tony286

Yeah you cant unclick the $39.95 . 200 ! do I win a prize lol

nevermind

Yes.

Paycom is admitting that they were not complaint for 8 out of a 12 months starting in August 2001. (It starts at the bottom of page 30 of the lawsuit.)

Then, Paycom claims they're compliant as of June 2002, but that non-complaint chargeback data was somehow reported to Mastercard in "error".

If someone is violating your rules and screwing up your business for most of the past year ... and they now come to you and say .... "We're compliant now ... this new data showing that we screwed up again is wrong ..."

What would you do?

Even if you're right, it doesn't build much credibility with Mastercard. In light of the several months of chargeback overages, Mastercard probably threw up their hands and said screw it.

Best I can tell, your lawsuit says you were out of compliance for several months ... but were unfairly penalized for a few other months. Well ... no matter how you phrase it ... that doesn't look good.

Epoch has consistantly portrayed itself as a company with the expertise and ability to effectively manage chargebacks and the like but, by your own account, it doesn't look like you guys have done a very good job.

Don't worry about cross sells or any other aggressive billing tactics ... your CEO says. We won't get you in trouble with Mastercard or anyone else. We've got it all under control ...

Obviously, that's not the case.

ronin

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nevermind
[B]

Yes.

Paycom is admitting that they were not complaint for 8 out of a 12 months starting in August 2001. (It starts at the bottom of page 30 of the lawsuit.)

Then, Paycom claims they're compliant as of June 2002, but that non-complaint chargeback data was somehow reported to Mastercard in "error".

SHIT, that is a MIGHTY BIG "error"

Chris Mallick

Thanks Daniel. We resepect your opinion and we agree that our lawyers did a great job with the lawsuit. See you in FLA.

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

gothweb

For a while, I have thought that the 1% chargeback percentage was reasonable. I get very few chargebacks. However, I just checked my stats, and I am at like 8/10 of a percent as is. If sites with the audience mine have can get that ratio, then a ton of people must be over 1%.

__________________

Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes.
Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money.
MojoHost: Still the best.

Chris Mallick

I have a dinner meeting in a few, so this is going to be short and I?m not going to debate the facts; the lawsuit speaks for itself.

But some of you may remember that on the way to last year?s Phoenix Forum, banks called IPSP?s and told us that the MC threshold was 1% and had been for a year or two. Before that, we all used 2.5%. So we were (as was everyone else) ?over?. We are now under and have been for a year straight. Prior to that year period we were over and under while changing year?s of risk management and scrubbing to meet that ridiculous threshold.

In any event, no matter who counts what, we were under and there was NO fine program we could have been fined under. True: Our bank misreported our trans counts for a few months. They admitted the error, sent MC a correct count and we all went about our business. So MC knew the correct numbers.

nevermind, I don?t expect you or everyone to agree with us on everything. But if there is one time or one event that we can ALL get together on and around it is this: MasterCard Rules and Fines are intolerable and will put thousands of webmasters out of business if not stopped. So while I am not delusional I am hopeful that we can all come together and fight a good, righteous fight against a common foe.

Let?s show a little solidarity here. I know for a fact that MC reads this and other boards. (BTW, MasterCard ? A warm welcome and a warm ?Go Fuck Yourself?). I am glad they are here and watching, because they should see the overwhelming support we have and that we are a real industry made up of real people supporting real families.

They can call us anything they want, just treat us fairly. They have not thus far. In a few weeks, months or years we will know how this ends. Our money is literally on our side of this fight. From you, we ask nothing except a little support and good will.

Gotta go?.

Back online in the AM.

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

nevermind

Uh ... sorry Chris ... but page 27 of the lawsuit says the one percent threshold was implemented in March 2000.

Your lawsuit doesn't mention that your company was not informed about this in 2000. I assume that if you weren't informed, you would have mentioned it.

So, even if you had to make some scrubbing and management adjustments, that doesn't really explain the eight months of overages that started in August, 2001 --- a good year and a half later. It looks like you had plenty of time to meet that threshold. Yet, the overages continued for several months until May 2002.

According to your lawsuit (p.28), the only change in 2002 was that you could now be fined for a year's worth of penalties if you went over for two months. Seems a bit harsh but, considering you admit eight months of overages in the prior year ... maybe not too out of line in this case.

