BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Suggestions, BrickItYourself writes:

What operating system (Mac? Linux? Windows? Other?), device (Mac? iPhone? Tablet?
PC Laptop? PC Desktop?), and browser (Firefox? IE? Chrome? Safari? Other?) are
you using to access BL?

How is that device connected to your ISP's router? (Wifi? Bluetooth? LAN
Cable?)

Locutis

Windows 7, Chrome, Wifi, and using Exede Satellite as my ISP

Well, the only two things I can come up with are your satellite internet causing
some sort of issue with the BL login, or there really is some sort of glitch
with BL and how it processes / times out logins.

I would side more towards the satellite internet somehow causing the issue.
From my experience, website logins can be tricky when dealing with strange internet
setups (yes, satellite internet would be 'strange'

. I had our Calgary
office setup to use two separate ISPs to connect to a service we use for government
reporting. The load balancing router would automatically switch from one ISP
to the other based on load. Well, the switch would cause the login to be invalid
and while you were submitting a report, if it switched from one to the other,
and you submitted, it would say you were logged out and you'd lose the report
you were filing.

I then had to switch it back to one ISP to use and the other as a failover only.
But this is a non-BL example of what you're experiencing.

I hope you get it sorted out.

Locutis

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jul 10, 2015 08:55

Subject:

Re: Stop the Auto Log Out Now!

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, BrickItYourself writes:

Have you tried to always have an additional window/tab which permanently shows
MyBrickLink?
On some pages you get logged out after some time but not on MyBrickLink.
The main forum page should also work.

aslkjhaserlkjfnhasdlkjf asldfkjhalsdkjfhlskjdfhlaskjf asdflkjashDflkjashdlkfjhasldkjfbnask
dvfa;lsdfjv lakdjv ladkpaidvhja;dslfkaekjfa;lskjf;aeljkvh;zlkdsjfvh;zkldjhfv;kljdhbv
l;kjfnv;lKJB N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yous guys don't get the point, it isn't a problem for ME to fix, it is
a problem for THEM to fix, me do nothing, I PAY THEM

do you call a plumber and then let him sit at your kitchen table why you try
work arounds?

If there is a problem with Satellite internet, I do not have the knowledge to
diagnose such an issue.

If there is a browser issue, I also do not have this knowledge.

But, I am getting very darn (want to throw in explicatives, must control myself)
agitated about getting logged out and losing work.

I should not have to copy and paste to "make sure" my text does not get lost,
I should not have to log in every hour when I am actively using the site.

I have submitted a link to this thread to the help desk.

But my suggestion is to fix the website so a user that is forced to use my ISP
can use the site normally.

Ken

My first thought was that a BL login is saved by IP address. Here's what
I thought:

When you login to BL, their server grabs your IP address and saves it as your
login credentials. While you are browsing the site, you are logged in so long
as you access the site using the same ip address. If your IP address changes
somehow, the login is no longer valid, and you are considered "logged out".
This would be the culprit if your ISP uses DHCP for the IP address it assigns
you, and then somehow it gets changed/reset and then BL no longer recognizes
the new IP address with your login credentials and logs you out.

However, I have proven this to not be what's happening. I logged into my
device on WIFI using one ISP and IP address, then I disconnected it from that
ISP and connected it to a totally different ISP and got a new IP address, and
confirmed that I was still logged in.

I don't know why you are getting logged out all of the time. I only get
logged out when I put my computer to sleep, and when it wakes up I have to login
again. I can confirm it has nothing to do with IP address changes, which could
have been possible with satellite internet.

What operating system (Mac? Linux? Windows? Other?), device (Mac? iPhone? Tablet?
PC Laptop? PC Desktop?), and browser (Firefox? IE? Chrome? Safari? Other?) are
you using to access BL?

How is that device connected to your ISP's router? (Wifi? Bluetooth? LAN
Cable?)

