Saturday Night Live - Target Store Skit: ID required!

[dbell525]

Not sure who Continental was quoting, but to call 911 because the clerk is trying to take merchandise back is hardly an emergency. Get over yourself...whomever you are.

 

Don't like the subject of the post...don't read it

 

What's that supposed to mean? Subject is about an SNL skit. Content of the thread is just ridiculous.

I KNOW CREDIT CARDS TOP TO BOTTOM...front to back

 

The subject is being pushed like another HOT BUTTON "P"

 

People don't like the subject...BUT they get to spout their hate

 

I still don't see your point. I commented on calling 911. That's it. I'm not spouting any kind of hate.

[GEORGE]

BURP

Edited November 4, 2008 by GEORGE

[GEORGE]

Also, point was, if you call 911 in that situation, you are a flaming salamander. It's NOT an emergency.

You could call the NON EMERGENCY LINE

 

"IF" the store is THEFTING stuff you paid for and is not going to release it...IT IS THEFT

[kw79]

Also, point was, if you call 911 in that situation, you are a flaming salamander. It's NOT an emergency.

 

 

I don't think he said to call 911 (that would be wrong). The number to call is 1-800-Visa-911 (Just a number Visa set up).

[dbell525]

Also, point was, if you call 911 in that situation, you are a flaming salamander. It's NOT an emergency.

You could call the NON EMERGENCY LINE

 

"IF" the store is THEFTING stuff you paid for and is not going to release it...IT IS THEFT

 

Agree.

[dbell525]

Also, point was, if you call 911 in that situation, you are a flaming salamander. It's NOT an emergency.

 

 

I don't think he said to call 911 (that would be wrong). The number to call is 1-800-Visa-911 (Just a number Visa set up).

 

On page 5, Continental quoted a post and I'm paraphrasing, "I told my wife to call 911..."

[Uncle Leo]

Not sure who Continental was quoting, but to call 911 because the clerk is trying to take merchandise back is hardly an emergency. Get over yourself...whomever you are.

 

Don't like the subject of the post...don't read it

 

This thread is just full of ironic posts, isn't it?

[Jen23514]

Not sure who Continental was quoting, but to call 911 because the clerk is trying to take merchandise back is hardly an emergency. Get over yourself...whomever you are.

 

Don't like the subject of the post...don't read it

 

This thread is just full of ironic posts, isn't it?

 

UL beat me to this :clapping:

[GEORGE]

Some people have too much time on their hands

 

You complain about somebody being a "BOT"

 

Then you don't like what the "BOT" is posting

 

You don't like the post...DON'T READ IT or start your own

[Uncle Leo]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-do-people-mea...r-the-trees.htm

 

The saying that someone “can't see the forest for the trees†is a reference to people who get so involved with the details of an issue that they lose sight of the larger issue. You may also hear it rendered as “so-and-so can't see the wood for the trees,†depending on regional dialects and personal preference. If you are accused of being unable to see the forest for the trees, you may want to take a step back from the situation to abstract yourself in the hopes that some clarifying and potentially interesting information emerges.

 

As early as the 1500s, "you can't see the forest for the trees" was in wide enough use that it was published in collections of proverbs and slang. As anyone who has been in a forest knows, it can be easy to fall into the trap of just looking at the individual trees, rather than considering the forest as a whole. When you can't see the forest for the trees, it means that you are deeply involved in a situation, and you are perhaps focusing too much on individual details, and not enough on the situation as a whole.

 

This proverb is also sometimes reversed, as in “he can't see the trees for the forest,†referencing the idea that it is also possible to be too broad when looking at a situation. Someone who makes sweeping pronouncements without considering the details could be said to be exhibiting just as much of a logical flaw as someone who focuses on a minute aspect of a situation without examining the whole. It is common for executives to be accused of not seeing the trees for the forest, especially when they make exacting and impossible demands which suggest a complete unfamiliarity with the complexities of a situation.

 

It is very easy to get caught up in minutia of a situation, especially when you have been involved with it for an extended period of time, or when you have only been working on one aspect of a larger problem. Being aware of this tendency can make people better problem solvers, as they know that sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees, and that occasionally it is a good idea to talk with other people about the aspects of the project that they are working on, or to solicit outside advice about a situation to gain perspective.

