What about this senerio. I'm working on a large bulk submission for a client and one of his sites is a gambling/casino site. I normally don't except them but in this case I made an exception....I don't even have a category for them so I placed the site in a rather obscure subcategory. Now my question is since I didn't accept $$$ directly from the casino site and have not had any contact with them is this still the same in the eyes of PayPal?? Frankly, I can't see PayPal taking the time to search my directory for one site....but hey this is PayPal. They already have a hold on a $50.00 transaction from three weeks ago and the punk at PayPal can't even tell me why there is a hold .....Not from a gambling site though
Paypal might catch you someday. So it is better not to take that $xx dollars and risk the whole account to be frozen someday. I know that sacrificing this money would be a hard thing for most of the webmasters but most of the people also have other themed sites and we can take that listing or review fees. I just thought that I would stay away from this casino mess and go along with paypal's policy as paypal is the one that I cannot afford to lose. I can afford to lose 100 casino links and I will still be a webmaster.
What do you mean? Im sure theirs other payment processors out their and if not then cheat .... why not everyone else does... thx malcolm
Wish we had the option to use Google Checkout......Don't know, they may have the same BS views as PayPal.
Might be a silly question but ... Is it the link or the source of funds that Paypal penalizes? If you accept free links where is the grounds for freezing your account? If the funds are paid from a non-gambling account (SEO firm, link building) how can it be proven that specific funds are related to the gambling link? If the server is not on US soil is the directory subject to US law? There seems to be a lot of gray area that everyone is avoiding.
My guess is that someone may have reported it to pay pal. Or they may have seen the name of the category during payment process and took a closer look to see what is up.
I don't see a problem with that what so ever. I don't think they should be treated differently at all. There are lots of people who gamble for fun and wouldn't mind reading these type of guides. I don't think its really fair for people to deny these type of sites. Look at Google Adword's policy for example. Their Ad Network displays gambling advertisements, yet they reject gambling related sites to display their advertisements? DMOZ, Yahoo! dir, and BOTW. If no type of gambling (sportsbooks, online casino sites, online poker etc.) is being offered then thats fine with me. As for PayPal, I would assume if you stick with these type of sites only and as long as your paying your fee, then you should be all set. To try to continue this thread a little more, what about this site I built for my client: sport handicapping contests Its suppose to be a "sportsbook simulator" that offers handicapping (betting) contests for their members to participate in and win prizes. Everything is free and you can't find the word "credit card" anywhere on the site. No gambling, and can even be intended for sport fans rather then gamblers. Downside may be that it does have advertisements leading to gambling sites (this was the reason my client was rejected by AdWords). I think people should think more about this, as it may result in you better serving your customers and also a little more income for your directory. Leopard
As for the PayPal Gambling Policy (http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside&ed=gambling), Jmort previously quoted this from their policy: Lets break this down a bit. * Gambling services, such as handicapping, or providing gambling tips or instructions. These are sites that actually make money by selling a service. An example site would be http://www.charliessports.com/ -they offer a handicapping service, which is aka providing gambling tips. * Intermediaries facilitating the process of placing bets or securing offshore gambling licenses. All I can say is theres not too many sites like these. Perhaps only around 2,000 in the world? I can see these type of sites wanting rely on good SERP's to bring in customers, so depending if you actually receive one of these type of sites, you may want to reject it. An example would be, http://www.slogold.net * Organized forums that facilitate person-to-person betting. This may be a growing concept in the online betting world. However, it is a fairly new one so not too many sites would offer such a service. An example would be http://www.tradesports.com/ So if you avoid listing any sites offering any type of actual gambling (poker, horse, skill games, sports, etc.). then it should be fine to accept sites like my client and the gambling guide web site jmort received. banless, if your sites didn't list these type of sites, perhaps you could have fought it and still have your gambling category up?
Personally I don't think the statements by PayPal are meant to indicated that we (directory owners) aren't allowed to include gaming sites. I interpret it to mean PayPal can't be used as a payment provider/processor between sites and players. However, since we are talking about PayPal,which has a history of doing some pretty stupid things, I feel that it's not worth taking the chance to have my account put on hold or terminated.
Leopard, Wouldn't the gambling guides fall under "providing gambling tips or instructions". Am I missing something?.....I don't gamble so I don't know if there is an obvious distinction. LakeCountry, As I understand it (and I could be wrong), Paypal's terms say that you can't use Paypal on a site that provides information falling into the "unacceptable" category. I think that is why they can freeze your account until you remove them.
Are these guides charging money for their viewers to read? Or are they offering their guides as free content? If they are not charging for their guides, then it should not be a problem with PayPal.
I am confused, the guideline doesn't mention anything about paid services.... So whether it is paid or free, it looks like it violates the terms. Morty
No, sorry thats not the point I was trying to make out. The thing is if they never charge for their guides, then it shouldn't be considered a service in the first place. It can be looked at as an advice or info site.
yes thats exactly how they caught the mistake.... simply remove this so it dont show the links submitted Its the US goverment that pushes them to enforce these rulz if not then they are elimanated. thx malcolm