CCBill rep - inside please!

[woj]

50.........

[marketsmart]

But its NOT that simple. We're not talking about rape content here. We're talking about the censorship of consentual bdsm and categorizing it all under the rape content category.

It seems no one at CCBill is capable or experienced enough to distinguish between rape and consentual bdsm. Yet they're put in charge of calling all the shots and dictating to producers and webmasters what they can and cannot show.

Ron, please don't insult the intelligence of webmasters and content producers by lumping it all in to one category and defending your company's inability to distinguish between the two as being 'rape-related.' This does a great disservice to your webmaster clients and public image.

Yes, I realize you're subject to the CC company mandates - but lately it appears as though you're hiding behind those mandates and using them as an excuse for censoring far too much that isn't required.

At the end of the day, it's Rons company and Rons choice on how they interpret visa and mc regs. Ron can run his company any way he likes and if you dont like his rules then there is no law that says you have to do business with ccbill...

[NKYKev]

At the end of the day, it's Rons company and Rons choice on how they interpret visa and mc regs. Ron can run his company any way he likes and if you dont like his rules then there is no law that says you have to do business with ccbill...

On the surface, what you are saying makes sense. But webmasters who have signed a contract with CCBill should be owed the courtesy of an official explanation of CCBill's interpretations of these rules so they can make an informed decision as to whether removing the content or switching processors is a better business decision. Or is it your position that CCBill should have no duties whatsoever to its customers? Somehow, I feel that if it was your site facing this situation, you would want the information necessary to make an informed decision. While CCBill may have no choice but to follow the rules of the card associations - which is understandable - what, exactly, is the justification for not making clear their interpretations of these rules?

[SilentKnight]

At the end of the day, it's Rons company and Rons choice on how they interpret visa and mc regs. Ron can run his company any way he likes and if you dont like his rules then there is no law that says you have to do business with ccbill...

No one here is denying that.

However...the reality is CCBill has a symbiotic relationship with its clients. Maintaining a "my way or the highway" approach (which is what you infere above)...is not a good business model.

As socalkev says - you would likely view issues with a different perspective if CCBill's inconsistencies were affecting YOUR revenue bottom line. Its an easy thing to do sitting back and saying 'Like it...or lump it' when its not YOUR investment on the line.