Locutis

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

May 20, 2015 21:44

Subject:

Re: New Member tutorial

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, jodawill writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

In Suggestions, CoachMcGuirk writes:

In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:

ok with all the threads about new buyers and sellers, or a very long thread about
a new buyer, maybe a tutorial should be instituted for both new buyers and new
sellers that they would go thru as part of the sign up process so as to avoid
some of the confusion that is occurring (hopefully).

it could be any one of things from a video tutorial or a written tutorial or
? any of which must be completed before official member status is given.

this is just a suggestive thought.

People don't want to read lengthy documents or spend 5 minutes watching
a training video before making a simple purchase. This is likely why people don't
read store's ToS (which many are quite needlessly lengthy in my opinion)
leading to this problem.

Many people (myself included) spend lots of time on here and get the feel for
things, but lots of people just want to buy something and go away - maybe they
don't even care for Lego and give it away as a gift. If the time to make
that initial purchase is too burdensome, you'll either lose those sales or
you'll keep running into this problem, in my opinion.

The only solution to this problem, in my opinion, is to have an industry standard
e-commerce check-out system.

Problem is this is not one business, but several businesses in several locations
with various degrees of shipping, payment and so forth, it is a lot easier to
do a tutorial then to try to come up with one wrap around program that will probably
cause rates for sellers to go up and take up lots of space and cause more problems.

Isn't it actually the exact same? If the tutorial doesn't explain all
the variations in all the processes in all the different business on here, it
is just as useless as not having one. If a new seller sits through the tutorial
and encounters a slightly different service agreement than what they just spent
5 minutes figuring out, they'll potentially place an order incorrectly or
give up.

Also there are many, many off-the shelf products available to handle e-commerce.
So, I'd say its easier to use something already existing than make something
new 99% of the time.

Would automatic checkout solve all the problems? No. It would probably even create
some as you say. But I believe it will be the only way to fix this specific problem
of buyers placing orders they no longer want.

take up lots of space

Side question, what space? I'm lost and very curious on this.

you do know the space this site is on? they had to close up the Chat room because
of it.

furthermore a tutorial can give the basics like how to navigate, how unless the
buyer says free shipping, there will be shipping and so on. what you suggest
would be a disaster in the making.

It's my understanding that the chatroom was closed because it was a major
security problem due to sloppy coding, so they just scrapped the whole thing.

from what I remember is it took up to much space on the server and caused other
parts of the site to crash.

A couple of years ago when the BL website was hacked, the chatroom was one of
the places that was targeted.

They took it down immediately and patched some code to prevent some of the hacks
from recurring. I believe one of the changes was the new login (you used to
be able to keep a perpetual login) along with pages being https.

What's funny is that BL still recommends users utilize the chatroom for help:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=127

Someone needs to change that page!

Locutis

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 26, 2014 21:13

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

85 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Rolf writes:

In Suggestions, therobo writes:

Someone else with a Paypal account can pay the fees for you.

Not when you have credit card. You can pay anyone via paypal without even having
an account in paypal. You need account just to GET payments.

Okay, but that means that you have a way of paying a $5 charge, and BrickLink
would have a way of verifying the information.

Either way, technically speaking to sell on Bricklink you have to be a real person
to pay the fees, using some form of real payment. If a scammer never intends
to pay the fees, they can get around that part of the check.

By verifying an incoming payment FIRST before allowing a seller's account,
and by sending a code in the mail, you narrow down the list of scammers by a
lot.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 26, 2014 10:46

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

55 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, therobo writes:

In Suggestions, Locutis writes:

In Suggestions, Bricks.n.Pieces writes:

Great post

As a new seller I am keen to get a good standing in this community, I offer a
5% coupon for positive feedback received and I always send out my packages in
good time to keep my customers happy.

This is my way of building a rapport with my customers, and building up a good
feedback score. Anything that helps to improve security regarding seller's
stores and buyers buying experiences I welcome with open arms. I agree it is
very easy indeed to open a store and perhaps if someone set up a store with the
sole intention of scamming it could be done quite easily.

