Community Poll: Should artists who don't advertise paypal fees, but include them in their invoices be Cautionable?

[Eden]

As the title says, should "hidden fees" be Cautionable?

[Stormrunner]

This is hard, what do they mean by hidden fees.  Are they adding it to the full total after the fact, or is it already included in the total cost before invoicing?

 

[Eden]

2 minutes ago, Stormrunner said:

This is hard, what do they mean by hidden fees.  Are they adding it to the full total after the fact, or is it already included in the total cost before invoicing?

 

We're specifically counting a scenario like this:

"Hey my comm price is $40" and then the client receives an invoice for more than $40.  It doesn't have to list the fee specifically.

[Stormrunner]

Ok I figured.  I submitted.

[Leongon]

I'll add that in PayPal's terms of service the seller is not allowed to add that kind of fee, the client could just file a report and get the artist striked.

Which basically means this poll is not including the right option "Yes, no buts"

Edited October 26, 2020 by Leongon

[armaina]

1 hour ago, Leongon said:

I'll add that in PayPal's terms of service the seller is not allowed to add that kind of fee, the client could just file a report and get the artist striked.

Which basically means this poll is not including the right option "Yes, no buts"

Most of the staff are seasoned artists with rather intimate knowledge of PayPal's idiosyncrasies. You don't need to inform us of what we already know.

That being said, other artists are not aware of this and are not aware of what the rules even mean so in many cases when a fee is added it's not out of maliciousness. No two interactions are the same, nuance and context is needed for these things, that's why we have 'Yes, but' because this genuinely does matter.

I think it both weakens AB as a service and would do more harm than good for artists and clients alike, if someone were to report someone adding a paypal fee but the artist in question had a very spotless record for turn around, communication and work completion. At that point it's something that could be resolved without our intervention by merely informing the artist that PayPal has a rule for not adding fees that are PayPal only. To assume all artists that add a fee are malicious simply by the fee being there, and to make every single instance caution-able, I think disrupts the integrity of Artist Beware.

Edited October 26, 2020 by armaina

[Eden]

15 minutes ago, armaina said:

Most of the staff are seasoned artists with rather intimate knowledge of PayPal's idiosyncrasies. You don't need to inform us of what we already know.

That being said, other artists are not aware of this and are not aware of what the rules even mean so in many cases when a fee is added it's not out of maliciousness. No two interactions are the same, nuance and context is needed for these things, that's why we have 'Yes, but' because this genuinely does matter.

I think it both weakens AB as a service and would do more harm than good for artists and clients alike, if someone were to report someone adding a paypal fee but the artist in question had a very spotless record for turn around, communication and work completion. At that point it's something that could be resolved without our intervention by merely informing the artist that PayPal has a rule for not adding fees that are PayPal only. To assume all artists that add a fee are malicious simply by the fee being there, and to make every single instance caution-able, I think disrupts the integrity of Artist Beware.

I agree.  The old version of AB garnered itself a reputation for being "dramatic".  Over the years we've worked hard to turn that around by trying to have guidelines.  I think a blanket "yes, always" turns the site into a direction of making people feel like they're being witch hunted.

[Kaiju]

Without going into the specific details, I am gonna assume this was sparked by the caution that I submitted which is still pending approval.

 

I agree a blanket approach is wrong, because not everyone pays attention to PayPal's ToS, and reporting everyone for it without nuance would lead to a lot of drama. I personally chose yes, if they continue to advertise without it because I don't think whether they are rude about it is necessarily relevant, even if it is something to keep in mind. In my opinion, the option should be yes, if it is determined that they are blatantly trying to pass the buck off on their customers and intend to continue doing so. That was ultimately my biggest issue with the whole thing as I could chalk the vague rules up to the language barrier, that they acknowledged they were deliberately trying to bypass the fees on them in violation of the PayPal ToS and that they insisted this was their right as an artist to do, in complete disregard for the rights of the client on the platform they insisted on using. Whether they update their rules to reflect that they expect you to cover their cost of doing business shouldn't be the determining factor imo, but instead it should be their intention.

Just my two cents. I like the new direction AB has taken and I think the standards for reporting, including on this issue, are important and merit discussion in order to keep moving in that direction.

[theodor]

Yes, if they continue it after being informed, and/or have an extreme reaction. I disagree with the 'without mentioning the fees.' part, as you are not allowed to have them what so ever, and I have seen people who state '$x added for paypal fee' or '$10, fees added if paying by paypal' in commission ads. I think hidden, and blatantly stated ones should be posted if the artist continues after being informed/is rude.