GFY Censorship - Affiliates: Do you trust MPA2/MPA3 programs? - THREAD GONE

[DWB]

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

From the testimony of others on various boards I know it was in there for at least part of 2003 and 2004.

A shave free MPA3 was released in 2004.

Annnnnnnnd now it's 2012.

Please get back into the time machine and come back to us. This is a silly fight to pick.

[anexsia]

Originally Posted by MrCain

WTFbucks spammed webmasters who joined the lords of porn, niceratios, vidz and eurorevenue affiliate programs. All programs were on NATS3. Little after, TMM released a security patch for NATS3. Xxxjay from lords of porn and Nicky from Eurorevenue responded and were angry at the hackers. After a massive outcry, WTFbucks made a weak apology for what they referred to as "the incident". Curiously, the niceratios representative on this board, michael.kickass has not yet commented, but keeps kissing WTFbucks' butt in the WTFbucks promotional threads.

Hello MrCain!

Helen here from WTFbucks.com. I found your contacts at yourwebsitehere.com.
I hope our program will be interesting for you and if you haven't tried to promote our reality sites before, it's time to start!
WTFBucks offers different programs, different site tours, and we make special conditions for our webmasters.

All detailed info is represented at our official website: WTFBucks.com. But all special terms are discussed only in private.

For you I can offer +100 bucks to your first payment. That will be pleasant addition to your earnings, don't you think so? I bet you do MrCain!!

Don?t hesitate and hit me: ICQ: 623-293-045 or Skype: Helen.WTF

Regards,
Helen

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by DWB

A shave free MPA3 was released in 2004.

Annnnnnnnd now it's 2012.

Please get back into the time machine and come back to us. This is a silly fight to pick.

DWB, I get it. OK. You've made a post like this three times now. This is why I originally specifically asked for the input of affiliates primarily. I realized that some people might possibly have a conflict of interest in that they might be using mpa3 now or may have used mpa2 in the past maybe during the time when the shave features were present. With all due respect though because I usually respect your posts. I just disagree with you here. I've explained a few times already that my issue wasn't primarily the actual incident but rather the reaction to it from Mansion Productions up to this time. Besides affiliates still have a right to bring up these things should they wish. The facts are the facts.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

gfy isn't really a democracy, it's a privately owned forum. If something isn't in the interests of the owner or the owner's friends, it may get removed. Simple as that - just gotta learn to live with it.

bingo!!!!!!!!!!

[icymelon]

I surf for old threads on gfy via google

[garry]

Signupdamnit,

I wonder why you have a personal vendetta against us?! You said that if we only could show you 1 post where we apologized for this, then you would leave it alone.

Well clearly you have not spent to much time trying to find all the posts where we have said we where sorry for adding this 10 years ago, but you don't even want to accept it now as we show them to you.

This only proves, in my eyes, that you are only after trying to hurt our company!

This feature was a bad thing. We have admitted that! And we have learned our lesson, and it?s why we have spent so much time and money to make our MPA3 program the safest software out there.

You will not find many posts about MPA3 that is about ?hacked? databases, master backdoor password, email databases and so on. But this, I guess, you are not interested in?

Please also know that the feature was not for long in the MPA2 program before we removed it completely. And then later we came with MPA3.

Here is my original answer to the first thread about this.

?I'm not sure if we even should bother to spend any time on this thread. This looks like a bad try of a cover up and to try to move the focus away from yet another ?hack? of a competitor of ours.

And to you who say we have not said we were sorry that we added this feature, please read the rest of the threads and posts.

We are the only company that have been audited by a third party company because a company that are on the stock market was going to use MPA3. I whonder WHY we where the only company saying yes to this?

We are also the only program that is used by a third-party processor. Moreover, everyone who knows a little about processors and all the security they have to go through to be accepted by visa and master card know what this means.

Yes, we made a mistake many years ago. We have apologized many times since then.

If there is one company that you should trust it should be us. Imagine what would happen to our company IF we ever did something like this again!

The fact is that we have said no to different companies wanting to do different ?shady? things to the program. Like for instant being able to choose if they want set a signup manually to active or not them self.

For someone to come up with this now, so many years later, and for an old program, seems very fishy to me.

I suggest you rather search up some threads about ?security holes?, ?back doors?, ?lost? master passwords to all programs using a certain affiliate back end and access to programs email lists instead. That should give you an idea on who is to be trusted, and who is not??

[garce]

Not at all..

[BIGTYMER]

I'm a little teapot.

[pr0phet]

It's amazing people don't think they can be shaved. Every program controls their own postback. So there's you shave point. The fact mansion put in the module was dumb, it was never needed. But people are still shaving whatever joins they want.

[Konda]

Funny when someone asks something about mpa or says something bad about them they always say it's a conspiracy against them to hurt their company. And I think they really believe it is, even though it's obviously not.


Anyway, this was 10 years ago. I think a lot of programs were shaving back then and some have been caught. I think it was pretty common back then. Executive Stats also had a shave feature build in.

These days programs could still shave if they wanted, even on Nats. Maybe not with the software directly, but if the program wants to shave they can still do it, no matter what affiliate software they use.

[crockett]

The real question is how can you trust any of them.. MPA had their built in "shave" option & Nats was created by the guy that fucked many of us with his redirecting free stats counter.

[signupdamnit]

garry I honestly don't have a personal vendetta against you but you might want to rethink censoring people who bring up your mistakes or otherwise calling them trolls or parts of a conspiracy. That seldom wins you their goodwill.

The original "apology" and explanation you linked to in the other thread was bullshit in my opinion. That's why the matter didn't end there.

http://business.avn.com/articles/vid...ies-45009.html

Unfortunately, Mansion soon found itself embroiled in controversy when webmasters began to complain that the MPA2 software contained an undesirable ?shaving? option. Webmasters cried foul, but the feature had actually been included at the request of MPA clients as a way to protect program owners from foul play. ?We thought it was a really smart feature because it could offset webmaster fraud,? Wright offers. ?But that turned out to be a very bad misconception.? Realizing their mistake, Mansion immediately removed the feature, but the damage had already been done.

I still think you should consider asking AVN to restore the censored topic and all posts in full. That would be the honest and classy thing to do at this point.