I don't like the idea of credit card checking since I don't use one myself,
never had one and wouldn't get one just to perform this.Would it be a better
idea to have to do a $5 (for example) transfer to BrickLink via a direct bank
transfer? Since this would provide BrickLink with all the necessary details regarding
the person setting up the store and have it held by BL for say 6 months, after
which it would be returned. Also a photocopy of passport/driving licence could
be sent to provide proof of address. These precautions are used by internet poker
sites and they are very very careful with their security measures.

If I was made to provide these details to keep my store open and obtain a 'trusted
seller' badge I would do it straight away.

This is why I suggested in the original posting that it could also be a PayPal
payment. You need to have a PayPal account to sell on Bricklink, why not require
a $5 payment upfront to verify the seller is legit?

You DON'T need to have a PayPal account to sell on BrickLink.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Please then, tell me how you pay your BL sellers fees by PayPal if you don't
need to have a PayPal account to sell???

Do you people NOT READ?????

http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=38

"How to Pay - BrickLink accepts payments only via PayPal.com"

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 26, 2014 10:43

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Stragus writes:

In Suggestions, Locutis writes:

Scam sellers hide behind anonymity. Verifying a person removes complete anonymity.

Why are people so against simply verifying a person really is a person?

And how do you propose we do that?

Scammers are clever enough to use Photoshop/Gimp and create fake scans of whatever
official document may be asked. Do you have a way of looking that up in government
databases?

All this would just give buyers a false sense of security.

BrickLink should have preventive mechanisms in *code* to limit the abuse, preventing
further orders of being placed in a store whenever things appear suspicious (until
a human review is done).

Did you not read my original post? I'll list again below just to save you
the effort of clicking the first post:

You can verify information provided by an account holder with the company that
holds the account when you have a transaction with them. A $5 transaction allows
you to access the account information of the account holder. That verifies the
name and address on the Bricklink store match the name and address on the account.
That verifies the person exists, because a bank would not issue an account to
someone without verifying id.

Secondly, you MAIL a card with a special code to enter into BL in order to complete
the verification process. This proves the person registering to sell is actually
at that address.

Yes, there will be some faults and exceptions. But if you can scare away 7 out
of 10 scammers because of the above, it is well worthwhile.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 24, 2014 23:46

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Bricks.n.Pieces writes:

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 24, 2014 23:44

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

67 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:

There are legal risks to BrickLink if it adopts any verification system BrickLink
itself controls or operates. Right now, BL tries to avoid that legal risk by
neatly saying, in effect: "You are on your own. Caveat emptor. We are not responsible
for and cannot vouch for any seller or buyer on this site. Use this site and
deal with its members at your own risk."

So, legally, once BL starts doing more to vet or verify sellers for the express
purpose of making and promoting this site as more safe, BL ironically subjects
itself to more risk and responsibility if anyone slips through the cracks. It
may, in fact, be less risky - legally - for BL to allow a third party to do this
vetting or verification.

To complicate things even further, however, BL already does some vetting and
verification and other things to prevent fraud(1), all of which are relied upon
by BL's members - which BL knows and fully intends. So, legally, it could
already be argued that despite the disclaimer in its ToS, BL has already assumed
some risk and responsibility for protecting its members. If in for a penny, perhaps
it might as well be in for a pound.

Thor

(1) These include the NSS system, problem member reporting system, and Admin
suspending suspicious stores.

Firstly, I believe you can't be held liable as a company if all you did was
verify the seller's information. BL is not guaranteeing that the seller
is selling what they say they are, and that they will deliver. BL would only
verify that the person you are dealing with is real, their name and address are
real, they exist at a real place, and they have a real PayPal or bank account.

Secondly, the systems you mention with (1) are all fine, except for the "take-and-run"
scam seller. Those things take time to catch up, and the scam seller has long
since made off with the money.

Scam sellers hide behind anonymity. Verifying a person removes complete anonymity.

