Paypal immediate dispute test underway!

[fitterpete]

Well I guess I'm never taking paypal on here again.Now that this godawful idea is out there I won't trust it.Way to go.
Pete

[Stanislav]

Like I said earlier, this experiment has gone wrong in lots of ways. Some on John's part, some on others. However, when delving into sociology and psychology on this one, all I can say is that you would not have a perfect Ebay or Bartertown rating if you pulled this crap on me, and I think I am only one of many that feels that way. You have had your half-out-of-the closet fans, but the majority is totally against what they believe to be your underhanded tactics.

I suspect, a perfect rating on Bartertown won't be necessary. You have just eliminated 50%-75% of your potential trading partners with your actions.

[Morlock-Bloodletter]

Just because the CC used was "hit" does not mean payment was made if the "hit" is being held.

You cannot walk into McDonalds, order a cheeseburger and hand the money over only to 'hold on to it' until you get the burger.

John, you can claim that paypal is holding the money and that you no longer have it but you are the one who caused the payment to be held by Paypal... only you can release it therefore the payment is NOT complete until YOU give that ok.

That is NOT the seller's responsibility, it's yours.

You bid
now you have to pay,

you have not paid as the payment was not completed. There is no logic that says that you HAVE paid. Your CC may have been "hit" but the funds have NOT been receipted ergo the payment is NOT complete.

The Seller does not have to send you anything at this point as you have not completed YOUR part of the transaction.

That last part would be MY ruling here on Btown if it came to a 'backout' or 'BTR'... MY ruling as an Admin here that YOU would be at fault for this sale going awry and that YOU would be the one receiving the due diligence and reprocussions of these actions, NOT the seller.

But that's just MY opinion on this.

[MagickalMemories]

Eric:

Security by obscurity never works. All it does is protect thieves and crooks. The more information on scams that is made public, the better. It forces people into better systems and better habits. For example, on pre-scam eBay, DC was optional, and confirmed addresses weren't needed. Just as people used to leave their doors unlocked.

If the Buyer is going to fraudulently SNAD the Seller, there's no need for the initial hold for the scam to work. The extra effort simply isn't needed by the Scammer, because the SNAD scam works plenty well on its own.

Yes, but adding the hold into the works ensures that the seller can't remove the money from PayPal, thus making it available when the SNAD hits. KWIM?

Eric

[Morlock-Bloodletter]

please note that my previous post was not condoning nor condemning john in anyway. I simply put in a decision based on the facts presented as if it took place on btown in the exact same manner.

[JohnHwangBT]

Eric:

Yeah, I know, but the IND hold is still unnecessary and small-time.

If a Scammer is going to SNAD the Seller, it's probably not PayPal cash funds, it's CC or bank funds. PayPal SNAD after delivery gets a ruling in the Scammer's favor. If the entire claim doesn't pay out, then the Scammer can then simply chargeback the difference (or even the whole amount, if necessary) via CC. The Scammer will get all of the money from the CC using the SNAD as evidence. Paypal will then debit the Seller's account, possibly driving it Negative, and possibly locking the entire account until the balance recovers. Or, it's a PowerSeller who is stuck funding the Scam out of legit customers. Or the Scammer simply claims unauthorized funds after the fact, or uses fake / stolen CC from the beginning.

Net result: Seller is totally blindsided until after the item is delivered, possibly negative PayPal balance with a locked PayPal account, and out the item. IND is still unnecessary, because the Scammer still gets all of the money back (if actual money was even sent in the first place).

An IND hold is of no value to a Scammer because SNAD and CC chargebacks are so much more powerful and effective against a Seller. And if you go through the eBay Scam alerts and posts in Safe Harbor, you'll see that to be the case. Scammers are in it for the money and the goods, so they won't waste time with steps that aren't necessary or potentially slow things down. They want the Seller to ship as quickly as possible, hopefully to a non-verified address and without tracking, allowing them to fraudulently claim and win IND upon receipt. If the Seller has traceable delivery to the verified address, then they can always fraud SNAD after receipt.

[JohnHwangBT]

If I owe you money and send you a payment, would you consider yourself paid before you ever get the money?

If a legitimate agent told me that the had your payment was held in escrow, and I could verify for myself that the escrow funds were properly-committed, then I wouldn't have any problem with it whatsoever.

