot
fees, or allowing/disallowing cancellations -- then I believe they should
be comfortable with standardizing the structure of those terms so that buyers
can more easily compare stores.

That is what this suggestion would do. I accept the concern that this particular
issue is not ideally captured in a yes/no checkbox. That's a potentially
valid concern. But I think that dismissing my idea because you think I am grandstanding
is way off. Either the idea has merit or it doesn't.

--
Marc.

now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free, I could comply when i'm
selling, but then again I don't sell unless I can devote more time to my
store instead of just posting in the forums.

furthermore, you say you have shipping delays, yet find time to post several
times on the forums here, sounds like you need to get your priorities straight,
and think I might be avoiding your store since its obvious you do not take selling
seriously.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:07

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

19 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, 'we're better then the
others' and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding

and yet here you are grandstanding, but seriously you want to remove an option
from sellers? sorry I like my options, you go ahead and click that box and when
a buyer says they want to cancel their $400 10K part order because they want
to and you have to because you clicked a button saying you do, you go for it.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 22, 2015 11:02

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

21 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Bricktrain writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

3.Seller did not have items after order was submitted

as a buyer I would eb irked if a seller lists some items then turns out they
don't have them.

Has happened to me three times in the last two weeks, in one case the seller
didnt tell me until 3 days after shipping, and of course it was the most wanted
part in the order. One of the others told me after invoicing and stated in his
store terms no additions after invoicing so was unable to add any items to maximise
shipping costs, I had reduced other quantities to keep just under the customs
duty limit then wasted half the 40E shipping price due to them not having the
stock.

well its one thing if say in a 80 piece lot an item is missing, but its another
when you order the only item in a lot and its gone, they don't have it, me
when I sold I always did an inventory check periodically to insure I had enough
product.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 18:24

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:

I voted no for several reasons.

First, this checkbox idea is overly simplistic because it forces sellers to pidgeonhole
themselves into something that is very often not so black and white. For example,
many sellers will allow order cancellation under some situations but not others.
Which checkbox should be checked for this seller? That he allows cancellations
or that he doesn't allow cancellations? Or are we going to have a long list
of checkboxes describing each particular situation when cancellation will or
will not be allowed? If so, then why have checboxes at all? This can be much
better and more accurately explained in the seller's terms.

I find this checkbox notion very similar (and similarly unworkable for the same
reasons) to the notion to have checkboxes for sellers that charge fees. What
checkbox should be checked for a seller who only charges a $0.50 fee on orders
below $5.00? Orders that account for only 5% of that seller's sales?

Clearly, the matter of OCRs and fees isn't as simple as some would lead you
to believe.

Second, this checkbox idea is just the first step in a process that will culminate
in broadly excluding sellers from the search results if they should wish, under
very limited circumstances, to not cancel an order as per the BrickLink rules
and guidelines. It is overkill, since it would exclude even those sellers who
allow cancellation 90% or more of the time.

Third, checkboxes will be used as yet another crutch, reason or excuse for buyers
to not read seller terms. Why read a page of terms when you think (mistakenly)
that a couple of checkboxes tell you all you need to know about a seller and
their policies? Buyers should be encouraged to read store terms and not to rely
instead on over-simplified misleading checkboxes that forcibly pidgeonhole and
tie the hands of sellers.

Fourth, all-or-nothing checkboxes limit a seller's flexibility to handle
things according to the unique circumstances of each situation.

Fifth, these checkboxes are not necessary. BrickLink's rules already adequately
cover when an order can be canceled. Members should be encouraged to know the
rules rather than relying on crutches and shortcuts that are misleading and overbroad.

Sixth, these all-or-nothing checkboxes will actually create more problems and
disputes between buyers and sellers.

Seventh, a seller who ticks the checkbox saying they allow order cancellations
can never file or complete an NPB. Why penalize a buyer with an NPB if you allow
any order to be cancelled? This in turn makes NPBs more of a problem and concern
to other sellers because it will give them less notice of buyers who may be potential
problems.

Eighth, written terms are the best way for sellers to make clear to buyers what
they are getting into. Anything that shortcuts that process or makes those
terms less likely to be read will do more harm than good.

Thor

I wonder how things would go if a seller cannot have the cancelled sales fees
removed unless a NPB was filed?

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 18:18

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

Yes, but section 18, under Order Cancellation Policy, states that it is okay
to cancel under certain circumstances.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79

Including: Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller

It is certainly not a violation of the TOS for a buyer and seller to agree to
cancel an order.

--
Marc.

ok well lets look under that policy shall we?

Valid Reasons:
1.Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller

this part here is confusing since what does mutual agreement constitute since
you would think it would have to apply to one of the following reasons.