Why are people so against simply verifying a person really is a person?

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 22, 2014 00:55

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

89 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:

Are you a politician?

No, but I play one on tv.

Locutis

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 17:35

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:

I also think there should be a strong recommendation to buyers that they NEVER
risk more than they can afford to lose (without much grief about it) on a single
sale, from a non established seller.
This does not mean I think that buyer's are stupid to have made a large dollar
order with a non established seller. Sometimes the risk is worth the potential
pay out, and I understand that.

Seriously!?!? Maybe we should make a large banner on the site and simply tell
this to all buyers.

I'm sure that would go over real well for new buyers. I know if I saw that
when I was shopping this site when I first registered, I would have switched
over to eBay.

Should the main focus of seller fraud-prevention is simply to warn buyers to
not buy unless you want to lose your money?

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 13:49

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, calebfishn writes:

I am going to say yes to this suggestion. Probably there are additional nuances
and issues to work out with the fine details of how to administer the proposed
solution.

When I think of how I started my store, yes, it would have been more difficult
if I had to prove somehow that I was a bonafide person, not a scammer.

But because I was serious, becoming a seller was not a spur of the moment impulse.
I tried to do my homework and to learn as much as I could about Bricklink and
how it worked. I trolled the forum to pick up all the tips on successful selling,
before opening my store. So I believe that my serious interest would have eventually
overcome any modest barriers to becoming a seller.

If other prospective sellers had to be similarly careful, it could be a good
thing for the quality of selling as a whole. Someone might argue that "This
would keep out the small seller who only wants to clear out a few pieces of their
personal collection". Yes, maybe it would. But that is not a hardship to Bricklink
if those small temporary sellers are just looking to sell quick without considering
the needs of customer service.

We see it here on the forum from time to time: new sellers, with zero feedback
who are excited about opening a store but who have no idea about part quality,
shipping costs, store terms, extra fees etc. Those people are not scammers, but
they might be jumping in to selling without sufficient regard to what it takes
to be a good seller. If a verification process makes them do a bit more homework
in order to sell off a couple of sets, then so much the better.

My first caveat to accepting the proposal is that no one should be under any
illusions that any system will prevent all fraud attempts. (Yes, a scam is a
fraud!) But just because we can't fix everything does not mean we should
do not do anything.

My second is that I am not in favour of any additional barriers or verifications
for buyers. Anything that will make it easier for buyers of all types to spend
their money on Bricklink is fine with me. But I can get behind ideas to improve
the quality of sellers to help buyers.

I hope that Bricklink management will give consideration and work out the details
in the best manner possible for all concerned.

I fully agree with everything you mention above. While the suggestion isn't
foolproof, it would catch some fraud.

Buyers need not be screened, at least not as a function of this suggestion.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 11:32

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, aftepes writes:

In Suggestions, Locutis writes:

Back in the fall of 2010, I was a victim of a scam among a list of 25+ people
who were also scammed:

http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=champdebataille

I was persistent in bringing this to the attention of others, and trying to get
our items/money out of the scammer. I maintained a spreadsheet and contact with
each person that was scammed by the seller, and the total value was over $10,000
USD.

At the time, when others and myself placed orders with this seller, he did NOT
have any negative feedback. I was posting in the forums and sending reports
to admin to have him suspended and investigated, and people and admins were so
nonchalant about it I began to wonder about Bricklink in general. They weren't
concerned.

It wasn't until I compiled a huge list, and presented it to admin, that his
account was suspended. By then it was much too late. I discovered at the time
that scam sellers were actually quite common on Bricklink. I pointed out several
potential scam sellers on the forums and to admin and on the forums, only to
be shot down as being too "trigger happy". Turns out I was right in several
cases.

Back then I was attempting to spearhead a campaign to have more rigid requirements
to selling on Bricklink besides just an email address. I was shot down from
so many sellers, for so many "reasons", I just gave up. Turns out Bricklink
doesn't exist for the buyers, it exists for the sellers. Anything to make
it easy for people to sell and Bricklink to make money. Buyers? They are a
dime-a-dozen.

