GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - THATS OFFICIAL..."Myvirtualcrap" fucked me...(my full story)

m1ar0se · 04-18-2006, 04:42 PM

Hello there everyone

I have been watching this discussion unfold and thought it was time I jumped on in so you can get an opinion from the webmaster of the site I believe this guy promotes.

First up, the site does NOT peddle kiddie porn. The problem here is perceptions, as far as I was concerned all images etc were of appropriate age, BUT, and heres the rub, my perceptions of age may differ from someone else, and that persons from someone else again and so on. A large amount of the content is 2257 documented but not all of it, so I cannot prove the age of the models if needed. Frankly I dont believe that 2257 makes any difference, I recently had to modify another site as a model. clearly over 18 was holding a plastic walking cane, this in the eyes of the processors bank (not MVC) conveyed the impression that I was selling underage content. The processor said that it wasnt the model that was at issue with the bank but the fact she was holding a toy. So we have to deal with perceptions and this can be difficult, often I see sites with, for instance, ccbill an others (mashasworld, nubiles as examples), and clearly it is the case that the compliance depts perceptions differ from organisation to organisation. The extreme example is Verotel where even words are a problem. But all this said, it is reality and we live with it.

But I digress. My experiences with MVC have been nothing but excellent, they have always paid on time (usually early), customer service is on the ball, payouts to funds2go excellent, I really cannot fault them. Yes it was weird that the site was approved and then cancelled only 4 weeks later when I had made no changes that were not 2257 documented, but obviously the bank had checked again and found something they didnt like, who knows and at the end of the day what does it matter. Yes money is still owed from the last month but it would be normal for it to be held over for 6 months. Suffice to say I am building a new site, which is totally 2257 documented and, provided they will welcome me, I will place it with MVC.

So the lessons here, make sure we have 2257 then we can hold our heads high. Discard old undocumented content as what was fine before may not be anymore. If you come unstuck then live with it. Dont piss and moan about the processor (unless its ibill of course).

Well thats my 2 cents worth, MVC is not at fault.

04-18-2006, 04:42 PM
m1ar0se Registered User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 45	my 2 cents worth Hello there everyone I have been watching this discussion unfold and thought it was time I jumped on in so you can get an opinion from the webmaster of the site I believe this guy promotes. First up, the site does NOT peddle kiddie porn. The problem here is perceptions, as far as I was concerned all images etc were of appropriate age, BUT, and heres the rub, my perceptions of age may differ from someone else, and that persons from someone else again and so on. A large amount of the content is 2257 documented but not all of it, so I cannot prove the age of the models if needed. Frankly I dont believe that 2257 makes any difference, I recently had to modify another site as a model. clearly over 18 was holding a plastic walking cane, this in the eyes of the processors bank (not MVC) conveyed the impression that I was selling underage content. The processor said that it wasnt the model that was at issue with the bank but the fact she was holding a toy. So we have to deal with perceptions and this can be difficult, often I see sites with, for instance, ccbill an others (mashasworld, nubiles as examples), and clearly it is the case that the compliance depts perceptions differ from organisation to organisation. The extreme example is Verotel where even words are a problem. But all this said, it is reality and we live with it. But I digress. My experiences with MVC have been nothing but excellent, they have always paid on time (usually early), customer service is on the ball, payouts to funds2go excellent, I really cannot fault them. Yes it was weird that the site was approved and then cancelled only 4 weeks later when I had made no changes that were not 2257 documented, but obviously the bank had checked again and found something they didnt like, who knows and at the end of the day what does it matter. Yes money is still owed from the last month but it would be normal for it to be held over for 6 months. Suffice to say I am building a new site, which is totally 2257 documented and, provided they will welcome me, I will place it with MVC. So the lessons here, make sure we have 2257 then we can hold our heads high. Discard old undocumented content as what was fine before may not be anymore. If you come unstuck then live with it. Dont piss and moan about the processor (unless its ibill of course). Well thats my 2 cents worth, MVC is not at fault.