Sorry if I don't feel like jumping on the solidarity bandwagon. I'm just wondering what, exactly, have people have been getting for that 15 percent.

Kimmykim

LOL, nevermind, you've actually managed to fall from your high (although dead) horse, and land on your soap box without breaking so much as a sweat it would seem.

Couple of interesting points here for you to chew on and regurgitate back out like the vomit omelette on Jackass...

Both Visa and Mastercard have different regions with different requirements, and if someone happened to be settling cards in a different region they may not have fallen under the same regulations as exist today without cross border acquisition. Of course I'm sure you'll dispute this to your death, but I'd suggest you use your brain and see if you can get someone who was perhaps a PRI client to explain how these things can happen, more specifically August of last year. Not something that affected IPSPs but something that had far reaching ramifications for the good, the bad and the caught in the middle.

Next item up for grabs is the fact that to the best of my personal knowledge (which is like a damned old elephant that cant get out of the yard because you built a fence after it was in), Dan and SA were in charge at Epoch in March of 2000. I don't seem to recall Chris being there until at least May. Nor do I seem to remember ANYONE who's done business with them say that things weren't in a tremendously fucked up state of affairs, regardless of who the previous management was or what they might have done to create the situation. Their faults as a company then are already on display in the suit I mentioned earlier, being the one against Andy et al...

Last but not least, I have come to realize that the volume of business you generate is pretty small and while I don't hold that against you, it's obvious that you have zero grasp of how a high volume transaction base is managed -- regardless of whether it's IPSP or own merchant account. So you end up like a little dog, yipping at someone's pants leg, hoping to tear the cuff. This last comment is not based on your comments regarding Paycom, but on your apparent naivete and demonstrated lack of knowledge regarding credit card processing. I'm sure you'll debate this, but really, card processing is the same in any industry, not just adult. It wasn't two years ago that Expedia alone had to admit to 2 million in uncaught fraud during a quarter... it happens.

Perhaps you'd be happier working in some other industry, like pharmaceuticals or tobacco?

DyannaDoes

nevermind

Why didn't you edit your last post? It looks like you've edited almost every other one . . .

__________________
"Profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker."

opflix

??? ok, we know its not JUST about 3rd party but the effects of this should be discussed as well as the reason for it. you're a smart chick... tell us what YOU think the effects of this will be?

..

__________________
Social Escrow - Buying & Selling Accounts? Contact Me | Social Escrow IG

DyannaDoes

Do they offer ESL in Florida?

__________________
"Profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker."

Paul Markham

Yes this needs Paypal, CCBill, IBill and the rest in on it.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

tony286

Why are you attacking Nevermind he is allowed to have his opinion just like everyone else. KK you have shown us all you are loyal to your employer, you can relax now lol. I respect what Epoch is doing and wish them well but Epoch isnt doing this for us Epoch is doing this for Epoch. If they cared for the webmaster so much after everyone had to be signed up with Visa US why didnt they drop the processing rate? At that point we were visable to Visa and could be dropped by them no longer protected by the third party processor. I hope they do well on their case but lets be real.

nevermind

Kimmy:

I'm only reading the facts as outlined in your own lawsuit. So far, neither you nor Chris have disputed those facts. Is it wrong to question how you've been managing the situation now that it's reached a crisis and webmasters may lose Mastercard processing all together?

Epoch has always touted their supposed great relationships and expertise with the credit card companies. But your own lawsuit tells a different story:

In March 2000, Mastercard says Epoch must lower their chargebacks from 2.5 to 1 percent. It's not clear what happens in the next year and a half, but Epoch violates this rule beginning in August, 2001.

In the next 10 months, Epoch falls out of compliance for 8 out of those 10 months until May, 2002.

By June, 2002, Mastercard cracks down hard: They say they will now levy a year's worth of fines every time Epoch incurs more than 1 percent chargebacks over a two month period.

Coincidentally, also in June 2002, Epoch says they are suddenly in compliance. But their bank has reported erroneous data to Mastercard showing that Epoch is still violating their rules. Mastercard fines Epoch again from June through September of 2002, and levies additional penalties.

The lawsuit doesn't mention what happens after September, 2002 but, in the following months, Epoch promotes aggressive cross sell programs which raise concerns about excessive chargebacks and Epoch's relationship with the credit card companies.

