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