I lost over $500 of my sons allowance, Christmas, and birthday money that fall.
All people cared about was "you shouldn't have sent money to someone with
negative feedback as a seller - you were stupid". Some even sent me emails saying
I was in on the scam. Seriously??? The seller at the time had 5 feedback, which
to me was an acceptable start. Turns out they were just to make them look okay,
before the scamming began. When I was shopping the Bricklink website, I was
a new user and thought that Bricklink must somehow verify sellers and that this
community wouldn't have the scams like eBay. Boy was I wrong. After our
incident I decided to setup my own store to see how easy it was, and boy was
it easy. Too easy.

One scammer, over 25 people scammed, over $10,000 USD, in one month. I'm
pretty confident this happens ALL THE TIME. If you look at the feedback of the
seller, some of the people never bought from Bricklink again. Those were lost
customers, lost revenue for sellers. Lost confidence in Bricklink. Some were
parents, who lost money for their children, too. How many of these kids have/will
grow up with the knowledge they were scammed on Bricklink, and avoid it? How
many will talk to others and tell them to be very careful or even avoid Bricklink?
I have told many people over the years, if you find something on Bricklink,
unless they have a significant feedback over many years, DON'T BUY THERE.
I've probably helped out in the downturn of some sales, because I was responsible
for people not buying here. So be it.

The argument that requiring some sort of verification in order to sell would
scare away sellers is offset with the argument that new users come here, get
scammed, and never buy here again. However, would you rather have an environment
where the scammers are the ones who get away with it, or one where all of the
sellers are reviewed prior to selling?

Here is and was my proposal at the time:

- require a credit card or PayPal account for new sellers, have Bricklink charge
the card/PayPal $5 to verify the account is good, and do a name/address verification
on the account. If the account doesn't work, or the name and address doesn't
match the account, close the store
- with some of the proceeds of the $5 charge, send a card in the mail, with a
code on it which is required to complete store setup. Once the seller receives
the code in the mail, they can authenticate themselves, and start selling.
- hold $3 of the $5 charged as an advance payment for sellers' fees, so they
get the fee back when they sell an item here, essentially.

Now, you don't need to necessarily do this for EVERY seller. Set a threshold.
Make a formula that identifies potential scammers and allow the site to enforce
them through software. It's NOT hard. I've done it myself at the company
I work for. We were being scammed almost every week for $700+ orders for a period
a few years ago, so I examined the similarities, and wrote a software algorithm
to analyze each internet order and determine it's possibility for fraud.
Since then, we have been scammed 0 times. Sure, maybe we lost 1 or 2 legitimate
orders since, but the money we didn't lose to fraud far outweighs that.

I know I'm unpopular in the forums because of my view on this, but I still
believe Bricklink should do more than they currently do. Maybe enough time has
passed that this should be looked at again?

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

So after 500 successful purchases, am I to undergo the same scrutiny as someone
with no feedback? If I am, I'm not going to bother. If I'm not where's
the line and why are we not applying rules consistently across the board?

I've seen established sellers here go rogue after being successful for quite
some time. We even have established sellers who don't treat buyers with the
respect they deserve, so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
Setting a barrier to entry like this is not something that's likely to be
set up.

Existing proven sellers are not the focus of this suggestion. My focus is new
sellers. That's the problem I'm trying to draw into light.

While existing sellers going rogue may also be a problem, we can't address
two different types of problems with one solution.

My suggestion addresses the problems associated with fake sellers. If you have
a problem with existing, trusted sellers who go rogue, come up with your own
solution and post it. This suggestion was never intended to address them.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 11:17

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

67 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:

In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
Eg, you give me a set of parameters for checks, and I'm pretty sure I can
get around them to scam someone.
You have to be diligent enough that most scammers will say it's not worth
it and most real sellers will think it is.