Epoch tells webmasters everything is fine.

By May, 2003, Epoch must file a lawsuit since Mastercard is threatening to put them out of business. Mastercard is demanding that Epoch completely restructure their business or they will no longer allow Mastercard processing for their adult merchants.

opflix

is this supposed to b an insult? if so, work on your clarity... if not, WTF is ESL?

__________________
Social Escrow - Buying & Selling Accounts? Contact Me | Social Escrow IG

Chris Mallick

I love these guys that hide behind a board name. Nevermind: Who are you? What program do you sponsor? What sites do you own? Are you hoping for employment at MasterCard? Would you like to come by our offices and talk? I say come out from behind the curtain, stop hiding like a bitch and let?s get to know each other. Maybe I can convince you to come over to the side of the Webmaster community. Consider it an open invitation.

I do think you have the right to your opinion, but you also have a responsibility to be accurate.

First, KK does NOT, I repeat for the millionth time, NOT work for Paycom / EPOCH. She is a Consultant? marketing for another, non-related entity that we at Paycom / EPOCH also do work for.

Secondly, did you know that the rules of the card associations are not given to merchants? We have to follow rules that we are not allowed to have, by the association?s rules. We are to be informed by our acquiring bank, the member of the association, of the rules. We were not informed in March of 2000. No one was. Every 3rd Party / IPSP / Aggregator / Merchant with their own account, all of us believed that 2.5% was the threshold until we were told in May of 2002 that there had been changed a year and a half earlier and that enforcement and fines were coming down for the entire period. Now that is deceptive, imo. To have rules not provided or disclosed and to fine retroactively is far worse than any cross sell that you keep referring to. BTW, our chargebacks and credits on those sales are less than other products.

In case you don?t know, changing risk parameters and reducing chargebacks from 2.5% to 1% can?t happen over night. It takes time. It took several months, during which we were under and over back and forth as I posted earlier and as is in our lawsuit. I won?t take the time to pull out page numbers. We don?t claim otherwise as your post suggests.

Thirdly, the lawsuit DOES mention what happened after September 2002. You just conveniently missed that data.

Fourth, we never said we were in compliance ?coincidentally? ever. We don?t have to, it is a clear-cut issue; you are either over or under. As you obviously don?t know, let me explain: MC only gets numbers from banks, unlike Visa that has its own system of reporting and counting. So banks sometimes make mistakes. If you, nevermind, for example had $102.00 in your BofA account (I bet my numbers are pretty close huh?) and a machine or human made a mistake and bounced a check you had written for $52.00, you would call, complain and the situation would be rectified. The check still bounced but the bank would admit the error. This is the same issue, except the problem had a few more zeros. That is the plain simple truth. If it weren?t we would not have put it in our lawsuit.

Lastly, EPOCH did not ?have to sue? to stay in business or to continue accepting MC. We could have passed the fine along to Webmasters and kept our mouth?s shut and been good little boys getting bitch-slapped by MC every month or so. But we don?t do that here. We fight for our rights and the rights of our clients. That?s what you get for your 15%, plus features that don?t create chargebacks or FTC issues.

In conclusion let me just say again that you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I don?t need or even necessarily want YOUR help. My opinion is that you have another agenda and that you are an asshole to boot. It seems to me that you are trying to mislead and defend MC and to make their points. I hope they use your logic so we can win a multi million-dollar judgment, fast.

In the meantime, a little word of advice: Getting into a debate with me is one thing; but Kimmy will cut your balls off and stick them in your ass. So you may want to chill the fuck out, put your paper hat back on and say loudly and proudly ?Good Morning and Welcome to McDonalds?, would you like to Super Size that?? But what do I know?

Don?t forget my invitation for you to come by our offices or meet me anywhere you want so we can become friends and so that you can better understand our business.

PS: I will super size my fries. Thanks.

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

nevermind

Ok. Well, as far as I can tell, this information isn't mentioned in your lawsuit. If I missed it, feel free to point it out to me. If not, then it seems like that would be a pretty important point to make to the court.

I'll go ahead ignore the personal insults. I don't work for MC. I don't work for any of your competitors.

I'm just another webmaster trying to find a billing company that I can trust, which is extremely difficult these days. IMHO, all of the processors have management problems ... but that's another story.

Sorry if my researching the details offends you. Now that most of my questions have been answered, I'm out.

