The purpose of this topic is to help aggrieved consumers to decide whether they are being scammed, flimflammed, and/or bamboozled by paid word-of-mouth advertisers employed or contracted by, or working on behalf of unscrupulous online payment services.
While normally the focus here is to avoid personal issues, the information coming to light begs to be documented and further explored. The overwhelming possibility, now at last publicly exposed and supported by a trail of facts, that this person is in fact an ebay/paypal/liveworld employee/contractor, or acting as an agent for compensation on their behalf elevates her to a legitimate target of criticism.
On the morning of August 19th, 2010, a topic appeared on the paypal board at the ebay community forums:
For your Tuesday viewing pleasure (Click to enlarge to full size)
"We have a saying in German - "Keine Antwort ist auch eine Antwort" ("No answer is also an answer"). Hint: it basically means, that the answer would be a crystal clear admission of what has been alleged by asking the question. Why is no one surprised at Sandy's refusal to give answers? 'nuther hint: There's a Max Mancini serving as "Senior Director for Platforms and Disruptive Innovation" for eBay. He is married to Sandra-Jane Purins-Mancini. According to what my friend in Riga told me, "Purins" is not a very common name... The chance of finding two persons going by the name Sandra Purins in California seem about as big as finding two persons going by the name of Barack Obama in Washington DC...
Image of the entire thread. You may have to click to enlarge/expand
Very interesting indeed. Now that coupled with search findings and other curious postings found hither and yon, a clear picture may be formed by anyone wishing to spend just a little time tracking a few things down to see for themselves.
Must read postings, with accompanying links/further reading.
''our LiveWorld moderators or community managers are acting as agents of the brand on the brands digital property, and that not explicitly disclosing that they are paid by LiveWorld is much like a part-time employee/contractor from the brand itself wouldnt be expected to state so'' Bryan Person, March 5, 2010 LiveWorld Social Media Evangelist
Now just for laughs, have a look at how the hackers spent April Fools Day 2007, and a very very sad video asking why this person still pumps paypal after having her very own account hacked!
rotflmaoooolololololololol
OK, but back to being serious.
If everyone was not aware, the practice of using paid undisclosed endorsers, or "word of mouth advertisers" is against FTC guildlines. In the context we observe at the paypal, forum it is part of a clear and continuing pattern of behavior which appears to be fraudulent: wrongful enrichment via deception.
Paypal is gaining interest (as well as additional interest from investements thereof) on monies held and accounts frozen for no good reason, without explanation. The paid poser acts to interject falsehoods, ignore issues, deflect, divert, nitpick, pettifog, etc; To steer the notion that paypal/ebay are at fault, even by way of deletion/banning, interfering with auction listings and the list goes on and on.
If you feel you have been victimized, cheated, swindled, or treated unfairly, or that others have or may be, and you have good reason to believe that this person is behaving or operating outside the letter of the law, please file complaints to the FTC, your State's Atty General, the Califorinai State AG, the Nebraska State AG, consider hiring a private atty and filing suit, or finding a class action suit.
(you can find all the links you need at my blog on the left hand menu area)
Also, do not be afraid to confront this person on the various paypal fora she provides her services at (within the rules) to get an answer on way or another. A firm yes or no.
Persons in her physical vicinity, don't be afraid to find out up close and personal. Of course I'm not advising anything other than to find out the facts in whatever way they can casually, cleverly, peacefully and legally.
Maybe that person should consider leaving paypal frontline PR work alone, lest they open a huge can of legal worms for the already much despised ebay/paypal crumbling empire, as well as unknown risks faced personally?
I feel it very safe to believe that person, along with the other suspected paypal forum paid word-of-mouth-advertisers/shills/trolls has done equal to or more to foster anti-paypal sentiments than the kookaninnie policies.
And should that person happen to be reading here, they need to be aware that they are now a public figure. Don't be surprised someday, somehow, somewhere... someone walks up and says; "Smile, you're on Cappnonymous camera."
Because unlike them, we are only in it for the LoLz.
Comments, questions... concerns?
08.27.2010- added quote, screencapture and corrected spelling
12.21.2010 added screencapture of cached blog page
-- Edited by budnonymous on Wednesday 22nd of December 2010 01:38:06 AM
It has been a commonly known fact this person, along with several other noted 'paypal defenders', posted on SimplyHired chat forums. This of course gives rise to real and reasonable concerns that they are all paid representatives of some company contracted through or associated with SimpyHired
SimplyHired is an employment seeking/fulfilling website. It is also common knowledge that both ebaY and LiveWorld have had jobs posted there.
Now, suddenly, those postings have been edited, as noted also here on a paypal forum thread. That's right! After many years... Here is a topic which also evaporated. Another topic went poof!
Knowing that this practice of shilling/ being a paid endorser without proper disclosure is illegal, and in it's larger context, ei; the amount of money involved, and the number of victims, over the length of time, the tactics used, the other proven episodes of ebaY/paypal misbehaviour & scandal ... Surely this sort of thing rises to to a higher level of misconduct?
-- Edited by budnonymous on Friday 27th of August 2010 03:24:55 AM
I've just removed 2 posts here which are believed to have been made by one individual using 2 seperate impersonation accounts, one of which was previously verified fake/improper and banned.
Once again, the rules here prohibit the use of look-alike or false personation accounts. One ID per person without prior approval by the Admin.
Hmmm...It's a little early and there is blood in my caffeinestream, but something seems fishy.
oh my! Does that mean that when someone signed up in way back in 2006, when the alleged unauthorized use of that ID was met with vociferous denials and protests, the Admin contacted, the ID subsequently closed out and banned, that it was in fact the actual person denying they ever posted here?
-- Edited by budnonymous on Thursday 2nd of June 2011 06:37:27 AM
Hmmm...It's a little early and there is blood in my caffeinestream, but something seems fishy.
oh my! Does that mean that when someone signed up in way back in 2006, when the alleged unauthorized use of that ID was met with vociferous denials and protests, the Admin contacted, the ID subsequently closed out and banned, that it was in fact the actual person denying they ever posted here?
I can confirm that the first post *removed/denied' was made by an individual who registered in August 2006, and logged in with that very same account.
The account was verified (at that time) to be a "look-alike" by the Admin. The Admin made notations to the effect they were contacted by the alleged victim.
Due to that fact, they were restricted, therefore the post needed to be approved (or denied) before it became publicly visible.
Before I had a chance to locate and look into everything, the very same person registered another account and posted another post, using a variation of the same name. - Within a scant few minutes.
From there, draw your own conclusions.
So, the first post was denied due to the fact that the ID was alleged and verified to be a look-alike/false personation account.
The second account and post was denied because it broke the rule of only one ID per person.
The IP was banned in order to prevent further game playing/abuse.
As far as I could tell at the time, it was someone other than who the name actually 'belonged' to, attempting to misuse/abuse the name. Again, considering they logged in and posted first with the very same account/credentials as the look-alike from August 2006 ID.
Perhaps the individual should have considered not trying to play mind games or breaking the rules here? (starting back then)
Edit: corrected phraseology; "... rule of only one ID ..."
-- Edited by Moderator 1 on Thursday 2nd of June 2011 08:45:45 AM