I don't think parting with $5 will do it. I think the guy who took Locutus
and 25 others for $10000 would easily part with $5

You cannot verify a credit card, or access PayPal address information without
doing a transaction through that service. The $5 allows a charge to go through,
and access to the cardholder or PayPal account holder information.

While $5 won't prevent a scammer, the required verification of address and
other information to prove validity and identity of a person will. I guess you
don't realize I'm the director for a corporation with over $100,000,000
in annual sales, that deals with frauds and scams daily. I'm not pulling
my ideas out of a hat.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 10:17

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

72 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:

Good post. A lot of what you say is true. It is time to change. Instead of policies
that promote the quantity of sellers, BL should now refocus on promoting the
QUALITY of sellers and making this site more safe and secure for buyers - and
sellers. As you say, bad publicity from scams is going to cause more lost business
than having policies that might discourage a few new sellers from setting up
shop here.

BrickLink already has almost 8000 stores. A few new sellers who may be turned
away by stricter new seller entry requirements won't have any effect at all
on revenues. Because whatever they have to sell I am sure there are already several
current sellers here who also have the exact same thing to sell. If buyers can't
buy what they want from one seller, there are many other sellers they can buy
from.

Let's hope BL 2.0 adopts some of these changes.

Thor

P.S. I remember your posts. But I don't remember others then being so hostile
to your suggestions. People have been making the same or similar suggestions
for years. Maybe it is time to actually start implementing some of those changes.

http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=510636

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 09:01

Subject:

Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

497 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Oct 23, 2011 08:26

Subject:

Re: Second Delivery Address

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, FiddyB writes:

I would suggest that Bricklink allows for more than one address.

I have most of my orders shipped to my home address but sometime, with larger
orders I prefer them delivered to my work address as someone is always there
to receive it.

I would like to be able to select which address at the time of placing the orders
as sometime the address on the paypal payment is not seen by the seller.

Both these address' are registered and confirmed with paypal.

Fiddy

I agree. I just ran into this yesterday with an order I placed. The seller
is in the USA, and I have an address in the USA for those types of shipments,
so I had to make sure they got my manual message, and didn't auto-ship to the
BL address.

PayPal offers multiple address selection, BL should, too.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Aug 8, 2011 09:10

Subject:

Re: Optimal CANADIAN selling situation

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, 111insanedane writes:

Question for all the Canadian (others if you want to add your $0.02) sellers
out there. For those of you that run your stores as an official business, what
have you done to "minimize" any taxes that you pay? I have wondered if the return
on a retired set sale can be somehow claimed as a capital gain, similar to how
real estate or stocks are taxed when you sell. I am already self employed and
rent out part of our house to get lots of tax deductions from my personal income.
I need to have a conversation with my accountant again one of these days, but
thought I could come to the table with a few ideas from others that have already
figured a few 'tricks' out. Feel free to PM me if you prefer.
Thanks for your time and Happy Building, Brian

I forgot to mention, I do not believe that you can have Capital Gains on something
that isn't a security, like a Lego set. Capital Gains is for things like land,
stocks, bonds, bullion, etc.

If it was personal property that you turned into a profit, the item must net
you more than $1,000 (again, I believe this is the official CRA number, but I
could be wrong, this is what I was told at one time by CRA auditors) in order
to be taxable. In order to be claimable as a Capital Gain, it should have to
be taxable. Therefore, a set you buy for $200 and sell for $500 isn't taxable
or Capital Gains claimable, in my opinion.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Aug 8, 2011 09:07

Subject:

Re: Optimal CANADIAN selling situation

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, 111insanedane writes:

If you intend to operate your Lego selling as a business, to claim the "profit"
for income tax, then you also have the ability to deduct portions of mortgage/rent,
utility bills, transportation (ie: mileage), internet usage, PayPal fees, BrickLink
fees, etc. Unless you are operating a severely large operation, I will almost
be certain that your deductions for these expenses will greatly offset the profit
that you make. If you are concerned about being completely transparent and legit,
I don't think CRA cares if you made $1,000 last year selling 26 Lego sets and
1,400 parts on BrickLink, if you did NOT claim your deductions listed above.
If you are audited, I don't think they will be all that concerned.