Chris Mallick

Discretion; I like it. Thanks.

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

Rand

New CNet article posted yesterday:

http://news.com.com/2100-1019_3-1001393.html?tag=fd_top

__________________
-- Rand


Payment Industry - Communications - Quality Assurance

Kimmykim

Hey tony -- nevermind is a SHE, not a he.

Chris covered the employment issue yet again, so I'll leave that one alone.

And yes, of course, Epoch is doing this for themselves. And their customers. Since without their customers they would have no business and thus nothing to file in regards to.

I am not sure what lowering the processing rate has to do with it - Epoch, just like CCBill, IBill, WSB, Jettis, ACPay, and every other IPSP/aggregator is in business to make money. And while it might seem that they make tons of money on every transaction, it's not really like that. For instance, staffing a call center around the clock with people who are a several notches above McDonalds employees is not a cheap proposition... the associated expenses with doing such a business are alot larger than most people realize I guess...

Rand

ZDNet covers lawsuit:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1001393.html

__________________
-- Rand


Payment Industry - Communications - Quality Assurance

psyko514

While we're talking about Epoch: do you guys process for Canadian webmasters? Or do we need an American presence?

__________________

SleazyDream

Sad truth but McDonalds has made MORE money than the ENTIRE online porn industry and did it without taking a single mastercard purchase..............

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

DyannaDoes

Damn, I am going to miss nevermind

__________________
"Profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker."

Chris Mallick

USA entities only, thus far. Sorry.
C

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

Kimmykim

LOL Sleazy... the McD's around here not only take debit cards, they slap an extra .50 per order on you to do it ;)

psycko -- I don't know of anyone with a purely Canadian solution since you guys don't have any qualifying banks up there that will run 5967 -- so a US presence is pretty much required to do it right I am thinking hahahaha

andi_germany

I beg to differ in the case of IBill. My experience with their customer support is that I would actually get better answers when I ask them at the MD drive in counter.

I know you cannot comment on that but thats my honest opinion

Kimmykim

My only comment is a question, I thought they outsourced their csr work?

pine

I'm just a little fish in a big pond. :-)

nevermind

Sorry to bring up a sore subject Chris, but I just happened to run across some very interesting information about the Mastercard 1 percent chargeback rule implemented in March, 2000.

You say:

We were not informed in March of 2000. No one was. Every 3rd Party / IPSP / Aggregator / Merchant with their own account, all of us believed that 2.5% was the threshold until we were told in May of 2002 that there had been changed a year and a half earlier and that enforcement and fines were coming down for the entire period.

AVN Article Published in May 2000 about the new 1 percent Mastercard chargeback rule:

http://www.avnonline.com/issues/2000...c0500_01.shtml

AVN was informed and, apparently, so was the entire adult industry. In fact, one of your major clients is quoted in the article saying they are very worried about it.

But Epoch itself wasn't told you say ... Hmmmmm.

My position still stands. Despite having a year and a half to comply, Epoch ran substantial overages in late 2001 and 2002. And, quite frankly, it doesn't look like you were doing a very good job.

Before you and Kimmy try to distract everyone with yet more personal insults, I'd like to remind you about Kimmy's tag line:

Something about "Lying to my face " ?????

Yeah ... that tends to bother me too ... LOL

BTW ... let's see if you can come up with something better than the old McDonald's stuff. Kinda tired, don't ya think?

SleazyDream

McDonalds only VERY recently started taking credit cards........for years they gorssed more than ther ENTIRE online porn industry does TODAY without credit cards.

Most owners of McDonalds restrauants do very well.
I'd wager execs withig the McDicks corp make a comnparable penny to execs in adult adult credit card processing - if not more.

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

SleazyDream

Nevermind - I'm not one for stopping negative comments, hell I LOVE EM - but this in debth bullshit trying to defame epoch without attaching your name to it shows you have little courage and respectability.

You've made some good attempts at derogatory comments but without putting your name on the door they lack any validity. I'm not saying epoch is an angel (who is?) - I am saying they have enough GUTS to stand up for themselves and the rest of us in this industry.

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

nevermind

To defame someone, you have to spread lies about them. Everything I've said has come from Epoch's own court documents or, as mentioned above, the AVN article. I even cited the page numbers in the lawsuit if you would like to go back and read the previous posts.

