50 dramas

whoaoaooaoao :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :ugone2far :ugone2far :ugone2far :ugone2far

do we need captain obvious to come to the rescue here?

the facts have obviously been laid out in the various threads, it is just up to you to decipher them

Says TMM.
Seriously I'm not taking sides but there are always two sides to a story and untill now we've only heard one. Saying that that is because XC has something to hide is just a bit to easy.

How will this affect their deal with Falcon Foto?

where is SonOfJesus to comfort us as the apocolypse nears?

Guys quit all the retard posts in this thread, the stupid comments really make you look like a newb.

if somebody locked me out of the admin that I had already paid for there would be hell to pay. My guess is that xc is taking the same attitude.

nats had no agreement with xc that gave them the right to disable the license that had been paid for.

The defamation is probably the smallest part of their suit. The breach is big thing imho.

Its tucker whos riding the front lines right now.

Atlest thats what I get. I emailed Chris and Brandi about payouts and got no responce so I sent the email again and waited a bit with no responce then Tucker sent me an email.

So one can only assume hes leader of the pack right now.

actually thats not necessarily true Jace. There is more information to this then you know, and how do i know.....because I know.....

I guess we must wait for the rebirth? :Oh crap

Tucker if you read this can you ICQ me?
<--- ICQ # is here.

I think TMM is in for a huge fight here that may cost more than it's worth. I personally think if you're going to breach someone in an agreement you do it with a certified letter from your attorney. You don't do it with a phone call that's very likely inadmissable. Who knows what was really said. I also think TMM posting anything at all on a site such as this is extremely silly. I can't believe they would give such ammunition away. Oh well, I hope they have the stones and the cash for the fight.

"he publicly stated that he had suspended the NATS license for XclusiveCash, Naked Rhino’s affiliate program, because he believed the company was shaving, or altering sign-up and re-bill statistics in order to cheat affiliates"

No he didn't.. I'd like to see them try and prove that in court.

Since Albright’s accusation, XclusiveCash has seen a mass exodus of affiliate traffic,

If they had actually dealt with the problem I doubt this would have happened. Instead, by letting speculation run rampant and by their own actions (or lack there of) they caused the exodus.

I really doubt this is somthing they can "win" in court.. Instead it feels more like some money hungry cheaters who got caught and now are trying to get some money out of NATs in way of a settlement since their reputation is pretty much ruined in this business.

"leave it to the lawyers"

and the $100,000+ in fee's :)

haha....ok

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Well Tuckers sig does say.. and I quote..

" Exploit it for cold hard cash! :thumbsup "

Sonds like a stand up guy to me.

Well, seems everyone will know a lot of answers as soon as this hits the courts, since it will all be public record. I'm not going to take sides but I do find this very interesting. Now, it's all just a wait and see, but 1 one of them is going to get thier asses handed to them over this issue. In don't think it was handled correctly, I don't know the whole story of course, just what I read on GFY, but bringing it to the boards in the fashion that transpired was wrong. This should have been worked out between the two companies in private to see if a solution could be reached or the issue solved.

1. Basically, Nat's "Claims" it's 100% unshavable. If that statement is true then NRM could not be shaving. IF they have been shaving... what does that really say about Nat's software.

2. IF NRM has been shaving the affilaites why would they take this to court and make all the records public. This would only further destroy thier company.

3. If this is an issue of NATS software not being installed correctly, and not tracking correctly- That will also be made public, and I would think that if it turns out to be the case NATS will loose.

I like the fact that this is going to court. It gets old with everyone yelling sue this sue that around here. At least when the smoke clears from this fire there will be answers.

5 mill, that rox. They may as well have thrown in New Hampshire.


We want 5 mill AND new hampshire!

Talk about a crew of dipshits trying to scare on out of court settlement out of em.

Just out of curiosity, where does TMM say nats is unshavable? I'm not saying they didn't, i just haven't seen where they say it.

Also, if NRM has been fucking with their nats install, don't you think it's going to be a little hard for them to prove fault on TMM? The team with the better geeks shall win :)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I would like to add that I Love America , George Bush Rocks...:winkwink:

I haven't seen the contract, but I'm guessing there are very few reasons TMM is allowed to suspend a license, either non-payment or shaving. It wasn't non-payment (to TMM anyhow :) so there's at least an argument that it was implied, hence the word 'believed', not 'knew' in the quote. Whether it's winnable or not, who knows.

If I read the article correctly they are going after Albright personally for defamation, that's going to make this all the more painful as he stands to lose everything, not just his company. It's a crappy bullshit move, but may be effective. Got to love this biz...

there have already been previous posts that program owners have made stating there was a glitch in the NATS software, which apparently happens from time to time, where NATS and CCBill aren't communicationg properly....thus creating a discrepency in the rebills data. Most program owners just call nats, or nats calls them, and it gets fixed instantly. It would seem, from what I have read on the boards, that NR didn't allow TMM to fix that issue a while back and rebills have been counting, but not showing up in NATS, because of one of these glitches

This is all just from what I am reading on the boards though

well, if you notice Tucker's sig, he is all about exploiting everything to make cash!

