• 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'?
No, our mods have enough to do. Pre Sales you should never send as a gift always goods, this way you have buyer protection. As far as anything else, I go by the feedback rating and how well I know the member.
I do believe however that sellers should be responsible for Paypal fees, like on eBay.
 
I've got a great idea here.. I was going to make GIS Gift Cards. These would come in denominations of $50/$100/$500. You'd buy a gift card (the only way of payment to me), and if there were pins you wanted that I was selling, you could use your GIS Gift Card to purchase them from me.

My goal here is that everyone would always have a remaining balance and I'd always come up ahead. Should I have said that last part out loud...
 

:lol:...but would you sell them as "purchase" or "gift"???
 
I dunno, I kind of think that if DPF makes that rule in stone that it's essentially putting them in the hot seat and opening them up for all kinds of complaints related to person to person purchases. Why? Because they made the rule so surely they MUST have a hand in it. I think as it is now, DPF very clearly warns that they are not responsible for person to person transactions and it's buy at your own risk. I don't think DPF has any obligation to change the rule but more so, if it bothers you or you feel hesitant about buying from person to person then you have a few options...

A) Don't buy person to person, buy on eBay where you're protected as a buyer
B) Tell the seller that you are only comfortable using the "Purchase" method
C) Establish trusted sellers/contacts and only purchase as "Gift" from them

I totally understand the concern here, I just think this is something that can be handled personally and doesn't need DPF to intervene on.
 

Yay Aquata! Well said.
 
Last edited:

I agree that DPF has absolutely no obligation to make such a rule (....and I'm not trying to make trouble, really :angel: ...I'm just saying that IMO a rule would make sense, particularly for the protection of newer members).

As for the potential liability, making a rule for the purpose of protecting its members would not put DPF at risk. If anything, DPF would be protecting itself by saying "if it's a purchase, call it a purchase"....because DPF does host a forum for sales, and calling a 'purchase' a 'gift' is essentially a misrepresentation ...I am NOT saying that people who ask for payment as 'gift' are doing so for improper purposes, but the reality is that it is a misrepresentation of the transaction, which has the potential to be used to make off with someone's money, evade taxes, whatever...

...and yes, even if DPF had a rule, people could get around it by making arrangements by PM, selling elsewhere, etc. ...but on that argument we should get rid of most of the current rules... DPF can't be responsible for what its members arrange in private ...if members decided between themselves to make different arrangements, then that wouldn't be DPF's problem

Re. the mods time: it would be a pretty straight-forward rule. For example, we have a rule requiring posted prices in sales threads, and enforcement can't be that difficult...usually when a thread goes up without prices, some member points out the rule fairly quickly. It certainly would take far less mod time than trying to deal with the occasional transactions that go south...because, if we have a rule, you either paid as 'purchase' (and therefore have recourse to Paypal) or you privately arranged to pay as 'gift' (and having opted to make private arrangements, it is up to you to try to resolve any issues).

...protects buyers
...protects DPF
...should require less time from the mods
...doesn't prevent anyone from making their own private arrangements

.......what more could you want?
 
Last edited:

The current rule in effect is essentially exactly what you are saying, only it is worded differently. It is more of a "blanket" rule if I may call it so, which takes all responsibility off of forum leaders.

Please be certain that you make safe and intelligent secure payment and shipping arrangements.
Click to expand...

If the buyer makes a safe choice, i.e. the buyer uses Paypal purchase option, then the buyer is protected by Paypal. No mod intervention necessary (like it happened to me recently).

DisneyPinForum.com is not responsible/liable for any pin(s) advertised for sale in this forum, the integrity of that product's representation, any sales that go uncompensated, or the shipment or transport of any items.
Click to expand...

If the buyers pays by "gift" option, it is not DPF's responsibility as per Marketplace rules.

So, what you are saying is already accomplished by the existing rules. As it stands now, the mods are not responsible for transactions that go south.

The only thing the mods are responsible for is to give infractions to sellers who don't deliver. Recovery is not their responsibility anyway.
 
Last edited:
So does that rule, as stated means that I have a buyer have the right to define "secure payment" as following Paypal's rules, ie "I will pay as goods, and seller is responsible for fees" in response to a posted sale thread. Like Trade Auctions have to be honored even if the auctioneer doesn't like the bids. Or can the seller tell me to take a hike, because I won't pay their fees. For me that's the question that needs to be answered.
 

I guess my immediate thought in that scenario is that if a seller responds rudely or has an issue with payment coming as "goods", then that's already a clear sign that it may not be better to do business with them after all.


I've been reading most everyone's responses to this thread and thinking it over, and to me I really can't see how DPF can really make a rule concerning 'goods' payments being required without becoming more involved in the transactions then they would want to be.


** Here is an idea that I just thought of and might be of help or might not (but I'm posting it in hopes that it will be of help ):

Some people may post prices with the mentality of "If I sell this pin, I want to take home this", and so shipping will be added in later. Along the same idea, my suggestion would be for people to post in their threads this: Shipping and Paypal Fees will be figured in Based on Total Amount of Pins Being Purchased.

Then once the total is invoiced to the buyer, the seller can calculate the appropriate fees along with the shipping of the pins. Obviously this wouldn't be an opportunity to inflate the prices. You would simply be saying "So you are interested in 3 pins that total $50. Shipping will be $3 and PP Fees will be $1.88, making the final total $54.89. Please paypal to..."


Again, just a suggestion, but not something for DPF to make a hard fast rule of course. Like I've said before, I'm fine with whichever payment option my buyer feels more comfortable with as I've just accepted figuring it into my prices. But just putting that suggestion for sellers out there in case it helps ^.^
 
Last edited:

This is against Paypal's TOS for surcharges.
 
I have a question regarding this whole thing too. When I first started picking up here and there for others, I was told by someone that you would get 1099ed if you received payments as goods? Is this true? Cause that is the only reason I ask for gift instead. The way I saw it at the time was, if I was going to do this as a favor to others I didn't want to take a huge hit in my taxes at the end of the year for selling stuff when most of it if not all of it was helping others out at cost?

if the information I was given back then is incorrect I would like to know so I can amend my ways and give that protection out if it is wanted <3
 
Both, not one or the other? I know I'm not anywhere near the 20,000 mark (I think) but maybe 200+ transactions yearly doesn't sound far off. I've been more of a personal shopper than a seller. But I can't afford to help people out if I am expected to get dinged for fees or 1099'd. That's just not fair. it may be a small amount. But in a large scale of help it becomes quite a bit I'm sure.
 
creativextremeties said:
But I can't afford to help people out if I am expected to get dinged for fees or 1099'd. That's just not fair. it may be a small amount. But in a large scale of help it becomes quite a bit I'm sure.
Click to expand...

You won't get dinged, but you have to calculate your "net profit" and make sure to show that it is $0 - which means that you have to keep exact record for every purchase, shipping material and shipping charges. Which is not practical at all.

For someone who has a large collection, it would be very hard to liquidate it. I have not kept any record whatsoever. So, if I were to liquidate my collection for loss of job, or a serious ilness, I'd be in trouble. But then again, so would the gift option be.

Awww ... this is getting confusing for me
 
Last edited:
hopemax said:
This is against Paypal's TOS for surcharges.
Click to expand...

Okay, honestly, I think that's in terms of businesses. This is a hobby. And if someone picks up a pin for me, I am not going to make them eat PP fees for doing me a favor. And if someone would like to clear a certain amount for a pin (for whatever reason they want/have to sell it), I am also not going to report them to Paypal if they politely request for me to figure in an amount that will help them get what they were hoping for. Just my feeling on the matter. :dunno:
 

Yes, both.

Is it fair to expect someone to break what they know are the rules and conditions? Or are we not supposed to care, cause it's only Paypal...it's not like DSF lineup times or scrappers? Like Grim said several posts ago, sellers agree to the TOS when they sign up. In ye olden days, we all sent checks and money orders around so Paypal is not the only option. Or like Merryweather mentioned, sellers on Ebay KNOW they have to build the fees into their prices, not add ons at the end that get charged to some people. If a seller need to set a higher price FOR THE PIN, then there is no reason they can't. But people like Paypal for the convenience, the speed and the protections. If sellers benefit from those aspects then shouldn't they expect to pay for them?

creativextremeties said:
Umm, I am putting myself out here way too much lol.....
Click to expand...

