Originally Posted by Atticus (Post 14362522)

To bad Will76 got banned awhile back. These threads are right in his wheel house.

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 14370668)

I'm going to have to go with Dirty F on this one, Alien you're sounding pretty dumb.

You mean to tell me that if someone robs a store, gets caught, and has to return the item or face consequences and they return the item, that they now actually didn't steal in the first place. I'm not too sure about that.

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve (Post 14370754)

This board is pure jokes.

Guy makes thread to bitch about get screwed with the obivous intention of getting what's owed to him. Company bows to pressure, over-turns a previous decision, guy gets his money and gets account re-instated.

So, the situation is completely resolved and the result is a "victory" for the GFY mob.

But, the true nature of the GFY mob is revealed - the victory is not good enough, the fact that guy gets his money and company reverses decision isn't satisfactory, now the mob is out for blood. The mob is greedy and arrogant - like a crusading army with bloodlust out to rape and pillage after the battle - a narcissistic self-serving ego circle jerk.

Moral of the story is, whether you bow to the pressure of the mob or not, the drama-whores, the industry crusaders, will never be satisfied, they'll leave behind scorched earth and move onto the next target.

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve (Post 14370754)

This board is pure jokes.

Guy makes thread to bitch about get screwed with the obivous intention of getting what's owed to him. Company bows to pressure, over-turns a previous decision, guy gets his money and gets account re-instated.

So, the situation is completely resolved and the result is a "victory" for the GFY mob.

But, the true nature of the GFY mob is revealed - the victory is not good enough, the fact that guy gets his money and company reverses decision isn't satisfactory, now the mob is out for blood. The mob is greedy and arrogant - like a crusading army with bloodlust out to rape and pillage after the battle - a narcissistic self-serving ego circle jerk.

Moral of the story is, whether you bow to the pressure of the mob or not, the drama-whores, the industry crusaders, will never be satisfied, they'll leave behind scorched earth and move onto the next target.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 14370806)

Sorry but i dont like to see VS getting away with this and on top being calling a stand up company. And all i can do about it is post here and thats what i will do.

Originally Posted by AlienQ (Post 14370824)

Some never learn, ehhhem DirtyF for example and many many others. I never realised what the real cancer is in this business for a long time. Seem's many of these so called Crusaders have thier own demons and closet's full of secrets of thier own most of the time.

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve (Post 14370876)

I liked you better when you stuck to bashing Phoenix's lame 9/11 conspiracy theory threads :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 14370594)

Hey Alienq, im gonna steal your car and i might give it back if you call me a stand up toch notch guy who doesnt steal :1orglaugh

You dumb retarded inbreed fuck.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 14370938)

Remember if you see Alienidiot at a convention dont hesitate to steal his wallet and phone and whatever else. The worst thing that can happen if you get caught is that he will call you a stand up guy and tell people you're not a thief. In case he does make some problems give him some extra money and he will start a post on gfy telling everyone what a top notch person you are.

Originally Posted by Deej (Post 14375517)

alien, you were the one making shirts and talking about outing these guys on a larger scale than gfy

what in the fuck do you eat daily to make you so fuckin bi polar and flip floppy?

what did they say to you? did they threaten your dog?

Originally Posted by Deej (Post 14375517)

what in the fuck do you eat daily to make you so fuckin bi polar and flip floppy?

Originally Posted by Far-L (Post 14361181)

First off, most of these so called "examples" are way off the mark.

The situation is not at all like what people are trying to compare it to.

This is what happened, not some misleading characterization of it by board warriors, VS changed their policy YEARS AGO and they tried to inform the affiliate that the policy had been changed. The affiliate didn't want to go by the new terms and felt that the new terms should not be retroactive to when he signed up. Simple. Reasonable. Most affiliates under VS were under the new terms and ZERO of them ever stepped up to say that VS cut off their accounts or withheld funds. In fact, no one besides Chrome ever stepped in to say they ever had a problem with VS paying, who in fact have made thousands of webmasters literally MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of cash since they began over 10 years ago. I defy anyone to audit their VS accounts and find a single underpayment. The only other complaint was from one of their thousands of former and current models about a technical issue that was resolved to everyone's satisfaction... long ago.

I happen to know for a fact that the mob justice mentality only made matters worse in this case because instead of actually creating a mutual resolution of the problem it made VS defensive. Chrome admitted he did not contact VS when asked repeatedly to do so, even on the checks he was receiving. No disrespect to him but perhaps he could have discussed his issue in a way that achieved the same results without bringing it to the boards. The people that discussed this privately and professionally with VS are the ones that really created positive resolutions here. Not the flamers and the pissants who think they "won one" for the poor defenseless affiliate.

