Originally Posted by epitome (Post 17610697)

You should have read what Ruth posted before you posted this because there are now two different stories about this same issue.

Oh geez, do we have another Chris Mallick situation where the officer is not paying attention to what is going on in his business?

As we've learned, that doesn't end well.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 17610697)

You should have read what Ruth posted before you posted this because there are now two different stories about this same issue.

Oh geez, do we have another Chris Mallick situation where the officer is not paying attention to what is going on in his business?

As we've learned, that doesn't end well.

Originally Posted by paxum (Post 17610653)

Hello, Octav here.

I apologize for the mistaken list on paxum.com earlier today, I take full responsibility for the error as the company owner. Let me explain what happened even that it dose not excuse our error. This was updated by the person responsible for publishing the paxum sponsors page from the design team. The information he took was from an internal company memo that we compile every day with suggestions from webmasters asking us to talk to programs that they would like to see offer paxum as a payment option. The person who manages the sponsors page inadvertently transcribed the list of programs we were asked to talk to on to that page instead of the list of sponsors itself. We were notified about 1 hour ago about the problem and took immediate action to remove it.

Thank you for your understanding, my sincere apologies to all on gfy and specially to the programs that were listed by mistake without their consent.

Octav Moise

Originally Posted by RuthB (Post 17610563)

We deeply apologize and we have removed the programs in question. What happened is that on the business sponsors form we have a link to add programs to the list. That contact is intended for program owners not regular paxum users. We have been contacted by people asking to add the program on the list and we did it without taking in consideration it could not have been the real program owner asking that. We deeply apologize again and we will make sure it will never happen again, it was never our intent to force anybody on that list.

Originally Posted by RuthB (Post 17610785)

I'm not sure how it differs. Octav just provides more information about the situation. Fact still remains that the information submitted through the contact form was inadvertently used to compile the list that was posted live online. We are very sorry for the error and guarantee it won't happen again.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 17610771)

Ruth is talking about some form and Octav is talking about a memo.

I don't know how much business experience you have, but they are two completely different things.

If they are talking about the same thing how is it my fault that the employees do not know the difference between a form and a memo?

Originally Posted by paxum (Post 17610795)

I am sorry but it is the same but written by 2 different persons. I tried to elaborate and explain what happened. Ruth said that we were contacted by webasters to add the name to the list of sponsors and that is of course true. That list gets compiled in a list of sponsors we have to contact to convince them to pay their webasters by paxum. That list was taken by mistake by our designer thinking it was the list of sponsors that already signed up and this is what I explained. This is what happened and both Ruth and myself explained the same situation in different words.
thank you

Octav Moise

Originally Posted by RuthB (Post 17610785)

I'm not sure how it differs. Octav just provides more information about the situation. Fact still remains that the information submitted through the contact form was inadvertently used to compile the list that was posted live online. We are very sorry for the error and guarantee it won't happen again.

Originally Posted by RuthB (Post 17610563)

. What happened is that on the business sponsors form we have a link to add programs to the list. That contact is intended for program owners not regular paxum users.

Originally Posted by paxum (Post 17610653)

The information he took was from an internal company memo that we compile every day with suggestions from webmasters asking us to talk to programs that they would like to see offer paxum as a payment option.

Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 17610835)

Ruth posted how they got the info... Octav posted how it ended up on the site. But hey.. This place is all about the mob mentality and taking out their own anger about shit on anyone they can... The voice of reason has no place here for some... carry on...

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 17610800)

So in one version the designer took an internal memo of the companies they *want* to add and published it, and no one checked the designer's work before it went live??

In another version it was Paxum users using some add function to add companies to the list that was suppose to be meant only for program owners to add their companies' name to the list. Which none of this was verified and it just goes live??

wtf :warning:helpme:warning two very different stories.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 17610851)

Form:

Memo:

But hey, we're talking about the same thing, right?

If this was the first Paxum hiccup I'd be inclined to believe.

Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 17610866)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh Riiiigghhhttttt... You're grasping at straws now to justify your point of view... Carry on...

Originally Posted by madtwin (Post 17610703)

Hey, give people what they want! Add Paxum as an alternative payout!...

Originally Posted by will76 (Post 17610844)

you people are full of so much bullshit. Ruth you blamed it on Paxum users saying that they used a form that should have been used by Program owners. You blame the Paxum users for using a form that was for Program Owners.



Octav says it was companies submitted from users that they should add. Octav blames the designer for publishing a list of companies they *want* to add.



Makes no fucking sense. If the "submit form" was for program owners then it wouldn't be a list of people you want to add, they would already be added.

Octav is saying he knew it was from webmasters, you are saying "opps" that was suppose to be from program owners, we *just* finding out about it now.

So either you guys knew the programs being submitted on that page from webmasters and not owners and you did nothing about it, or you guys are just plain stupid and have no idea what you are doing.

christ, 1+1 = 36 around here.

Originally Posted by RuthB (Post 17610853)

The list the designer took and published was comprised of the names submitted through the form that I referenced in my post.

I'm sorry it isn't clearer to you Will, it seems fairly straightforward to me. Octav simply elaborated what I came to be aware of. I posted as soon as possible to ensure that the situation was addressed. Then Octav expounded the information.

Basic fact; we fucked up. We're very sorry and we're making sure that this will never happen again. It's easy to go searching for some kind of 'conspiracy' or something, but fact of the matter is, this was simply a mistake, and one that we promptly corrected and addressed.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 17610882)

You're ignoring serious red flags to justify this to be a top notch stand up company. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 17610910)

Really??? Or maybe I realize that every one of these companies, sponsors etc. will practically all fail and dissapear at one point and so I'll do what I can to minimize my risk.

At this point my preference would be for sponsors to look into and integrate emc2payouts... but the industry leaders are sitting on their hands doing nothing and allowing the mob to drive this process... So until they get their heads out of their asses I'll use what I can and keep my balances very low.

Originally Posted by Machete_ (Post 17610908)

Will76, why are you so anal about everything?

Go do something constructive instead of bashing everyone on boards.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 17610922)

And I hope they use some of the fee money they collect to invest in shortening their name to something I can remember. :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Machete_ (Post 17610908)

Will76, why are you so anal about everything?

Go do something constructive instead of bashing everyone on boards.

Originally Posted by Varius (Post 17611029)

Just curious why you would even have a designer creating that page manually. He has to modify and update it every single time you add new sponsors? Not very efficient.

Just make the page dynamic, pulling all active status business accounts (unless you wish to hide some, in which case have a flag field and don't select those).

Had that been done, you never would have had this issue (or any such mistakes in the future).

Tip of the day: If it can be automated, it likely should be :)

Originally Posted by PR_Dave (Post 17610549)

List is much smaller now, glad I took a screenshot.

Originally Posted by PR_Dave (Post 17610379)

Seriously! We do not pay via Paxum.

https://www.paxum.com/payment/sponso.../sponsors.xsl&

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 17610955)

why are you blindly defending them? that is a better question... what is your stake in this?

Originally Posted by Machete_ (Post 17611115)

Why blindly? It's a good system.

What do you have against it? Did you have a bad experience?