Obviously, me too. I just don't understand why doing the correct thing is the wrong thing. But I can certainly tell by the responses that that's what it is.

I've had to come to terms with how uncomfortable I feel every time I'm asked to gift or pay fees by strangers when I know they could figure it out before they post sale threads, like Ebay, and I have significantly cut back on my purchases here. I get way too anxious sitting around waiting for a package to arrive. And then I see multiple threads with people wondering where their pins are because someone has gone AWOL, and refunds for the pre-sales, it makes me even more upset about the situation, because it seems so completely unnecessary.

And in case it isn't clear, I'm not expecting anyone to be out money. But there are multiple ways to set prices, there are multiple options for payment. I would expect that if DPF were to adopt rules, that listed pin prices would go up. But I disagree with having a setup that has someone having to knowingly break the rules (or lose buyer protections by using gift) to participate. I would never turn someone into Paypal either (although, now that I think about it, I wonder if that would work as a scam, for the scammy scammy people. Pay a fee and then turn them in and dispute the charge. If what someone said about someone picked up a pin in person, and they claimed they never got it, why not...), but it would be naive to assume that Paypal does not know this is an issue for them. While I was Googling this issue and how other boards dealt with it yesterday, some people reported having their account flagged for excessive gift payments. So as impossible as it seems, I don't want to find my fellow pin traders on the wrong end of things with Paypal. Paypal's profits are slowing according to yesterday's news reports, so they're gonna be looking for new profit. And I would bet that identifying people who are misusing their services are on the list.
 
The more think, the more confusing and deeper this gets for me. But to answer this:

hopemax said:
So does that rule, as stated means that I have a buyer have the right to define "secure payment" as following Paypal's rules, ie "I will pay as goods, and seller is responsible for fees" in response to a posted sale thread.
Click to expand...

I think this is one option. But since a good portion of active DPF members see each other at DLR, secure payment can also be giving cash in person. In that case, Paypal's rules would not be violated and there certainly would be no need to figure fees in sales figures. This would only work for those who see each other in the parks or pin meetings etc though.

I think just few hrs ago there was a BT sale and the seller requested to meet at DLR.

I have at least one friend here who trusts me enough to send cash in the mail, but that is more of an exception than the rule I guess
 

I hope you don't take what I have said as being dismissive of your views, Hope. I can see where you are coming from, and I agree completely that paying as goods should be the default. I just don't see the issue in adding the fees for Paypal. In my mind it's like adding shipping onto the total. Yes as a seller here I already figure in the fees, but as a buyer I don't feel penalized if I pay fees in addition for paying as "goods". But while it isn't an issue to me, I totally respect that it's important to you, and would not expect you or anyone else to go against what they felt comfortable with were we to enter a transaction together.


At the end of it it seems like this discussion is coming down to just terminology and a few dollars. On both sides of the issue, "It's just a few dollars" into the sale, or it's "just a few dollars" in addition to the sale, so what's the problem? And yet neither side is fully committed to being responsible for those dollars. Who ultimately should pay that fee? The Seller. Because if a buyer doesn't feel comfortable paying as gift or paying the fee, they ultimately will be the one who lose out on the sale and lose out in the end.


Now, having said all that, the question at hand is that "should DPF require that sellers take payment", and my opinion is still No. The facts of the matter is that it's good sense to pay as goods and good sense to figure in fees. And just like it's good sense to check feedback before trading, it is up to the members to use good sense in the buying/selling, not DPF.
 
Last edited:

That's only a violation of Disneyland's rules. And can get you kicked off property! It would have to be on the street somewhere.
 
Ha ha .. let me get this even more confusing:

What about games and fundraisers ? By the same standards, they too should be under purchase category :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register