DAE Feel The Classified Posting Guidelines Are Too Restrictive?

• 

  omguleh on 29/07/2019 - 15:07

  -3

  You know what they say, if you don’t like it, make your own website.

  I have no issues with the changes, especially with the points swapping/travel credits where you have to give username/password details.

  • 

    illumination on 29/07/2019 - 16:02

    +4

    You know what they say, if you don’t like it, make your own website.

    The problem I have with this mentality is that it literally quashes the opportunity to have any sort of discussion whatsoever. It's such an easy way to tell people to keep their mouths shut without actually discussing the topic.

    But sure, it's certainly not a "wrong" mentality to have. It's like what they say about a job. "Don't like it? Don't stay."

    I have no issues with the changes, especially with the points swapping/travel credits where you have to give username/password details.

    You don't have to give username/password details for that. Of course, it's an option, but the other way is you get the other person's personal details to make the booking on their behalf. I'm not saying either is better - just saying username & password is not the only option.

• 

  HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 15:09

  This also includes reselling items with the intent of making profit (including gift cards or credit card statement offers). Gift cards in large quantities, amounts or repeatedly listed by the same poster are not permitted.

  Yeah - most T&Cs for these kinds of offers are personal to the individual and can't, contractually, be transferred. Not only is there a risk for the seller, but the buyer could be out their money too if the company is able to reject the purchase and not honour it.

  Makes sense to me.

  • 

    illumination on 29/07/2019 - 16:11

    Yeah - most T&Cs for these kinds of offers are personal to the individual and can't, contractually, be transferred.

    But what does this not apply to in the classifieds? Probably not many things except for personal effects, I'd imagine?

    Consider the selling of points and lounge passes, for example.

    Not only is there a risk for the seller, but the buyer could be out their money too if the company is able to reject the purchase and not honour it.

    This risk is present for any classified post on any platform, whether it be Ozbargain, eBay or Gumtree. It also doesn't matter what the item is - the risk is still there. The only way to completely get rid of this risk is to not have a Classified section.

    • 

      HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 16:12

      -3

      The risk is reduced (which is not as good as eliminated, but better than not-reduced) by instituting certain rules.

      • 

        illumination on 29/07/2019 - 16:15

        The risk is reduced (which is not as good as eliminated, but better than not-reduced) by instituting certain rules.

        Certainly not advocating for no rules, but just pointing out that this is not exclusive to the selling of items/services that are prohibited from being transferred. The risk is present regardless of what item/service is sold, because it's the transfer of funds that is based on trust where the risk lies.

        • 

          HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 16:16

          -1

          @illumination: Yup, just pointing out that the risk existing doesn't mean you can't reduce or mitigate it, which is what the rule aims to do. It's on the platform to judge how much risk they're willing to accept.

          • 

            illumination on 29/07/2019 - 16:24

            @HighAndDry:

            which is what the rule aims to do.

            Ok - this is our point of contention then.

            The rule simply eliminates a "type" of product/service from being sold. By extension, this would probably reduce the volume of classified transactions/posts. Does this actually reduce the risk?

            I think we agree that the risk is not based on the product/service type, but more so the transfer of funds - or rather, that the transfer of funds is almost always based on trust, even if you use PayPal.

            Imagine being scammed buying/selling QFF points on Ozbargain, then going to Qantas to ask for assistance. They absolutely wouldn't help.

            Now - then consider a product that can be sold, like a second hand Galaxy Note 8. The same risk is present, and similarly, Samsung wouldn't help you if you got scammed here either.

            I don't see how the risk is reduced?

            • 

              HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 16:29

              @illumination:

              The rule simply eliminates a "type" of product/service from being sold… Does this actually reduce the risk?

              Yes. It reduces the risk associated with that type of product/service to 0.

              E.g.:

              purchasing on behalf of others.

              It's not what's sold, but through what channel. These are personal/targeted offers - otherwise it should just be posted as a Deal. If you have an offer that's targeted at you only, the T&Cs may include that it's for private/personal use only. If it's found to have been resold, the purchase could well be rejected, leaving the end purchaser out of pocket.

              The rest of it should be obvious:

              This also includes reselling items with the intent of making profit

              Anyone doing this is for all practical and legal purposes, especially for tax law purposes, and it also means that purchasers are 1. entitled to ACL rights which no seller on OzB is going to offer, and that OzB itself might become liable for.

              OzB is not a seller platform.

              • 

                illumination on 29/07/2019 - 16:54

                @HighAndDry:

                Yes. It reduces the risk associated with that type of product/service to 0.

                I agree with you, but that is not my question. Reducing the risk is a question around probability which neither you or I can measure, but what I think we can agree on is that the risk is present regardless of the type of product/service being sold, which is what I have been saying.

                It's not what's sold, but through what channel. These are personal/targeted offers - otherwise it should just be posted as a Deal. If you have an offer that's targeted at you only, the T&Cs may include that it's for private/personal use only. If it's found to have been resold, the purchase could well be rejected, leaving the end purchaser out of pocket.

                Agreed. And I think this comes back to a question of (put morals aside for a moment) whether or not it is realistically able to be tracked a targeted offer was resold. Picture something like you helping me mow my lawn, and me wiring you $30 with a description of "dinner".

                Similar to AMEX Statement Credit deals that pretty much all explicitly state that "purchase of Gift Cards/Apple Products is not a qualifying purchase". But why does it work? Because AMEX don't know what you've actually bought. All they know is you were targeted with a spend $300 get $30 back offer, and you spent $300. As above though, put morals aside for a moment if you're now focusing on "yea but you're still breaking the rules" because I'm not even going to try and dispute that.

                Anyone doing this is for all practical and legal purposes, especially for tax law purposes, and it also means that purchasers are 1. entitled to ACL rights which no seller on OzB is going to offer, and that OzB itself might become liable for.

                My tax knowledge is extremely limited, but yes I would imagine any "profits" are technically supposed to be declared as such on one's tax returns. We can come back to the example of selling a second hand phone (or the lawn mowing example above). The key difference being that it more than likely would not have been sold for profit, but:

                • The buyer/seller risk is still present because there will be inevitably a transfer of funds based on trust
                • I imagine Ozbargain is not liable no matter what, whether the item is sold for profit or due to the selling of unwanted personal goods… unless there are laws around accountability in a similar way to torrent websites being held accountable for the sharing of copyrighted movies/music for free?

                OzB is not a seller platform.

                Agreed.

                However, it certainly is a bargain-hunting platform, and being able to purchase $400 travel credit for $320 would in most people's eyes be a bargain.

                • 

                  HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 16:58

                  @illumination:

                  Reducing the risk is a question around probability which neither you or I can measure, but what I think we can agree on is that the risk is present regardless of the type of product/service being sold, which is what I have been saying.

                  Just because you can't measure that risk, or that the risk is still going to be present, doesn't mean you can't reduce it. It's not a binary of "have risk" or "have no risk" - there are different degrees.

                  As above though, put morals aside for a moment if you're now focusing on "yea but you're still breaking the rules" because I'm not even going to try and dispute that.

                  It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue if Amex doesn't honour the deal.

                  We can come back to the example of selling a second hand phone

                  Sell one second-hand phone: Not a business. Sell 4 for profit: congrats, you're now a small business owner. And have to pay taxes. And honour the ACL. Etc.

                  • 

                    illumination on 29/07/2019 - 17:16

                    @HighAndDry:

                    Just because you can't measure that risk, or that the risk is still going to be present, doesn't mean you can't reduce it. It's not a binary of "have risk" or "have no risk" - there are different degrees.

                    Question still remains. How does prohibiting the sale of that service/product type reduce risk besides eliminating the presence of that risk by completely eliminating transactions of that type? Those transactions types were not, and are not any riskier than other transaction types.

                    Remembering that risk based on probability and less about absolute numbers.

                    It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue if Amex doesn't honour the deal.

                    I actually picture this as more of being a risk on the seller's part. If a seller "sells" a $20 statement credit for $10, he should be aware that there is a risk (however slight) that AMEX could not honour the original promotion if rules are found to be breached. Pretty standard, surely?

                    Sell one second-hand phone: Not a business. Sell 4 for profit: congrats, you're now a small business owner. And have to pay taxes. And honour the ACL. Etc.

                    Sounds reasonable. I'm more focused on the risk aspect though, and I still don't see a reduction in risk though.

                    • 

                      HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 17:49

                      @illumination:

                      How does prohibiting the sale of that service/product type reduce risk besides eliminating the presence of that risk by completely eliminating transactions of that type?

                      You've answered your own question. OzB has decided that that type of transaction has a risk that they're not willing to accept on the site.

                      I actually picture this as more of being a risk on the seller's part. If a seller "sells" a $20 statement credit for $10, he should be aware that there is a risk (however slight) that AMEX could not honour the original promotion if rules are found to be breached. Pretty standard, surely?

                      Standard, but if Amex doesn't honour it, the purchaser is out $10, and may not get the $20 credit at all. In any case though - even if it's standard, if it happens to much OzB might decide it's not worth their trouble to act as mediator.

                      • 

                        ronnknee on 29/07/2019 - 20:02

                        @HighAndDry:

                        it happens to much OzB might decide it's not worth their trouble to act as mediator.

                        OzBargain has made it clear that they will not be acting as a mediator for any transaction. Any buyer and seller who uses the Classifieds section accepts this and should not expect them to intervene.

                  • 

                    ronnknee on 29/07/2019 - 19:57

                    @HighAndDry:

                    It's a legal issue if Amex doesn't honour the deal.

                    How exactly is this a legal issue?

                    Sell one second-hand phone: Not a business. Sell 4 for profit: congrats, you're now a small business owner. And have to pay taxes. And honour the ACL. Etc.

                    Selling 4 phones does not make you a small business owner.

              • 

                ronnknee on 29/07/2019 - 19:54

                @HighAndDry:

                Anyone doing this is for all practical and legal purposes, especially for tax law purposes, and it also means that purchasers are 1. entitled to ACL rights which no seller on OzB is going to offer, and that OzB itself might become liable for.

                Buyers from private sales are not entitled to ACL rights. OzBargain will not be liable because it is simply a platform for sellers to find buyers and vice versa. Otherwise, you can say the same thing about Gumtree being liable for all transactions or your local newspaper for listing an ad. That's not how ACL and liability works.

              • 

                Bargainbeth on 31/08/2019 - 20:37

                @HighAndDry: Hmm private online sales don't fall under ACL, from what I recall on my consumer law class. Unless I'm remembering wrong and the profit making intent changes things?

                I think ozbargain banning the sale of gift cards at higher discount than normal rates seems weird. It's like banning sales of items at lower than rrp. Isn't that essentially what a bargain is in the first place?

      • 

        cwongtech on 07/08/2019 - 18:29

        +1

        The risk is reduced (which is not as good as eliminated, but better than not-reduced) by instituting certain rules.

        I would argue the risk is reduced for buyers on ozBargain/people to transact here, given that both the buyer and the seller have their reputations on their line, moreso the seller.
        Both can see the age and activity of the accounts, which encourages both parties to be active on OzBargain.
        Whenever I buy gift cards, I look at how old the account is, and whether they're a lurker.
        I'd prefer a slightly lesser discount if I had the option between two sellers and one is a baby account compared to an ancient ozbargain member.

        Just shutting out the problem so that they reappear on different platforms does not reduce it. It merely shifts it.
        It's like saying Sydney CBD traffic congestion and pedestrian accidents have been solved by replacing all roads with.. footpaths and trams!
        Tada. No more traffic, thus no more congestion, therefore, safer for pedestrians.

        Whoever is playing with the traffic in Sydney CBD have moved the active bus stops from inside the Sydney CBD and instead the bus stop is at Lang Park.
        Now, instead of bus traffic building through York Street/Clarence street.. It's now a huge line of buses on the end of the Harbour Bridge waiting to unload.
        Problem solved on a superficial level.

        Move the traffic to a slightly less visible view, and magic, there is no further congestion in the city.

        Anyone doing this is for all practical and legal purposes, especially for tax law purposes, and it also means that purchasers are 1. entitled to ACL rights which no seller on OzB is going to offer, and that OzB itself might become liable for.

        There's been a rule in the past for gift card sellers.. something along the lines of "All you have to do is have an ABN"
        Except herein lies the problem with the ABN, no one is going to set up an ABN purely for gift card selling, because it would look like an accounting write off.
        If you want to talk about taxation, unless there is a seller that is set up for huge losses (because the gift card sellers usually subsidize the discount as a way to gain small amounts of credit card points)
        As airline points are not valued on a consumer level (I'm sure it is from the airline company side), it would be a bit funny for the ATO to see massive losses sustained by selling gift cards.

        For gift card buyers:
        - You gain slightly more than public market rate because some guy wants credit card points
        - You gain a discount in the form of cashback (essentially the payment the seller is willing to pay for the points gained by facilitating the transaction)

        For the gift card seller:
        - Consume time to facilitate the transaction
        - How much you subsidize, is the amount you will pay for the points gained
        - On paper, you are making a loss (subsidizing a discount with cash, but you gain points with a variable value in your head)
        - Credit card points are not taxable
        - Essentially investing time to facilitate and money into credit card points, which you redeem
        - Redemption value is not fixed, if you want to talk about capital gains tax as if it was a property, then it would be a total poo-show for taxation of redemption for flights and/or other rewards attainable via credit card points/airline points redemption.
        - Exposed to movement in redemption value set by airlines

        As credit card and airline points are not regulated or a currency, you can't really place an accounting value to charge capital gains tax

• 

  KBZ on 29/07/2019 - 15:27

  I wonder how many people who voted No and agree with the changes actually use the classifieds.
  Agreeing on changes in something you don't use or have no need for seems irrelevant.
  Like ronnknee says if these sellers provid a benefit to the community like 7% DC on egift and Amex travel/statement credit. Which are technically banned from now posting.

  If it does not benefit people, I've already noticed OzBs commenting on the deal critising the classifieds post.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 29/07/2019 - 15:55

    Agreeing on changes in something you don't use or have no need for seems irrelevant.

    Not really. Disagreeing with changes in something you use of have a need for would necessarily invite bias.

• 

  Peck on 30/07/2019 - 11:13

  I thought that selling a purchase in anticipation of a rebate, ran the risk of the seller not getting their expected rebate, and possibly causing problems/bad blood. EG. Say, selling an offer of 'spend $500 on AMEX at HN and get $100 rebate'.
  But I was very disappointed to see selling of AMEX travel credits included in this ban. I felt that these were straight forward, low risk, and not something that anyone was doing on a commercial basis.

  • 

    ronnknee on 30/07/2019 - 11:18

    It's a risk that the seller accepts and undertakes if they decide to split statement credits. Otherwise it'll be really wrong if a seller starts chasing all the buyers one month later.

    My point is, OzBargain shouldn't impose restrictions on the sales if they decide to not intervene. Otherwise, they are already governing the sales.

  • 

    cwongtech on 07/08/2019 - 18:39

    +1

    "But I was very disappointed to see selling of AMEX travel credits included in this ban."

    Is this really included?

    You don't really make a profit on travel credits..

    I mean.. you paid the annual fee to get it..

• 

  bym on 23/08/2019 - 17:10

  Is there anywhere else to sell AMEX travel now?

  • 

    JuryWheel on 25/09/2019 - 15:35

    Also interested to know. I have 2 x $400 available having previously sold them via ozb with no issues.

  • 

    ronnknee on 29/09/2019 - 11:13

    You can still sell on OzBargain, provided the buyer initiates instead of the seller.

  • 

    poopehz on 23/07/2020 - 11:10

    Would also like to know where people are selling these now.

    I posted an ad for 2 x $400 credits but it got closed within two hours.

    Don't understand these rules as the credits have been paid for via the annual fee, and if anything they are offered at a discount to face value, so the rules seem extremely overbearing.

    If anyone knows where they can be sold please comment or PM me.

    • 

      Peck on 23/07/2020 - 11:20

      Drop hints here, and then people will contact you. Also people can advertise 'wanted to buy', and I have done so, successfully, several times. And so there is a market here, but you just can't advertise to sell.

• 

  brisdaz on 19/12/2019 - 21:47

  Ronnknee wrote 13/12/2019 - 15:01:

  Almost half a year ago, I raised the topic DAE Feel The Classified Posting Guidelines Are Too Restrictive?.

  Results: 98 votes; 66 Yes; 32 No

  …

  If you've missed it please post there although OzBargain management seem firm.

  • 

    knobbs on 19/12/2019 - 22:04

    sad times