 

Striking a balance between focusing on the details of a situation and looking at it broadly is important. To take the metaphor further, when you can't see the forest for the trees, it suggests that you may be missing crucial information which may be influencing the situation, like why the trees are there in the first place.

 

Emphasis in bold mine. ~UL

[d00daa]

 

You've all seen Continental's posts. You know what it's about by now (or you should).

 

How some of you people continue to get so bent out of shape when this topic comes up for the 4,582nd time is beyond me.

[Credit Matters]

We heard you the first 2 times. All the law means is the state itself does not stand in the way of ID checks. Merchants are free to enter into contracts with Visa/MC that are more restrictive.

 

I hope you got the point. I heard you too. I was just doing what you did twice. If you respond to my comment with a previous comment you made, expect to see a duplicate of mine too.

[gweedoh]

 

You've all seen Continental's posts. You know what it's about by now (or you should).

 

How some of you people continue to get so bent out of shape when this topic comes up for the 4,582nd time is beyond me.

It's not the topic. What pisses people off is the fact that he/she (and others like George) ignores people's attempts to engage him/her in a debate and instead regurgitates the same copy-n-paste garbage in every post. It's a waste of space. If they have nothing new to contribute, don't bother re-posting the same thing. If they can't control the impulse to post, then link back to the original instead of filling pages and pages of the same stuff.

 

I agree, there is something to passing up the thread if we know what's inside, but when people put some thought into their point of view, there has been some productive debate around to topic.

[Beachgrrl]

I'm not still not clear on this and want to know more for my own FYI than for any other purpose. IF you pay via debit card (which has a visa logo), which I do primarily, are debit transactions held to the same visa/mc merchant laws? In other words, are they required to verify a photo ID or not? I understand the CC visa/mc merchants laws do not require this. But, I'm still not clear on debit cards.

 

My thought is that they just need to confirm the card is signed -- ie: only valid if signed - which is NOT the same as confirming a sig and photo ID. It's a misinterpretation by the merchant of the law. Or -- am I incorrect?

 

I do have the occassional merchant who does this and it seems it's sporadic...one cashier does it more than others. So, I just aim for the line where this particular cashier is not working.

[d00daa]

What pisses people off is the fact that he/she (and others like George) ignores people's attempts to engage him/her in a debate and instead regurgitates the same copy-n-paste garbage in every post. It's a waste of space. If they have nothing new to contribute, don't bother re-posting the same thing. If they can't control the impulse to post, then link back to the original instead of filling pages and pages of the same stuff.

 

I don't dispute the premise of your argument. But again, it's known in advance what to expect. You don't really expect the existing pattern of behavior to magically change, do you?

 

Hey, if people want to continue to get worked up over it, more power to 'em. I just think it's silly.

[gweedoh]

I'm not still not clear on this and want to know more for my own FYI than for any other purpose. IF you pay via debit card (which has a visa logo), which I do primarily, are debit transactions held to the same visa/mc merchant laws? In other words, are they required to verify a photo ID or not? I understand the CC visa/mc merchants laws do not require this. But, I'm still not clear on debit cards.

 

My thought is that they just need to confirm the card is signed -- ie: only valid if signed - which is NOT the same as confirming a sig and photo ID. It's a misinterpretation by the merchant of the law. Or -- am I incorrect?

 

I do have the occassional merchant who does this and it seems it's sporadic...one cashier does it more than others. So, I just aim for the line where this particular cashier is not working.

When you use a debit card for a credit transaction, it exactly the same as using a non-debit credit card. Same merchant agreement, same consumer agreement, same everything.

 

Debit transactions (when you use your PIN) require NO validation on the part of the merchant. When you use your PIN, it is assumed by all parties that you are the authorized cardholder and for this reason, it's much more difficult to recover on unauthorized transactions when a PIN is used.

 

You also loose many of the protections afforded to cardholders if you make a purchase as debit as opposed to credit. I believe the extended warranty is one of these protections, but I can't be certain. There are also some limitations on disputing charges on debit transactions that credit transactions are not subject to.