Now, if you made $10,000 that would be a completely different circumstance.

In my opinion, keeping very close track of all expenses and deductions, and claiming
as a business is too time consuming, and for the very small amount of money I
have made and intend to make (ie: less than $500 per year) I don't bother with
the official part. I realize I could be claiming all sorts of deductions and
expenses in my case, however, I don't want to attract attention or be flagged
for investigation because I keep losing money on my business.

Just my $0.02.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Feb 17, 2011 07:56

Subject:

Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other

Viewed:

87 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:

The nice thing about the current condition grading system is that it's clear-cut
what you're getting. New's never been used. Used is everything else. Bricklink's
terms specify what you can expect from used parts, but there are subjective grey
areas as to when condition defects need disclosure.

I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.

Used elements that have an unknown or non-AFOL provenance (ex-child, ex-yard
sale, ex-auction site) would get graded "other"; I'd prefer to steer away from
these pieces. I'd imagine all existing Used parts would be shifted to this condition,
with the sellers upgrading as needed.

The existing New condition would continue to be traded as is.

I know this is long, but here goes. In collectible paper money, collectors and
dealers agree on a standard which gives many many different condition listings.
It almost seems like some Lego buyers (and sellers, maybe?) wish to apply multiple
"grades" to bricks, too, in an effort to sell their used but less used brick
at a higher price than used but more used brick.

If you don't want to read the long stuff that follows, you don't have to, it's
an excerpt from a catalog which I have put input into. Here's an example of
how grading Canadian paper money works (As printed in the Charlton Standard Catalog
of Canadian Government Paper Money, 20th Edition 2008). I think if you want
to start applying standards to "grading" of bricks, you're going to have to come
up with some sort of technical description like what follows here, or nothing
at all besides "new" and "used" like is currently in place. Just think of some
of the terms, and how they could apply to Lego, such as "cleaned" or "pressed"
referring to washing bricks, for example. If someone can re-write this to refer
to bricks, I think it would be rather interesting.

---- Long technical stuff not Lego-related, but may someday describe bricks
here!:

GEM UNCIRCULATED - GEM UNC - GCU65
1. A near perfect original note.
2. Colours must be bright, original with exceptional eye appeal. Paper must be
bright and fresh.
3. The note must have near perfect centering with sharp square corners and edges.
4. No noticeable impairments upon close examination: counting flicks, soft bends
or machine marks, paper flaws, writing, pinholes, etc.
5. The note must not be processed or pressed.

Tips for different series of GEM UNCIRCULATED

1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved
printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavily inked areas.
Journey notes with holograms will show no "cutting cup" or banding marks.

CHOICE UNCIRCULATED - CHOICE UNC - CHCU63
1. A near perfect original note with much eye appeal.
2. Colours must be bright. The paper on older notes may exhibit minor toning.
3. The note may be slightly off centre. It must have sharp edges and corners.
4. No noticeable impairments upon close examination with the exception of one
of:
A minor original paper flaw prior to printing, a very slight soft corner, one
very small counting flick.
5. The note must not be processed or pressed.
6. The note may have only one demerit point.

Tips for different series for CHOICE UNCIRCULATED

1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved
printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavily inked areas.
Journey notes with holograms may show a slight "cutting cup".

UNCIRCULATED - UNC - CU60
1. An original note, must not be processed or pressed.
2. Colours must be bright with eye appeal. There may be noticeable paper toning,
but no major distractions.
3. The note may be noticeably off centre. Edges and corners may be muted, thus
not sharp and precise.
4. There may be minor flaws or defects resulting in up to three demerits, such
as: visible counting creases (one demerit each), tight margin (one demerit).
5. Banding strap marks, ATM or counting machine marks that have caused small
indentations in the note are acceptable.
6. Notes with blemishes or distractions, a small tear, nick, crease with broken
fibre, including an edge bump or folded corner, would not receive an uncirculated
grade.

