Quote:
Originally Posted by DotXXX
I do want it to be clear though, so I'm happy to attempt another explanation.
I appreciate that you don't have a vendetta, as I'd like to be a point of communication as opposed to competing to rank in battle of the board warriors. 
The clause that you pointed to is specifically about IFFOR. It's IFFOR's council, and the ability for IFFOR's board to make a determination. I added the only time that ICM can exercise what could be interpreted as a veto. You're bothered by the phrase "commercially reasonable." But ICM is a business, that is providing a service. It would make no sense at all NOT to include it, for itself as a for profit business, and as a business providing a service to its customers. It's unreasonable to expect any business to approve a commercial venture that could/ or does eventually prohibit its ability to continue to provide service. One might consider how many programs have folded in this industry because they made a choice to stop paying affiliates when their traffic slowed down. That would probably qualify as "not commercially reasonable" or otherwise known as shooting yourself in the foot.
And given that .xxx *is* and adult venture, it would be silly for us to believe that 'because people do adult, they're idiots.' Yes, you do adult. No - I don't think you're an idiot, and I do thank you for both your candid question and your lack of vendetta. |
the issue i have is the (personally perceived of course) farce that is the IFFOR and/or what it represents.
i can understand that ICM is a business and it's goal is to profit. I can also understand that IFFOR is (supposed to be) a non-profit for policy formulation. what i CAN'T understand is these two entities co-existing without one being able to supersede the other at some point, as they are each supposedly trying to accomplish two different things that will be at odds at some point. ICM wants to profit as much money as possible. IFFOR is supposed to be protecting the children.
the only way that this set up makes sense is with the whole "government regulation" angle tha'ts been flying around, but i won't go into that as it's moot for now
while i don't think that ICM would ever venture into anything that is clearly harming the children, what happens when (i really should say IF) IFFOR were to present a policy that hits ICM too hard in the pockets? something really "grey area" and vague. just as a hypothetical, lets say that "sites on .xxx domains cannot have girls in pigtails because of the implied CP". ICM does an assessment and determines that's going to affect too much of their income (or.... "not commercially reasonable") and they decline the suggestion. so.....what is IFFOR for? how about just do away with IFFOR, and ICM sells their domains. i can respect that. but trying to convince us that we need guidelines or policing that we already had is the pee/leg/rain i spoke of.
it doesn't take another separate entity to determine policy. we've been doing it for YEARS before you guys showed up. and if we did want/need an additional
non-profit entity they surely should not be at the feet of a
for-profit business. that just doesn't even fly right
your closing words were kind but i still doubt the sincerity - sorry
again, nothing personal not saying you (don't even know who you are lol), but the entity. they way they came in the door, these "press releases" and "debates" and other propaganda show me what ICM thinks of us on the intelligence scale