Sure, VS could have done a better job communicating their position and being defensive did not help their public relations but they are not theives. How do I assume this? One of the requirements of people that joined the case against Acacia was that they had to be willing and able to show their books in discovery and they had to pass by certain professional and ethical standards. Sure, it was in retrospect not a great idea to make the terms retroactive - but it was not STEALING - they just wanted to keep working with the affiliate in a way that was productive - that qualifies it as a marketing decision and not a theft or a cheat. The point was made by reasonable people and peers that they should not be retroactive to terms previously made and VS saw the ethical and reasonable side of it and acted accordingly. Not everyone makes great decisions all the time. But if you look at the history of VS they have made 99% good decisions and one bad one in over 10 years, how many other companies can say the same that have been around as long? More importantly, how many of those companies actually corrected their problem in a way that was mutually beneficial and acceptable to all concerned?

At this point, the only ones to gain anything by continuing to flame away are the disingenuous, disgruntled, and delusional... the carpetbaggers trying to gain a marketing advantage, anons, haters, and holier than thous that just want attention, and the kind of so-called affiliates that are more of a financial drain than an income generator for not just a program like VS but any program. Chrome calls for peace and future prosperity like a professional and everyone turns on him and says he is a traiter to the cause. I think he is behaving like a businessman, not an ethics professor.

Go ahead and spew on me -

Tell me you would never join our program - I will thank you for saving me from future headaches.

Originally Posted by Far-L (Post 14361181)

First off, most of these so called "examples" are way off the mark.

The situation is not at all like what people are trying to compare it to.

This is what happened, not some misleading characterization of it by board warriors, VS changed their policy YEARS AGO and they tried to inform the affiliate that the policy had been changed. The affiliate didn't want to go by the new terms and felt that the new terms should not be retroactive to when he signed up. Simple. Reasonable. Most affiliates under VS were under the new terms and ZERO of them ever stepped up to say that VS cut off their accounts or withheld funds. In fact, no one besides Chrome ever stepped in to say they ever had a problem with VS paying, who in fact have made thousands of webmasters literally MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of cash since they began over 10 years ago. I defy anyone to audit their VS accounts and find a single underpayment. The only other complaint was from one of their thousands of former and current models about a technical issue that was resolved to everyone's satisfaction... long ago.

I happen to know for a fact that the mob justice mentality only made matters worse in this case because instead of actually creating a mutual resolution of the problem it made VS defensive. Chrome admitted he did not contact VS when asked repeatedly to do so, even on the checks he was receiving. No disrespect to him but perhaps he could have discussed his issue in a way that achieved the same results without bringing it to the boards. The people that discussed this privately and professionally with VS are the ones that really created positive resolutions here. Not the flamers and the pissants who think they "won one" for the poor defenseless affiliate.

Sure, VS could have done a better job communicating their position and being defensive did not help their public relations but they are not theives. How do I assume this? One of the requirements of people that joined the case against Acacia was that they had to be willing and able to show their books in discovery and they had to pass by certain professional and ethical standards. Sure, it was in retrospect not a great idea to make the terms retroactive - but it was not STEALING - they just wanted to keep working with the affiliate in a way that was productive - that qualifies it as a marketing decision and not a theft or a cheat. The point was made by reasonable people and peers that they should not be retroactive to terms previously made and VS saw the ethical and reasonable side of it and acted accordingly. Not everyone makes great decisions all the time. But if you look at the history of VS they have made 99% good decisions and one bad one in over 10 years, how many other companies can say the same that have been around as long? More importantly, how many of those companies actually corrected their problem in a way that was mutually beneficial and acceptable to all concerned?

At this point, the only ones to gain anything by continuing to flame away are the disingenuous, disgruntled, and delusional... the carpetbaggers trying to gain a marketing advantage, anons, haters, and holier than thous that just want attention, and the kind of so-called affiliates that are more of a financial drain than an income generator for not just a program like VS but any program. Chrome calls for peace and future prosperity like a professional and everyone turns on him and says he is a traiter to the cause. I think he is behaving like a businessman, not an ethics professor.

Go ahead and spew on me -

Tell me you would never join our program - I will thank you for saving me from future headaches.

Originally Posted by xentech (Post 14378288)

Wait a minute, did I miss something? Wasn't AlienQ the main crusader in the original VS thread?