Tips for UNCIRCULATED
1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved
printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavily inked areas.
Journey notes with holograms may show a "cutting cup".

DEMERIT POINTS
Counting crease, no broken fibres; one point each
Edge bump; one point each
Paper toning; one point
Counting flick, no larger than 2 cm; one point each
Soft corner; one point each

DEMERIT POINTS FOR GRADES
GEM UNC No demerit points
CH UNC One demerit point
UNC Three demerit points

AU (About Uncirculated)
1. An attractive, original note with bright colours.
2. Paper toning may be present, especially on earlier notes.
3. Note may have several small counting flicks, or one light centre fold, but
not both.
4. Minor original flaws in the paper prior to printing may be present.
5. The note must have basically sharp edges and corners; however, very minor
edge bumps from banding straps, or a couple of soft corners, are acceptable.

EF (Extra Fine)
1. An attractive note with bright colours.
2. Original paper ripples may not be present.
3. Heavy counting creases, or one centre crease with broken paper fibres, or
two light folds may be present, but no combination of these.
4. The note still must exhibit sharp edges, but two or more soft corners and
edge bumps may be present.

VF (Very Fine)
1. Will have good eye appeal, but colours will have decreased hue and vibrancy.
Considerable paper crispness will remain.
2. Evidence of wear will be present along the edges and corners, with no weakness
in the design. The corners will not be rounded.
3. The note may have up to four major creases or folds with broken paper fibres,
but no design loss in the creases.

F (Fine)
1. Signs of considerable wear (circulation) with wear along the edges and corners.
The corners may be rounded, with wear showing within the design areas.
2. Noticeable soiling will be present.
3. Will have four or more heavy creases or folds with broken paper fibres, with
additional minor folds, but the design should not be worn off completely in the
creases.
4. Paper will retain some crispness.

VG (Very Good)
1. Evidence of heavy circulation, with little or no paper crispness remaining.
2. Considerable soiling, with some loss of colour hues and vibrancy; some design
loss on the creases.
3. Heavy vertical and horizontal creases and folds will be present; edges and
corners will be worn.
4. Tiny edge nicks and tears may extend into the design. Pin holes are usually
present. No pieces are missing from the note.

Good (G)
1. A heavily circulated note wich may have numerous tears and defects, but no
large section of the note should be missing.
2. Paper quite soiled and often dark. Colours may be noticeably faded or altered.
3. Basically a whole note, but with very heavy wear along the edges and corners
which may begin to look rather tattered. Heavy folds with wear on the design
within the creases, some separation often beginning along the heaviest creases.
A limp and lifeles note.

In addition, to grade a note accurately it is necessary to consider any additional
impairments. These should include:
a. Minor counting creases or edge defects, especially for EF and AU grades.
b. Tears, pinholes or signature perforations.
c. Stains, smudges, crayon marks or writing.
d. Missing corners, cut and punch cancellations or edge defects.
e. Rubber stamp impressions.
f. Any repairs, such as with sticky tape, scotch stape, stamp hinges, etc.
g. Chemical damage, paste or glue from attachment to a page.
h. Poorly centered or badly trimmed edges.
i. Pressing, cleaning, trimming of edges, erasure marks.

A note with portions missing should be graded as if it were a whole note, then
the amount missing should be fully described. This process is much more informative
than "net grading", which should be avoided.

Proof, specimen and essay notes are commonly accepted as being in uncirculated
condition.
Otherwise, the should be described as impaired, with the type and degree of impairment
stated.

Author:

Locutis

Posted:

Jan 30, 2011 10:56

Subject:

Re: New User, New Seller screen.

Viewed:

46 times

Topic: