Stormpay or epassport? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

nevermind · 05-19-2003, 03:05 PM

Ok Kimmy, this is a bit confusing:

On the one hand you say:

EP is run by people with a more than intimate knowledge of fraud control in the adult marketplace, which means that there won't be any surprises like suspension of adult transactions like Paypal and Yahoo have done recently.

But later on you say:

And further for the record, ePassporte is not a high risk transaction base.

Adult transactions are generally considered high risk. Are you saying that Epassporte is set up in such a way that reduces that risk?

If so, that's fine. I'm merely pointing out the documented fact that Epoch's previous risk management on the Mastercard situation was not very good.

And, since the Epoch people are both promoting and, apparently, operating Epassporte ... that track record does not necessarily assure people that they will avoid yet another PayPal type situation.

KRL · 05-19-2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DjSap

For the record, google doesn't want me to deposit cash.

Correct, Google only accepts Eyeballs. And boy do they deposit a lot of those everyday.

Now some math:

Eyeballs = Time

Time = Advertisers

Advertisers = Money

The cleverest folks know how to get you to deposit cash without you realizing you're doing so. That's one of the secrets to successful marketing.

KRL · 05-19-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind

Of course not.

I totally understand why they are located overseas. It's for their protection --- but not necessarily for the webmasters.

I just prefer U.S. companies. There's more regulation here. And, if they screw me, I have more avenues --- legal and what not --- for MY protection.

Ummm, ok, like I've posted before. I've been screwed over by more US companies than foreign companies and I've been running lemonade stands for two decades.

Kimmykim · 05-19-2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind
And further for the record, ePassporte is not a high risk transaction base.

Adult transactions are generally considered high risk. Are you saying that Epassporte is set up in such a way that reduces that risk?

If so, that's fine. I'm merely pointing out the documented fact that Epoch's previous risk management on the Mastercard situation was not very good.

Gee, nevermind, it's a shame you weren't born a boy since you sure do seem to have a hard on for anything and everything Epoch or ePassporte related, regardless of what the thread is about, as evidenced in the IBill thread on here earlier.

I'm not sure if you flunked English, didn't get out of high school at all, or what, and I really hate to be ugly to someone like you, so I'm going to say this one last time and I'd like you to read carefully -- and by all means, any more illuminating queries you can come back with from my comments, then do so, since after I say this, I am finished replying to your repetitive questions that have been answered in multiple threads already. You seem to know how to use the search feature so I'll refer to you that in the future when you are looking for that horse that's still laying dead in the road a mile or two back.

*******************
ePassporte is, and has been, from day one, set up to minimize risk for any high risk transactions it may support. It is not a 5967 product, Visa approves of how it is used on the issuing side, thus it is a viable product for these transactions.

Epoch's risk management on the Mastercard issue was not, and is not any different than any other IPSP. If you'd like to put a little bet on that, I'll be happy to take your money, just keep in mind that when I win, I do collect and I have no problem saying I told you so on something as simple as this. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, by more than just myself. If you need the link to Intercept's financial reports I will be glad to find it for you, so you can perhaps puzzle through it and realize they too have had issues with Mastercard, at the same level. Since none of the other IPSPs are either public or have filed suit against Mastercard YET you apparently seem to refuse in your narrow mind to understand the situation for what it is. I could name at least two other companies that run their own merchant accounts that no longer even accept Mastercard due to MC's decision to count credits in the same category as chargebacks and fine them for issuing credits.

I certainly commend you for your persistence, misguided as it is, but at this point I have wasted enough time correcting your misconceptions about things which are semi-public and public knowledge, easily researched and confirmed. I will also caution you to remember that when you add water to soap it often becomes a slippery situation and I'd hate for you fall off your box and land on your head.

Now, if you have any more questions about this issue, please post them here this afternoon, otherwise I will consider the subject closed and expect that if you reference it again, it is in a purely rhetorical manner.

Probono · 05-19-2003, 03:47 PM

Kim you make my heart throb!

KRL · 05-19-2003, 04:03 PM

Ya just know Kimmy's got a whip in her toy box.

Tipsy · 05-19-2003, 04:06 PM

Seems nevermind needs a new hobby. This got boring about 5 threads ago.

Probono · 05-19-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Ya just know Kimmy's got a whip in her toy box.

I believ she does, you however look enough like Tony Soprano that I think you could handle her.

nevermind · 05-19-2003, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Epoch's risk management on the Mastercard issue was not, and is not any different than any other IPSP.

Actually, I do agree with you on this point --- very much so. Ibill screwed up with Mastercard, so did PayPal as well.

But, as far as I can tell (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), those other companies don't post constant PR hype about how supposedly honest and competent their managers are.

As far back as August, 2002, there have been many GFY threads where many webmasters have questioned Epoch's billing practices --- and whether they were pushing the limits on chargebacks.

The response from Epoch was always the same: Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing. We won't cause you any problems with the credit card companies.

The Mastercard lawsuit told completely different story. Epoch was being fined millions of dollars during the same time period they were telling webmasters everything was fine. By their own account, it's gotten so bad that they had to file suit.

On top of that, Chris Mallick blatantly lies to me about Epoch's supposed lack knowledge about Mastercard's rules when, in fact, they did know --- and mismanaged the situation --- badly.

Now here comes the Epoch/Epassporte people once again --- selling Epassporte with the same motto: Trust us. We know what we are doing. We're not going to get you in trouble like PayPal or others did.

But we're not going to disclose details of the Epassporte operation.

It comes down to credibility, and there's not much to speak of.

I have rules too ...
__________________________________________

"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

Kimmykim · 05-19-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Ya just know Kimmy's got a whip in her toy box.

It's a cat 'o nine tails, darling, you want to come over and play? ;)

KRL · 05-19-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

It's a cat 'o nine tails, darling, you want to come over and play? ;)

YES! On my knees as I type Goddess KimmyKim!

Harder, harder, harder, snap, crackle, pop, . . .

Chris Mallick · 05-19-2003, 05:12 PM

OK nevermind. You still hide and refuse to say who you are or for whom you work. You have an unusually high interest in EPOCH / Epassporte and now me. So in an effort to put a period at the end of a long and boring series of your bullshit, here goes, point by point on your last. And hear this: I am not replying to any more of your bullshit until you come out of the shadows.

I think you have an agenda. I will find out what it is and who you are. Let?s start with a $250 Bounty, payable on the true and verifiable identification of ?nevermind?, paid on an epassporte card. (I?ll pay the cost of the card so it?s a net money deal?)

My comments are in line >>>>

Actually, I do agree with you on this point --- very much so. Ibill screwed up with Mastercard, so did PayPal as well.

>>>>You don?t really know what Ibill or PayPal did. You are just trying to look like you are informed.

But, as far as I can tell (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), those other companies don't post constant PR hype about how supposedly honest and competent their managers are.

>>>>You are wrong. Look at any one of these Public Companies SEC filings.

As far back as August, 2002, there have been many GFY threads where many webmasters have questioned Epoch's billing practices --- and whether they were pushing the limits on chargebacks.

>>>>EPOCH is in compliance with all card association rules and ratios. This has been discussed to death.

The response from Epoch was always the same: Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing. We won't cause you any problems with the credit card companies.

>>>>We have not caused any problems and Webmasters do not need to worry. We are solving the problems that card associations caused. Get a clue.

The Mastercard lawsuit told completely different story. Epoch was being fined millions of dollars during the same time period they were telling webmasters everything was fine. By their own account, it's gotten so bad that they had to file suit.

>>>>You can?t read. You are wrong and deliberately spreading lies. The lawsuit speaks for itself.

On top of that, Chris Mallick blatantly lies to me about Epoch's supposed lack knowledge about Mastercard's rules when, in fact, they did know --- and mismanaged the situation --- badly.

>>>>You should try and understand how serious it is to call people liars. I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise. But your secret purposes are not served by the truth.

Now here comes the Epoch/Epassporte people once again --- selling Epassporte with the same motto: Trust us. We know what we are doing. We're not going to get you in trouble like PayPal or others did.

>>>>The truth is the truth. You are not a candidate for epassporte or EPOCH. Webmasters make choices everyday. You want to lie to deliberately try and influence those choices, fine. Just remember that Webmasters are smart enough to understand that you have an agenda and that you are probably motivated to damage us.

But we're not going to disclose details of the Epassporte operation.

>>>>No. Most businesses that don?t choose to sell stock to the public choose to keep their private (not secret) information private.

It comes down to credibility, and there's not much to speak of.

>>>>I agree. You are full of shit.

I have rules too ...

>>>>Wait till you see my rules.

Now, come out, come out wherever you are, unless you have something to hide.

Kimmykim · 05-19-2003, 05:14 PM

Oh gee, looks like I missed your post, since I skimmed and noticed my tagline at the bottom of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind
Actually, I do agree with you on this point --- very much so. Ibill screwed up with Mastercard, so did PayPal as well.

LOL your childish persistence with this fallacy just doesn't stop does it. If you had 15 chargebacks and 16 credits in a single month, Mastercard could choose to fine you for those credits by treating them as chargebacks. I realize that your mind doesn't do math well at this point, so we'll leave this one here.

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind
As far back as August, 2002, there have been many GFY threads where many webmasters have questioned Epoch's billing practices --- and whether they were pushing the limits on chargebacks.

The response from Epoch was always the same: Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing. We won't cause you any problems with the credit card companies.

Call me blind but don't call me deaf. The major sponsors and other processors in this industry are delighted with Epoch's lawsuit and see the reasoning behind it. Of course they are also the same guys using Epoch, who also use cross sells etc and don't have additional chargeback issues because if that use. I'm so sorry that the people who are the backbone of this industry don't agree with you, I'm going to email them all right now and tell them they are wrong. I am sure they will be delighted to know that before they also file their suits against Mastercard.

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind
The Mastercard lawsuit told completely different story. Epoch was being fined millions of dollars during the same time period they were telling webmasters everything was fine. By their own account, it's gotten so bad that they had to file suit.

Wow, you're a pornographer and an attorney? Who'da thunk it? You obviously have never filed or counterfiled in any sort of civil suit that was handled outside of small claims court. Geez, Brad Shaw managed to generate as much paperwork in one response to my attorney as Epoch did in their initial Mastercard claim. But then again I guess your brilliant legal mind never realized that attorneys pile it on, since a judge is going to trim the fat heavily in any suit of this size.

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind
On top of that, Chris Mallick blatantly lies to me about Epoch's supposed lack knowledge about Mastercard's rules when, in fact, they did know --- and mismanaged the situation --- badly.

Chris Mallick blatantly lies to you? Or you blatantly libel and defame Chris Mallick with that statement? I think the jury wouldn't have too much trouble deciding this argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by nevermind
But we're not going to disclose details of the Epassporte operation.

It comes down to credibility, and there's not much to speak of.

No, we aren't disclosing how ePassporte is run.

Especially not to someone anonymous with no credibility. Not even to think of, much less to speak of.

nevermind · 05-19-2003, 07:03 PM

OK Chris.

You say:

EPOCH is in compliance with all card association rules and ratios. This has been discussed to death.

We have not caused any problems and Webmasters do not need to worry. We are solving the problems that card associations caused. Get a clue.

You can?t read. You are wrong and deliberately spreading lies. The lawsuit speaks for itself.

Yes, it does:

http://www.paycom.net/mastercard/lawsuit.pdf

Page 30-31:

Paycom (Epoch) has experienced chargeback ratios in excess of Mastercard's 1% chargeback threshold in the months of August, September, and December of 2001, and January, February, March, April and May of 2002. Paycom's chargeback ratio has been below Mastercard's 1% chargeback threshold each and every month since June, 2002.

However, Page 39 of the lawsuit also states:

Mastercard is threatening to impose fines of $2,500 per day and/or terminate Paycom's ability to accept Mastercard unless Paycom substantially re-structures it's business.

In regards to this post:

You should try and understand how serious it is to call people liars. I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise. But your secret purposes are not served by the truth.

Your explanation for falling out of compliance for eight months up to May, 2002 was that you were not aware of new Mastercard rules imposed two years earlier in March, 2000:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...pagen umber=5

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.

AVN article published in:

May 2000 ... where the ENTIRE ADULT INDUSTRY was informed about the new Mastercard Rule:

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

If you didn't lie to me, then you must have been hiding under a rock in 2000 and missed what the entire industry knew. The entire industry "got a clue." Strange that you didn't --- considering the huge impact it had upon your business and clients, as well as your supposed expertise in this area.

Either you are a liar or you are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

Wait till you see my rules.

Bring on the lawyers, bounties and anything else you can think of.

Just FYI, I've litigated four cases in my lifetime as a plaintiff, both in state and federal court.

I won all of 'em.

I'm more than prepared to file a counter suit if it comes to that.

View Poll Results: Stormpay or epassport who is better and easier for surfers?
Stormpay	29	50.88%
epassport	28	49.12%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

05-19-2003, 04:03 PM	#56
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Ya just know Kimmy's got a whip in her toy box. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

05-19-2003, 05:12 PM	#62
Chris Mallick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Marina del Rey, CA, USA Posts: 679	OK nevermind. You still hide and refuse to say who you are or for whom you work. You have an unusually high interest in EPOCH / Epassporte and now me. So in an effort to put a period at the end of a long and boring series of your bullshit, here goes, point by point on your last. And hear this: I am not replying to any more of your bullshit until you come out of the shadows. I think you have an agenda. I will find out what it is and who you are. Let?s start with a $250 Bounty, payable on the true and verifiable identification of ?nevermind?, paid on an epassporte card. (I?ll pay the cost of the card so it?s a net money deal?) My comments are in line >>>> Actually, I do agree with you on this point --- very much so. Ibill screwed up with Mastercard, so did PayPal as well. >>>>You don?t really know what Ibill or PayPal did. You are just trying to look like you are informed. But, as far as I can tell (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), those other companies don't post constant PR hype about how supposedly honest and competent their managers are. >>>>You are wrong. Look at any one of these Public Companies SEC filings. As far back as August, 2002, there have been many GFY threads where many webmasters have questioned Epoch's billing practices --- and whether they were pushing the limits on chargebacks. >>>>EPOCH is in compliance with all card association rules and ratios. This has been discussed to death. The response from Epoch was always the same: Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing. We won't cause you any problems with the credit card companies. >>>>We have not caused any problems and Webmasters do not need to worry. We are solving the problems that card associations caused. Get a clue. The Mastercard lawsuit told completely different story. Epoch was being fined millions of dollars during the same time period they were telling webmasters everything was fine. By their own account, it's gotten so bad that they had to file suit. >>>>You can?t read. You are wrong and deliberately spreading lies. The lawsuit speaks for itself. On top of that, Chris Mallick blatantly lies to me about Epoch's supposed lack knowledge about Mastercard's rules when, in fact, they did know --- and mismanaged the situation --- badly. >>>>You should try and understand how serious it is to call people liars. I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise. But your secret purposes are not served by the truth. Now here comes the Epoch/Epassporte people once again --- selling Epassporte with the same motto: Trust us. We know what we are doing. We're not going to get you in trouble like PayPal or others did. >>>>The truth is the truth. You are not a candidate for epassporte or EPOCH. Webmasters make choices everyday. You want to lie to deliberately try and influence those choices, fine. Just remember that Webmasters are smart enough to understand that you have an agenda and that you are probably motivated to damage us. But we're not going to disclose details of the Epassporte operation. >>>>No. Most businesses that don?t choose to sell stock to the public choose to keep their private (not secret) information private. It comes down to credibility, and there's not much to speak of. >>>>I agree. You are full of shit. I have rules too ... >>>>Wait till you see my rules. Now, come out, come out wherever you are, unless you have something to hide. __________________ Chris Mallick [email protected]

05-19-2003, 07:03 PM	#64
nevermind Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 276	OK Chris. You say: EPOCH is in compliance with all card association rules and ratios. This has been discussed to death. We have not caused any problems and Webmasters do not need to worry. We are solving the problems that card associations caused. Get a clue. You can?t read. You are wrong and deliberately spreading lies. The lawsuit speaks for itself. Yes, it does: http://www.paycom.net/mastercard/lawsuit.pdf Page 30-31: Paycom (Epoch) has experienced chargeback ratios in excess of Mastercard's 1% chargeback threshold in the months of August, September, and December of 2001, and January, February, March, April and May of 2002. Paycom's chargeback ratio has been below Mastercard's 1% chargeback threshold each and every month since June, 2002. However, Page 39 of the lawsuit also states: Mastercard is threatening to impose fines of $2,500 per day and/or terminate Paycom's ability to accept Mastercard unless Paycom substantially re-structures it's business. In regards to this post: You should try and understand how serious it is to call people liars. I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise. But your secret purposes are not served by the truth. Your explanation for falling out of compliance for eight months up to May, 2002 was that you were not aware of new Mastercard rules imposed two years earlier in March, 2000: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...pagen umber=5 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. AVN article published in: May 2000 ... where the ENTIRE ADULT INDUSTRY was informed about the new Mastercard Rule: http://www.avnonline.com/issues/2000...c0500_01.shtml If you didn't lie to me, then you must have been hiding under a rock in 2000 and missed what the entire industry knew. The entire industry "got a clue." Strange that you didn't --- considering the huge impact it had upon your business and clients, as well as your supposed expertise in this area. Either you are a liar or you are completely incompetent. Take your pick. Wait till you see my rules. Bring on the lawyers, bounties and anything else you can think of. Just FYI, I've litigated four cases in my lifetime as a plaintiff, both in state and federal court. I won all of 'em. I'm more than prepared to file a counter suit if it comes to that. Last edited by nevermind; 05-19-2003 at 07:21 PM..

05-19-2003, 03:05 PM	#51
nevermind Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 276	Ok Kimmy, this is a bit confusing: On the one hand you say: EP is run by people with a more than intimate knowledge of fraud control in the adult marketplace, which means that there won't be any surprises like suspension of adult transactions like Paypal and Yahoo have done recently. But later on you say: And further for the record, ePassporte is not a high risk transaction base. Adult transactions are generally considered high risk. Are you saying that Epassporte is set up in such a way that reduces that risk? If so, that's fine. I'm merely pointing out the documented fact that Epoch's previous risk management on the Mastercard situation was not very good. And, since the Epoch people are both promoting and, apparently, operating Epassporte ... that track record does not necessarily assure people that they will avoid yet another PayPal type situation.

05-19-2003, 03:47 PM	#55
Probono Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Under the Rainbow Posts: 2,731	Kim you make my heart throb!

05-19-2003, 04:06 PM	#57
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Seems nevermind needs a new hobby. This got boring about 5 threads ago.