Rules for classifieds

I've been asked whether I'd allow adverts for bicycles offered elsewhere if the bicycles in question are being sold with all proceeds going to charity.

I'm going to treat this the same as auctions... providing the proceeds are 100% going to a non-profit or charitable organisation and this is clearly declared, then OK, it's cool.

So if such adverts are posted, then this is the comment that green lights them.

However, there is a risk... if an advert is posted and it wasn't for a non-profit or charitable purpose... then the adverts will be removed, person banned, etc. So the original rule of do not cross-post or spam us remains in place, this exception only applies to non-profits and charity organisations.

PS: The non-profit that asked was http://thebikeproject.co.uk/ I'm totally cool with what they're doing.

Thanks for the advice @Velocio Not my intention to post Ad spam at all! I was unsure as to which forum to post on to start with didn't want to annoy anyone by posting in the wrong place. This is a great site and is a massively helpful resource for me, I just hope I can help some of you too!

ignore me... doh!

Regarding things that look too good to be true, typically they are. But occasionally/rarely they're genuine.

The problem being... an Ultegra Di2 for £300 https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/298079/ not only is far too good to be true, but is in that stolen bike stuff sweet spot of £150 > £350.

The online identity of that user is known to me, and I'd happily work with police if they got in touch and said it was a suspect item... but I don't believe that is the case.

The problem then is one of trust, when a deal looks too good how should we increase trust so that we can believe it?

What do people think of using a third party service to help increase trust by making it extremely difficult to hide identity.

i.e. https://keybase.io/buro9

That service requires proof of access to multiple systems as well as verification by people who vouch that you are indeed who you say.

Short of me checking scans of passports and issuing blue ticks I'm not sure what else I can do to increase trust. But verifying the identity (something actual bike thieves will never want to happen) seems like a good thing to consider.

I've bought a lot of things at reasonable prices from good people who are new user#####s and would having this hassle of verification, despite making us safer from scams, end up with our classifieds being much quieter?

Quite possibly, but I think that's a price worth paying.

On the one hand we might miss a few deals; on the other, people are getting ripped-off.

I think the balance should be heavily in favour of protecting buyers, even to the extent of closing the classifieds altogether should that become necessary!

It's not just the immediate financial loss, but getting fleeced can really knock people.

And if people get ripped-off on here, then however unjustly, it reflects on lufgus as a whole.

Dark days are upon us

#thanksBrexit

I think verification is probably a good thing, but with an admin blue tick rather than public knowledge. If you can find somebody's real name and know roughly where they live, you can easily find their address and given that we often talk about our bikes, it makes it simple for the more nefarious in society to know exactly where to nick specific bikes.

GF works for an online safety charity and so I hear loads of stories of things like this happening, even through Strava start and end points.

Killed ebay duplicate

https://www.lfgss.com/profiles/116126/
user65594 is bikeandrun_97 on ebay

This sounds good to me (been scammed via PayPal (goods - idiots) twice on our classifieds for things that weren't really too good to be true.. . I don't care for user##%^%# and their bargain gold plated colnago, happy with increasing security and decreasing spam. Sounds like a great plan.

I think rule 8 needs rephrasing, the current formulation:

8.The rule on not SHOUTING or applying other formatting to draw unequal attention to your advert is not permitted.

suggests to me that "The rule [...] is not permitted".

Can we have a rule if it doesn't already exist somewhere, that sellers must not demand paypal fees be payed by the buyer. the cost of using paypal should remain with the seller as paypal intends and buyers shouldn't be forced to pay extra just to ensure they're not getting ripped off.

I thought this was in the rules already but can't spot it now

ok then my revised price is £XXX + 4%.

Well people are free to do that if they decide in advance and keep it to themselves. I always ask for more on ebay than I would on here for the fees. Just seems wrong to me to blatantly tell someone "you're gonna pay my fees so I don't lose money"

You can only enforce that rule if you can enforce the usage of PayPal as payment gateway. Technically its the buyer who has 'decided' to use it so why should the seller bear the 4%?

Because that's paypal's policy. Why has the buyer decided it? Its usually sellers who say "paypal gift or buyer covers fees" which is what I'm saying should be banned.

Why should I pay extra for something just so as I can get the protection that paypal offers you for free?

Its not free though, someone has to pay. You are saying it should be the seller. And thats subjective. The seller can also say bank transfer/Monzo/Pingit. Unless PayPal as a platform is enforced to accept/send payments the 4% remains disputable 'on here'.

It will also be seen as a 'fee' to sell on lfgss like its seen on ebay.

It is free for the buyer. I'm not sure what you think is subjective, it isn't. Say you win something on eBay for £100. As the buyer, PayPal charges you £100. The seller receives this minus the fees. Same if you buy something via PayPal on an online shop. Your protection is included in the items cost because the fees come from the seller.
You're saying it should be different on here because buyers ask to use PayPal? If it's not how PayPal works, why is it fine to ask for more money to get around it?

Also it's not a fee to sell on here, it's a fee to sell using PayPal which you rightly should pay. eBay charges their own 10%

Anyway, it was just a suggestion. Thinking aloud.

If someone lists prices as cash on collection, and a buyer can't collect for whatever reason so asks for postage, I think it's fair for the buyer to cover paypal fees as well as postage.

Anyway I think its the seller's choice regardless.

I would say people generally try to sell for a reasonable price on here before they put on eBay for more. So covering fees just helps as in general stuff is sold for a good deal anyway.

If you use buy-it-now for something on ebay the seller will have taken the ebay + paypal fees into account when setting the price. Just like if we were to set a rule that sellers can't pass on the 4% paypal fee on here, they will just up the overall price slightly.

Fair. That's that then