I'm sure with the right knowledge you can manipulate it(like anything) Its more that they don't stand for that behavior, and if you found stealing you'll be dealt with. So its more that they (TMM) won't turn a Blind Eye.

nats actions smelled fishy and good luck to all involved with a resolution. also, there were ccbill dos attack issues when that stuff all went down and there is no doubt in my mind that stats lags could have been caused by it.

hmmm interesting.

5 million! that's crazy

Please link everyone to the post where TMM said NATs is 100% unshavable

http://avnonline.com/imagearchive/27...dComplaint.pdf

Page 17.. point 87.. ow..

ow. ow.

should be an interesting case.......

I have not been following closely, but how are you sure there was shaving? Seems like the only thing for certain is a descrepancy between a number of software systems. The fact that people are "positive" there was shaving makes Rhino's (lawyer advised) silence and lawsuit pretty legitimate, it seems.

Maybe, but I´m a bit old fashioned and I don´t think a board - may it be GFY or another board - is a place to discuss such business affairs.

I don´t know anybody of the parties involved, so I won´t judge the case and I can hardly see facts in the statements posted. Only two seem to be proved. One is that there were different numbers of rebills reported in NATS and CCBill stats. The other is that this has brought to the boards. Everything else is more or less assumption.

Especially the board has no clue about the contract of sale or license agreement.

So after all bringing it to a board was somehow an arraignment which should have been avoided.

Sorry, double post (dp).:1orglaugh

Have got some issues with gfy lately.

whoops...double post

um...see sig?

It will be interesting to see how it goes down. The complaint seems more like a scare tactic than a legitimate lawsuit. There is a lot of hearsay in it and "such and such said this one time" instead of hard proof. Most of that won't matter.

damnnnnnnnnnnn

Oh great, I can see it now....

Sometime in the future in a U.S. District Courtroom in New Jersey, some old weather-beaten guy takes the stand wearing a red GFY "Flippy-Guy" tshirt.

"Can you please state your name and occupation to the Court"

"Yes your honor, my name is TexasDreams, and I'm an admin for GOFUCKYOURSELF.com."

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Whatever the situation - it's fairly safe to say that the rammifications of this are going to be substantial; the fact that NATS is used throughout the industry, notwithstanding the companies named to have rebill problems in the writ.

Whoever is right or wrong, this one is going to be felt.

Interesting

nahhhh, not in a million years. maybe $50,000

Go get em Naked Rhino!

Good job!

I hope you recover!

:thumbsup

Good read thanks :thumbsup

would be a normal day in any court- they hear it all gfy won't scare anybody and they have a duty to treat it the same as "momma's apple pie".

Telling somebody "do what I want or I'll close your program, ruin you in public and destroy your business" sounds more like extortion or blackmail to me.

My guess from all of what i've read is that the phone call didn't go something like this:

nats: Hi, we think there may be a problem with your installation. When can we schedule to take a look at it?
xclusivecash: fuck you you prick. (hangup).

perhaps more like this:
nats: What are you doing? Whats going on with this? We think you're doing something fishy and you either need to let us fix it now or we're going to disable your license.
xclusivecash: Dude, i'm in my fucking car, there isnt anything i can do right now, what the hell. I'll call you when i'm back in town.
nats: So you wont let us update your install at this moment?
xclusivecash: no, it's my program and I don't want anything changed til we can see whats up.
nats: so be it... then we're disabling your license.
xclusivecash: dude, fuck you what kind of shit is that?
nats: goodbye (posts)

The second scenario is a little closer to how it played out.
Not exactly, but closer.

:( oh shit

wow... bookmarking this one

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=332087

"3. Integrity. Simply put, NO SHAVE FEATURE. If a client comes to us asking to integrate a shave feature into NATS we turn them away. Some people think this is stupid, however we think it is one thing that really sets us apart. By not having a shave feature for any of our clients a reseller is safe to assume they are not being shorted when using a program powered by NATS."

In the same thread, Originally posted by Lensman....

"The #1 reason affiliates should PREFER NATS is that programs that use it have NO ability to shave."

Posted by Nathan on another board... Will not link it due to the rules here but you can do a simple google search...

"The only way to integrate shaving into nats by anyone other than us is rewriting their own versions of around 10 of our scripts, if not more. People will not do that, they would just write their own to begin with."

So, maybe they are not outright saying it can not be done. but they are pretty clear that you can't do it. At least thats how I'm reading it.