welp, there goes 50% of sales.
but its all bodyline or replica shit anyways so who fucking gives a shit

>>7019603 (OP)
thought this was excellent until "who look under 18," there are so many flaws with that.

A good decision that's being made way too late to have any significance at this point. Hence why they're only "suggesting" people not buy or sell to minors.
They know there'd be problems:
>minors already in the group and who have already bought or sold
>the difference between what counts as 'minors' in the US and other countries
I would be all for it had the rule always been this way, but introducing it now is just going to complicate things and make a lot of underage people extremely butthurt. They don't understand that it's about legalities, all they see is "MUH AGEISM!"
Truthfully I've had problems dealing with minor sellers. They have to use their parent's cards (which can be risky in itself for different reasons), usually they're more irresponsible making shipments, and tend to be less professional. But whatever.

All of the other arguments about how it's going to "discourage" underage people from lolita are just cop outs.

>>7019603 (OP)

>don't sell to anyone who looks under 18
>whole point of the fashion is to look 14

well.

>>7019604
I had burando at 13.

>>7019618
I think they meant the community in general, not the underage members.

File: 1375780249129.jpg-(23 KB, 430x300, 1096.jpg)

23 KB JPG

>>7019618

Ugh, those comments.
>suggestion is made on one lolita sale comm
>suddenly it discourages every minor ever from lolita
Oh please. If all it took was just one measly suggestion on one of the many lolita sales comms to get someone's frills in such a twist that they leave lolita, then they must not have been that vested in it to begin with. Some of these girls are lucky that they even have parents who tolerate them using their cards to begin with, mine sure as hell didn't and I had to wait until I was 18 to sign up for all the sales websites like everyone else in murrica.

Some people under 18 are absolutely great sellers/buyers, and all all-round lovely to deal with, but I can see where they're coming from with the rule. Apart from downright scammin, I've heard tales of flaky sellers who wait until the last minute to tell you that they're not allowed to use mammy's credit card, or that they're not allowed to sell their clothes after all.

I definitly think the 'look under 18' thing will be problematic. Hell, I look about 13 in my profile picture.

>>7019659
buyers*, but you get the idea.

I had a really awful experience with an underage buyer a few years ago, so I can see why they'd recommend against it.
Basically the girl had lied about getting permission from their mom to use their bank card, the mother got pissed at me when she discovered money missing, tried to escalate a claim even though she never sent back my item, demanded a complete refund, but eventually gave up after she saw the screencaps I showed her of the sale conversation. Turns out her precious little angel was a manipulative liar. Nonetheless she put me through a month of complete hell.

>>7019670

That is horrible.
This is exactly the reason why anyone under 18 should not be allowed to sell/trade/buy without the consent of their parents.
If they want it so much, let their parent set up an account and buy it for them.
Most of these teens are unreliable and flaky because they have no sense of responsibility, don't know the actual value of money and are unreliable.
I'm all for this decision the mods at LSE made.

>>7019670
There was a girl in my community who was like 16 or 17 who was telling us how she charged AP to her daddy's credit card. A few weeks later I saw all her lolita on comm_sales. Pretty sure she got shipped off to boarding school.

I fully support not selling to minors. They have no responsibility so there is high risk.