The difference in POV is that I actually prefer systems with strong security and strong processes, and expect reciprocity. That is why my contracts are fully reversible. I'm OK to be on either side of any deal, and expect nothing more from my partners than what I'd demand of myself. Of course, my basic standards are pretty high, so that may be part of the challenge we're dealing with here.
____

Well I guess I'm never taking paypal on here again.Now that this godawful idea is out there I won't trust it.Way to go.
Pete

LOL, PayPal wasn't any more trustworthy before I revealed this. If anything, I'm glad to have opened your eyes to some of the potential risks that are inherent to PayPal.

If I now share lockpicking information with you, will you stop trusting locks? (Hint, lock technology and security is actually pretty terrible...)

[mrrshann618]

Paypal is not an escrow company, it is not legitimised to be an escrow company. Your actions have ad-hoc made it one. I don't do paypal except in extreme cases, mostly becuase I'm sick of the ease of which, like you showed, people can be "legitimately" scammed. I'm not saying that other methods make scamming impossible, but much harder than with Paypal.

I think Stanislav hit the nail on the head that this experiment has lost you many potential trading partners, and those that do continue to trade with you will more than likely think twice about accepting any paypal payments from you.

[MagickalMemories]

I think Stanislav hit the nail on the head that this experiment has lost you many potential trading partners, and those that do continue to trade with you will more than likely think twice about accepting any paypal payments from you.

Not @ mrrshann618 specifically, but to everyone, in general...

I doubt most of us would see this from John.
In fact (and we know John will correct me if I'm wrong), I'm pretty certain that most of the people John deals with on BTown would never see this used.
Why?
Two part reason. Many of us have high enough ratings and/or established enough ratings that John wouldn't feel the need to "protect himself" in this manner. Those of us he would feel that way about will be shipping first, anyway.

Knowing John, I feel pretty safe going on the line saying that the only people who might encounter this... or the most common, anyway... would be low rated/new traders who have something he REALLY wants, but are unwilling to ship before payment is sent. THOSE (I'm guessing) would be the people John would require that extra step of.

Am I right, John?

Eric

[fitterpete]

Hey thanks for "opening my eyes" John

[mrrshann618]

Nevertheless, if people want to actively protect themselves, this seems to be a pretty decent tool in the Buyer's arsenal. If I pay again via PayPal, I will definitely be using this technique.

@MM
He flat out admitted to doing this to others in the future if paying via paypal. This is the only reason I voiced my opinnion about "thinking twice before accepting paypal".
This has nothing to do with how trustworthy he thinks he is, or how trustworthy others think of him.
He has already shown that he does not think others to be trustworthy.

[JohnHwangBT]

In fact (and we know John will correct me if I'm wrong), I'm pretty certain that most of the people John deals with on BTown would never see this used.

Two part reason. Many of us have high enough ratings and/or established enough ratings that John wouldn't feel the need to "protect himself" in this manner.

Knowing John, I feel pretty safe going on the line saying that the only people who might encounter this... or the most common, anyway... would be low rated/new traders who have something he REALLY wants, but are unwilling to ship before payment is sent. THOSE (I'm guessing) would be the people John would require that extra step of.

Am I right, John?

Eric

Nail, Head & Hit? Yes!

This is a situational tactic. So let's look at when / how this might appear from me on Btown.
1. In general, I only trade, so it is rare when I buy.
2. When I buy, it's nearly always in the US, where I have the strongest legal protections if something goes south.
3. When I pay, I generally prefer USPS Money Orders over PayPal
4. When I do buy, the vast bulk of traders on Btown will have a lower rating than me, so they will have to ship first per Btown standard, and I generally won't budge on that.
5. If I do buy from a higher-rated trader, most likely, that trader will have a rating of 200+, possibly higher (there aren't a lot of 200+ traders). The likelihood that they're going rogue is pretty low.

So, the odds that I'm in a PayPal-only purchase are very low to begin with.

However, now that this tactic is possible, I might consider buying from PayPal-only traders, as a compromise if they demand that I commit funds, rather than following Btown standard of lower rating ships first.

/John

[Morlock-Bloodletter]

However, now that this tactic is possible, I might consider buying from PayPal-only traders, as a compromise if they demand that I commit funds, rather than following Btown standard of lower rating ships first.

Yes it's possible but scams are too... so does that make them ALL ok to use? And why would you think that now that this is open to possibility that we would allow it to be used on Btown?

EDIT: I need to reword a sentence I put in here earlier. JOHN is not conducting a SCAMMER TACTIC but the experiment CAN be interpreted that way and therefore should be avoided for now.

Use it at your own peril as we cannot control how you use Paypal.

We CAN control what happens HERE.

That goes for EVERYONE on this site.

Thread LOCKED as the 'experiment' has obviously been foiled because of this thread and those who have posted in it and posted to the seller on eBay.