2.Seller did not respond to emails

Seller doesn't respond, is understandable since you can't complete a
transaction if the seller does not communicate.

3.Seller did not have items after order was submitted

as a buyer I would eb irked if a seller lists some items then turns out they
don't have them.

4.Seller listed item with error

this one is not so prevalent since most listings are based on the item guide.

5.Seller provided a shipping fee that was too high (not clearly stated in T&C)

what is constituted as too high, the one seller in that other thread had a pretty
reasonable S&H fee, so what is too high? in fact this should be able to be contested
by the seller if they so choose, with evidence their S&H is spot on or there
abouts.

6.Seller is using an exchange rate inconsistent with Exchange Rate Policy

seller violated the rules, understandable

7.Seller did not ship order after payment was made

Seller failed to deliver

8.Seller is underage (under 18 years old)

seller violated the rules once again

9.Seller is no longer registered

can't complete a transaction with someone who is not there.

10.System problem during order submission (excluding not receiving order notification
e-mail)

BL screw up.

now heres the reasons not allowed for cancellation which occurs too often, and
yet you expect sellers to violate said rules:

Invalid Reasons:
1.Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.

many buyers use this excuse or more to the point they say S&H was too high because
they changed their mind.

2.Buyer found items cheaper somewhere else - Buyer should be confident that he or she is.
ready to pay the asking prices before submitting an order. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.

another intolerable reason and yet buyers will have this excuse and use the S&H
too high excuse.

now that's just for the buyer, by these policies it is to easy for a buyer
to complain S&H is too high even with no proof.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 17:59

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, kzinti writes:

Most problems arise from new buyers, who may not know how much shipping costs.
Just because there is no cheaper option, doesn't mean it can't catch
someone off guard. Now maybe it could have been avoided with a little research,
but I don't think that should be necessary for a modern marketplace website,
which is why we need to get automated checkout working already.

I believe it will create a bunch of headaches due to the unique nature of order
dimensions and weights here. Either the Seller will get stuck with higher costs,
or the Buyer will be overpaying for shipping. I'd prefer to quote due to
the large variety of packaging and shipping options.

all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, were better then the
others and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding, if people don't like
the S&H don't blame the seller (most of the times) blame the post office.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 17:39

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).

Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.

To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.

This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897

That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.

--
Marc.

Not sure I could go with a suggestion that suggests sellers have the option to
violate the ToS since a buyer is responsible for completing of their purchase,

Agreeing to cancel isn't a violation of the TOS. Any seller is free to do
so. BL even explicitly provides that option: buyer and seller agree to camcel.
Marc.

from BrickLink ToS:

4.Buying:
If you place an order in a store, you are obligated to complete the purchase.

5.Selling:
If you have a store and receive a valid order then you are obligated to complete
the transaction.

http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1919

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 17:19

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, kzinti writes:

How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.

I believe the new Quote option was designed to specifically allow this kind of
window shopping. "I want this, what will it cost to ship?" and when they find
out, "Oh, my! Um, no thanks". No harm, no foul.

if its (shipping) not free its too much

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 17:18

Subject:

Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II)

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FigBits writes:

Not sure I could go with a suggestion that suggests sellers have the option to
violate the ToS since a buyer is responsible for completing of their purchase,
cause lets face it if a seller says they are forgiving of buyers who want to
back out, how many buyers will those sellers get who do such a thing, while the
sellers who will follow the ToS, don't worry about the buyers backing out
since they will face the consequences.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 15:56

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

ok with all the threads about new buyers and sellers, or a very long thread about
a new buyer, maybe a tutorial should be instituted for both new buyers and new
sellers that they would go thru as part of the sign up process so as to avoid
some of the confusion that is occurring (hopefully).

it could be any one of things from a video tutorial or a written tutorial or
? any of which must be completed before official member status is given.

this is just a suggestive thought.

People don't want to read lengthy documents or spend 5 minutes watching
a training video before making a simple purchase. This is likely why people don't
read store's ToS (which many are quite needlessly lengthy in my opinion)
leading to this problem.

Many people (myself included) spend lots of time on here and get the feel for
things, but lots of people just want to buy something and go away - maybe they
don't even care for Lego and give it away as a gift. If the time to make
that initial purchase is too burdensome, you'll either lose those sales or
you'll keep running into this problem, in my opinion.

The only solution to this problem, in my opinion, is to have an industry standard
e-commerce check-out system.

Problem is this is not one business, but several businesses in several locations
with various degrees of shipping, payment and so forth, it is a lot easier to
do a tutorial then to try to come up with one wrap around program that will probably
cause rates for sellers to go up and take up lots of space and cause more problems.

Isn't it actually the exact same? If the tutorial doesn't explain all
the variations in all the processes in all the different business on here, it
is just as useless as not having one. If a new seller sits through the tutorial
and encounters a slightly different service agreement than what they just spent
5 minutes figuring out, they'll potentially place an order incorrectly or
give up.