 

Credit is always best. Consumables like gas and food are ok as debit, but anything that you may have to dispute, always make it a credit transaction and not debit.

[kw79]

Credit is always best. Consumables like gas and food are ok as debit, but anything that you may have to dispute, always make it a credit transaction and not debit.

 

I agree with credit always being the best. Can't beat the rewards + protection.

 

One thing, though, I wouldn't use it for gas. Be very careful if you do because you can have holds of up to $100 and if you don't have a lot in your checking, it can cause all sorts of problems (OD fees).

[gweedoh]

One thing, though, I wouldn't use it for gas. Be very careful if you do because you can have holds of up to $100 and if you don't have a lot in your checking, it can cause all sorts of problems (OD fees).

Is this actually happening? I've never had them hold more than $1, even when gas was $4 a gallon.

[kw79]

One thing, though, I wouldn't use it for gas. Be very careful if you do because you can have holds of up to $100 and if you don't have a lot in your checking, it can cause all sorts of problems (OD fees).

Is this actually happening? I've never had them hold more than $1, even when gas was $4 a gallon.

 

 

It happened to my cousin. 2 $49 OD fees as a result. He had just over $100 in his account. Filled up car1 and Cumberland Farms put a $100 hold on. Later that day, filled up car2 at the same place and they put another $100 hold. I'm not sure if he made some small purchases too, but end result was $98 in OD fees.

[Uncle Leo]

It happened to my cousin. 2 $49 OD fees as a result. He had just over $100 in his account. Filled up car1 and Cumberland Farms put a $100 hold on. Later that day, filled up car2 at the same place and they put another $100 hold. I'm not sure if he made some small purchases too, but end result was $98 in OD fees.

 

$49 OD fee?!? Your cousin needs tro find a different bank.

 

Anyway, the hold is just for the business and making sure they get paid. Fair enough. For the bank's purposes, OD fees should only be based on what actually shakes out in purchases. I hate saying "there ought to be a law", but our financial industry makes me say it more and more as time goes by.

[Jen23514]

Some people have too much time on their hands

 

You complain about somebody being a "BOT"

 

Then you don't like what the "BOT" is posting

 

You don't like the post...DON'T READ IT or start your own

 

/giggles at the irony and backs slowly out of thread.

[Beachgrrl]

I'm not still not clear on this and want to know more for my own FYI than for any other purpose. IF you pay via debit card (which has a visa logo), which I do primarily, are debit transactions held to the same visa/mc merchant laws? In other words, are they required to verify a photo ID or not? I understand the CC visa/mc merchants laws do not require this. But, I'm still not clear on debit cards.

 

My thought is that they just need to confirm the card is signed -- ie: only valid if signed - which is NOT the same as confirming a sig and photo ID. It's a misinterpretation by the merchant of the law. Or -- am I incorrect?

 

I do have the occassional merchant who does this and it seems it's sporadic...one cashier does it more than others. So, I just aim for the line where this particular cashier is not working.

When you use a debit card for a credit transaction, it exactly the same as using a non-debit credit card. Same merchant agreement, same consumer agreement, same everything.

 

Debit transactions (when you use your PIN) require NO validation on the part of the merchant. When you use your PIN, it is assumed by all parties that you are the authorized cardholder and for this reason, it's much more difficult to recover on unauthorized transactions when a PIN is used.

 

You also loose many of the protections afforded to cardholders if you make a purchase as debit as opposed to credit. I believe the extended warranty is one of these protections, but I can't be certain. There are also some limitations on disputing charges on debit transactions that credit transactions are not subject to.

 

Credit is always best. Consumables like gas and food are ok as debit, but anything that you may have to dispute, always make it a credit transaction and not debit.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. What about when the merchant does not have the key pad pin option but processes your debit card LIKE a CC and requires a signature? Rather than allowing you to use your PIN, it's not even an option, you have to sign a receipt?

 

I believe this is a system set up - in other words, it costs the merchant 'x' to have both debit AND CC capabilities. So, some merchants opt out for only the CC option to avoid the additional fees.

 

So, in this case, they are treating the transaction as a Visa/MC transaction and would be accountable to the associated merchant laws? This would require them to not ask for a photo ID to confirm sig, correct?

[Credit Matters]

Some people have too much time on their hands

 

You complain about somebody being a "BOT"

 

Then you don't like what the "BOT" is posting

 

You don't like the post...DON'T READ IT or start your own

 

/giggles at the irony and backs slowly out of thread.

 

Pushes Jen back in.

 

Pretty amazing. Some people have too much time on their hands. You don't say. Must giggle with Jen at the irony.

[Continental]

here's the thing...

 

Visa/MC FORBIDS merchants asking for ID.

If you want to show your ID, fine...go for it...

 

if you want to hand your wallet to a stranger on the street, more power to you

 

if you want to stick a fork in an electrical outlet, I won't stop you

 

but the merchant IS NOT allowed to ask for ID, and they can lose their ability to accept credit cards if they do so...

How about a Pet Store Clerk swiping my girl friends Visa card and then asked for picture id. When my GF refused the clerk refused her purchase and she had to walk out without anything.

 

Next months statement the Pet Store charged the purchase and no refund.

 

Remember once the card is swiped and approved the purchase is complete!!!! and the merchant has their money. Why would you go through an unnecessary step in checking id. It is all after the fact the the merchant has been paid already!!!!!!!

You MUST make sure the sale is VOIDED by management before leaving the register

(even if you hold up the line for 10 minutes)

Simply call 1-800-VISA-911. They will walk the salamander cashier step-by-step through proper card acceptance procedure.

 

CREDIT CARD SIGNATURE IS ALL THE ID NEEDED

 

When you pay for merchandise with a Visa card, MasterCard, or American Express any store that accepts these cards should accept yours too, no questions asked. It's part of the deal that merchants agree to when they become participating members.

 

They must check your signature and the card - electronically or by telephone - to be sure it's valid. Once the answer comes up yes, they can go ahead and charge. They can't ask you for any further identification - not a license plate number, Social Security number, proof of address, phone number or picture ID.

 

Your personal ID isn't needed because Visa, MasterCard, and American Express all guarantee payment on cards that have been properly checked. If the issuer mistakenly authorizes a sale on a bad card, it should make good. MasterCard says that merchants receive instant settlement. The contract MasterCard merchants sign specifically prevents them from asking for personal ID.

 

Unfortunately, not all merchants play by the rules. Some, apparently, haven't read them.

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

 

MasterCard wants to hear about merchants who break their rules. Send the name and address and an account of what happened to MasterCard WorldWide 2000 Purchase St. Purchase, NY 10577. The merchant's bank will get a stiff letter, ordering it to investigate and bring the offending store into line - or pay a $2,000 fine.

 

Visa enforces the same rules as MasterCard. "When we hear about a violation, we ask the bank that signed the merchant to get together with the merchant and see that the practice is stopped," Visa representative states. To report a merchant, send a letter to the bank that that issued your Visa card or call 1-800-VISA-911.

 

American Express also prohibits merchants from asking for IDs. "All a merchant is supposed to do is take an imprint, make sure the signature matches and swipe the card through the terminal, to get authorization."

[GEORGE]

 

You've all seen Continental's posts. You know what it's about by now (or you should).

 

How some of you people continue to get so bent out of shape when this topic comes up for the 4,582nd time is beyond me.

It's not the topic. What pisses people off is the fact that he/she (and others like George) ignores people's attempts to engage him/her in a debate and instead regurgitates the same copy-n-paste garbage in every post. It's a waste of space. If they have nothing new to contribute, don't bother re-posting the same thing. If they can't control the impulse to post, then link back to the original instead of filling pages and pages of the same stuff.

 

I agree, there is something to passing up the thread if we know what's inside, but when people put some thought into their point of view, there has been some productive debate around to topic.

THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE ABOUT CREDIT CARD POLICY

INVOLVING REQUIRING ID ON A SIGNED CREDIT CARD

 

Feel free to start your own post

Edited November 5, 2008 by GEORGE