I was willing to give Chris the benefit of the doubt on the last point we discussed but, as Kimmy's tag line suggests, I tend to get annoyed when I am misled.

I've actually used Epoch in the past and was very happy with them. And, I was looking into processing with them again --- until I realized what was really happening here.

Chris Mallick

Well said. I am not going to continue a debate with a nameless, faceless person or entity. Nevermind, when you are not ashamed to stand in the light, lmk; I am ready to debate. Until then, GFY.
C

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

Chris Mallick

Libel is the written form of defamation. That is what you are doing.
C

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

Kimmykim

What's really going on there? Nothing more or less than goes on in ANY sizable merchant operation, be it an IPSP or an own merchant account.

My comment about finding a job in another industry still stands.

SleazyDream

I?

I?

I?

Who the fuck are you?

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

Kimmykim

Now that's a good question.

SleazyDream

and to take this a step further Nevermind I do NO business with epoch- although I do have a crush on kimmykim but she doesn't work for epoch.

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

Krimsin

No worries, Justice will prevail! Keep up the fight!

Jay_StandAhead

This is quite common

__________________

Our Programs: StandAhead | IndieBucks | BoyCrushCash | Phoenixxx | EmoProfits | BritishBucks | HunkMoney | LatinoBucks
Make $$$ with Gay! Lowest Minimum Payouts in the Business, Perfect Track Record, Amazing Sites

tony286

She works for a company that may have some of the same owners as epoch but she is not sure and I agree she is cute, Chris cant say if you are cute or not. Will Dean be taking seminudes of you soon ? Now that would be a epassporte ad lol.

SleazyDream

anyone who does any real amount of business in online adult is connected in some small way or another to most of the main players

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

Chris Mallick

KK does not work. She is wealthy in her own right from modeling.

__________________

Chris Mallick
[email protected]

nevermind

Actually, libel is maliciously spreading untruths. Feel free to have your lawyers review my posts, which are all based upon your own court documents and statements --- including page citations.

So ... are you saying you didn't lie to me about your knowledge of the March, 2000 rule?

It would certainly explain why you did not make that claim in the lawsuit. The court would probably frown upon it since it's obviously untrue.

You guys can try to turn this on me all you like. Truth is, you don't want to address the real issues about how your company has been handling this problem.

__________________________

"I have rules, and one of them is that if you lie to my face, I will come back and bury you repeatedly in every forum I have. " -- James Cramer, Thestreet.com

tony286

I can see the not working part, spends all her time posting on this board lol.

SleazyDream

nevermind - quit ripping off kimmy's sig.

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

Kimmykim

LOL she can have it, it served its purpose ;)

Right now I'm headed back to the airport but the next time I'm online multitasking I'll find a new one for tony404, since he fails to realize that some people are capable of doing many things at once.

SomeCreep

where am I?

__________________

Webair Hosting

I use and recommend Webair for hosting.

justice

I have worked in the law department for two of the top adult billing companies and I can say this is a fine line Paycom is walking. As a lawyer I can say Paycom may doom the internet adult arena for all of us.

I agree, Mastercard may not cancel Paycoms merchant agreement during the suit but after the law suit, win or lose, Mastercard may decide, just like American Express, to pull out of the adult industry altogether. This would affect all of us as an industry. Where would we be if we could not accept Mastercard as payment.

If you think they cannot make that decision you all are mistaken. Just like any business, including Paycom, they can conduct business with who they choose. It was Paycoms decision to accept Mastercard and when they signed the merchant agreement they agreed to adhere to the credit card association standards regardless what they be.

While working in this industry both companies that I was employed by exceeded the threholds set forth by the associations and I found working with the credit card associations to come into a more compliant scenerio worked out for both companies, my company and the associations now have a good working relationship and they even assist in compliance solutions. These solutions now have us in compliance with the associations thresholds.

We all have to be realistic. This industry has a dark side, may it be friendly fraud, hackers or deceptive practices by some web sites, this is very difficult to prove by the adult industry and the associations and will causes a problem during this lawsuit.

I would suggest Paycom make an effort to work with Mastercard to resolve any concerns or Mastercard may shock and effect us all in the end.

I would not want the weight of the entire adult internet industry relying on the outcome of lawsuit that most likely won't pan out in our favor.

GOOD LUCK!!

Justice