Also there are many, many off-the shelf products available to handle e-commerce.
So, I'd say its easier to use something already existing than make something
new 99% of the time.

Would automatic checkout solve all the problems? No. It would probably even create
some as you say. But I believe it will be the only way to fix this specific problem
of buyers placing orders they no longer want.

take up lots of space

Side question, what space? I'm lost and very curious on this.

you do know the space this site is on? they had to close up the Chat room because
of it.

furthermore a tutorial can give the basics like how to navigate, how unless the
buyer says free shipping, there will be shipping and so on. what you suggest
would be a disaster in the making.

Having the buyer decide when to get free shipping would also be a disaster.

Tutorials are a waste of time. You cannot force people to follow them, and people
will still make mistakes.

but they would have to say watch the tutorial video to get the password to unlock
their account, and thereby doing they have no excuse, there is a South Park Episode
where Stan signs an Apple agreement without reading it, he became part of a human
centipad, people should really read those agreements they agree too.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 21, 2015 13:37

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

bump up.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 20, 2015 19:25

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, j7r7o7c7k7 writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, therobo writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2215

but is that part of the sign up process, or one of those things that is hidden
away and unknown, since I didn't even know of this video.

I had no idea this video was there. And I have looked at a ton of things on this
site just to learn stuff and where things are.

As for the OP. I like the idea as well. But like said, most people don't
read what they sign up for. Honestly how reads all the terms and conditions for
everything you sign up for. When some of them would take you a hour or more
if you are a good reader. And they always use words and terms you have to be
a rocket scientist to understand. And if people don't read terms why on earth
would they read something like this or watch a video. They will just say screw
it and buy from the bay. I like the idea but just don't think it will fix
much of anything overall. It might cut out 1-2 people from doing a no no but
when there is 10000 what is 1 or 2. I don't know if there is a fool proof
fix anyway. Cause like with the video they will just start it and then go do
something while it watches its self. I have started many previews (dvds that
wont let you skip them) and commercials (video ads) and I will just go make something
to eat or hit the bathroom or whatever and then come back in a few mins when
its ready to go and get to what I really wanted to do and didn't pay in mind
to the other crap.

well the trick is to supply a codeword in the video that is used to unlock the
feature access of the site.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 20, 2015 19:23

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, jodawill writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

take up lots of space

Side question, what space? I'm lost and very curious on this.

It's my understanding that the chatroom was closed because it was a major
security problem due to sloppy coding, so they just scrapped the whole thing.

from what I remember is it took up to much space on the server and caused other
parts of the site to crash.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 20, 2015 18:35

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

take up lots of space

Side question, what space? I'm lost and very curious on this.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 20, 2015 18:04

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 20, 2015 17:48

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, therobo writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2215

but is that part of the sign up process, or one of those things that is hidden
away and unknown, since I didn't even know of this video.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

May 20, 2015 17:42

Subject:

New Member tutorial

Viewed:

181 times

Topic:

Status:

Discarded

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

Apr 13, 2015 12:42

Subject:

Re: Ban sellers asking for Friends PayPal payment

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, enig writes:

My offer still stands for anyone who is willing to risk their $5, if this seller
gets permanently banned. Hell, I will drop in free worldwide shipping to go with
$100 coupon

who is this seller?

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

Apr 13, 2015 12:38

Subject:

Re: Ban sellers asking for Friends PayPal payment

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

I'd like to see a ban on bricklink sellers using T&C asking their buyers
to pay for merchandise using the Friends and Family option.

I would prefer if these sellers first got a warning. I tend to be the sort that
likes to give people 2nd chances.

If one wanted to hurt such sellers, they could just turn them into paypal.
For those who openly state this on their splash page, it would take one look
by paypal and not only would paypal revoke their ability to use the friend's
and family option, they might start collecting the fees for past payments.
I did see a post on another site where someone had lost their right to use paypal
at all, due to this practice. Paypal wanted them to pay the 3% on past transactions.

Personally, I have decided to just NOT make the purchase from such a seller recently.
They had some wording saying it was my choice, and I could choose to pay more
for shipping and fees, or choose the friends and family option.
They seemed to emphasize that it was my own choice in their wording.
Upon reading this, instead of completing the check out, I emptied my cart and
went to another store.

Actually that also violates PayPals ToC by charging more, no matter what they
call it to pay thru other then personal, also think it violates certain retail
laws too concerning the adding of charges to use a credit card or not.

Author:

Rick_S.

Posted:

Apr 13, 2015 12:35

Subject:

Re: Ban sellers asking for Friends PayPal payment

Viewed:

63 times

Topic: