9 months! And I live in San Francisco. In an expensive studio. High fives duders, let's all hang ourselves tonight! WOO!!
bluefoxxy's forum posts
@bluefoxxy: Sure man just thought I'd like to share that just to put it in perspective in regards to how other people from mainstream media viewed it at that time. :)
Love u duder. On a complete other note, I want to publicly apologize to everyone here for how rude I was earlier. I had a 96 foot pole in my ass and that was SO not cool in any way shape or form. I was caught in a moment in my company, and the crossfire was this forum. Apologies all around. I'll definitely try to be a better person and choose my words carefully next time.
@bluefoxxy: Paypal had every opportunity to make all the necessary credit checks before these Kickstarters close - they have a very clear timeline and promises they are making to their customers. You may be "in" the industry, but if you read this entire article, it seems fairly clear that Paypal is having trouble communicating with its users, at the very least. Which should be hardly surprising.
Locking down these funds isn't a horrible thing to do as a payment processing firm, but they should be much more communicative with their clients, do their credit checks and profiles BEFORE they accept half a million dollars from customers, provide workarounds and solutions, and most importantly be up front about the way their business works. It is not inherently difficult to do these things, and it's not unreasonable to say that the fact that Paypal seems to not care very much is a shitty thing.
One problem is the PP account holders are not telling PP in advance that they are doing this.
so they fit a different credit / risk profile
In fact I don't think paypal does credit checks per se. Banks do, but always deny unless you've been in business for at least 18 months with 100k in the bank etc.
@bluefoxxy: Would you mind starting off with "I'm a screaming, raging child because I don't like Patrick" instead of ending with it next time? It'd save us all some time.
You got it. Yeah I came off as immature. I was angry about it. I apologize there. It's not that I don't like Patrick. The dude is pretty spot on. Just these articles that get spun into something that they aren't. I came to GB because I wanted to get away from that. And Patrick seems to be the one that brings all that bullshit in. Just a personal perspective on that one.
@bluefoxxy: I thought out of all the articles in regards to that particular issue (Cross Assault) at that time, that was probably the most neutral-toned out of all of them (Evan Narcisse's article about the issue I found to be even more inflaming). I found Brad's comments about it on the Bombcast to be more irritating (considering that he was being very judgmental about it) then Patrick even. Since then he had covered more topics about the more interesting aspects relating to fighting games in general since that time.
Very well said duder. I don't remember what Brad said on the bombcast about it. Maybe I disregarded it? I'll have to find that segment sometime soon. I can't agree or disagree but I'll take your word for it! :)
@bluefoxxy: Chargebacks can only occur if the product is never delivered or if a product is significantly different than what was advertised (also unauthorized access to the card, but that's an entirely different issue). Yeah they should protect themselves from chargebacks but they also are opening the door for people to claim chargebacks by restricting resource access causing a product not be delivered on time. They're kinda fucking themselves over.
If PayPal is deciding at any time to release funds based on the current state of the product then they inherently become a producer in some way. I do disagree with Patrick in saying the fault lies with PayPal. Honestly PP shouldn't be involved at all. It's policies aren't set up to deal with financial capital at any scope, it was designed to handle small scale private transactions. If they indeed want to be in that space then they have to step up to the plate instead of fumbling around with all this budgeting bullshit.
If you don't want PP to handle how you get your cash, then you would receive the total amount, NQA right? Then PP would send a bill for 37% of your profits gained from the crowdsourcing due to chargebacks + whatever fees that come with chargebacks. So you are fucked either way.
Someone has to eat the cost of the chargeback, and it certainly isn't going to be the payment gateway. So why not let PayPal work with you to reduce chargebacks?
PayPal does have to handle these in a case by case scenario. That or maybe have some kind of buffer for cash received in case things go bad.
Also, I have to disagree on what you said on scale. PP can EASILY handle the scale of any transaction. It's the risk profile you have to assess. For instance, if all of this money transacted was from Bank Accounts, PayPal would issue you a check for the full amount NQA. But since there is alot of credit transactions, they have to assess the risk of how much they should give you based on the potential for chargebacks and how recent the transactions were. (Chargebacks expire after X days.)
@bluefoxxy: Please explain how holding the money hostage from the person receiving the money is going to stop chargebacks. Please explain how fraudsters using a fake or stolen credit card justifies demanding information about business practices and timetables. Please explain how this isn't as simple as explaining to purchasers that if you are investing in a project, then a nil return is still getting what you paid for.
I don't think anyone is honestly arguing that chargebacks and fraud are not serious concerns. But the reality is that the demands being made by PayPal seem to not be targeted towards minimizing these concerns, and are instead designed to keep money in PayPal's bank account longer so they can get free interest on it. Or worse, free money period.
Only because you said please! PayPal isn't holding the money hostage. There isn't a threat, or a reward from PP if you get your money. Holding Hostage is bad terminology on your part.
It's not fair that fraudsters are making us go through these hoops. But what choice do we have? Just hope that fraudsters don't use a loophole to make free money? Is PP making it easy for us? No. But these are requirements that we gotta get through to process transactions safely and securely.
And as for your third "please" I can't give you a solid answer but here goes. The simplicity of it is if it gets funded or not right? Put in X amount, get X back. But that money has alot of responsibilities tied to it. And who are we to trust that you, the recipient are to be trusted and/or experienced to handle the financing of the money? PP looks at that and created this idea of protecting you from yourself. I'm not defending them though. It's not a solid plan. But it works.
PP does thrive off of reserves. It's an obvious truth.
The article I'm talking about was his "When Passions Flare, Lines Are Crossed" story.
It talked about sexual harassment and how cross assault was a reflection of the FGC as well as how much of a fluff article it was just to raise tension and cause a flurry of useless discussion.
I said it at the Evo article you wrote, and I'll say it here. Stop this horse shit dude. You are making me not want to come to GB and renew my subscription. Everyone else I'm cool with. Brad gets on my nerves sometimes, but he's knowledgable. I have the upmost respect for all the crew at GB. But you. You are unique. You are right most of the time but FUCKING HELL when you are wrong, it is so far off, I can't stand it. You are the Glenn Beck of GB when you write these fluff pieces.
umm some dude into fighting scene said the fighting games article was great so you're wrong.
Some dude huh? Totally valid then. I thought everyone were smart here? Every day I'm being proven wrong.