50 wrong doers

Frankly I don't see why 2257 compliance should have anything to do with it either. A 2257 notice is no guarantee that a site does not contain child porn. And does obeying an arbitrary American law make you a better webmaster?

I thought ASACP was formed to enable the adult webmaster community to regulate itself. Making 2257 compliance a requirement for membership merely passes that buck right into the hands of the US government.

B

a 2257 notice isn't a guarentee but at least it says model IDs and contracts exist. all respectible sites follow these guidelines at a min

I hear you but all I'm saying is that anybody can put a bogus 2257 notice on their website. It's existence proves nothing. And only respectible AMERICAN sites need to follow these guidelines. The problem with using 2257 as an ASACP membership requirement is:
a) anybody can fake a 2257 notice
b) it forces non-American webmasters to obey a foreign law

I think a better condition to ASACP membership would be a pledge to not promote "lolita" and other borderline content (not to mention the illegal stuff), or use certain keywords, that is diligently enforced by ASACP and its members.

B

I would cept I ain't gonna be there :-(

ok, i can accept that. that being said, why exclude a site like sleazydream then if I'm capable of total compliance to those terms and accept another advertising site like sex.com?

No no Sleazy... Finger good... Tongue Better... DILDO BAAAAADDDD... Not TGP!

I agree with Sleazy, is this a matter of who knows who and all or to they have a valid point bout nor accepting Sleazydream money.

I heard they told Sleazy he could donate anonymously... Now that is a joke. Whom would want to donate a substantial amount of money without getting noticed ???

Hopefully we can get an expplanation in this thread. I support ASACP 150% but am very curious on why do they reject someone as involved in our industry as Sleazy ???

I hear this guy is a STUD!!

That is a good question. Joan?

B

good question

Huh. That's messed up. I understand double standards on somethings...but why with this? Doesn't make any sense :(

alright ... dealing with as much content as i do .. 2257 is a law that was to verufy that the girl was over the age of 18 at the time of the performance.

with that being said ...

I can buy keywords from sex.com and redirect the traffic to an illegal site for a long time before i am caught ... although on most TGP's especially Sleazy it is not allowed and is kicked off the site in a matter of min... if it even makes it .. i think that guys like shemp and sleazy have made grave efforts to live within the standards of the internet and should not be disallowed to join a coalition that is made of of people that want to stop illegal acitivities....

working together and allowing them into something that is important like this would further help all of the community and maybe give asacp some insite to the TGP world...

now i am getting off my soapbox later....

stud muffin that is :winkwink:

Gary has more $ than you. You have to brag about your new amex card. Gary has real $ not kids $. Maybe you had $ before your wife left you high and dry.

pass the popcorn

Truth is that they do not accept amex and that is all he has.

Doesn't make any sense to me why they'd exclude you Sleazy and not Sex.com

maybe sex.com helps them?

If i were you'd i'd pull any links to them.

youa re not understanding the fact that this is not a "hey let's drop them thing" this is a we need to educate them. TGP's are different than most sites... and the fact is that there is no understanding on what or how to treat them in respects to some of the laws that govern us. so if we actually take some time to get some education then we might all benefit

:thumbsup :thumbsup

That's what the guys at Cybersocket all say :)

Sleazy,

I agree with you..... It makes no sense to me too.

Jman - I think you hit it on the head by saying it is probably a who knows who.....

Born

That was my point a few weeks ago. I wanted to give them lolittas.com and all I wanted was a receipt or some sort of credit. I support their cause, etc. All I got was bitched at for being oportunistic. God forbid I'd like to help a causee and get something in return. :(

Come to think of it, they might have turned me down because of CJ and the same TGP ruling they gave Sleazy. Heck, I don't know what their rules are but if they are Adult Sites against Child Pornography, they should tell the Adult Sites what the rules are.

no kidding - i wasn't pissed at being turned down till i realized that they accepted sex.com.

what the fuck is the difference between sex.com and a site like sleazydream or cj?

I believe Sex.com was a founding member and Gary is on their board.

:(

So it's a who knows/is who type of deal ???

okay, now you know I support you in your quest to be allowed to be an acknowledged sponsor of ASACP, but please, did you stop and think before you hit submit on that question?

:thumbsup :thumbsup

well it seems after the icqs i've gotten today i'm not the only one excluded..... i would think a professional organization like the asacp would at least grant me an attempt at an answer to this question - i thought it was a reasonable one - maybe i'm wrong????

I agree that ASACP should answer the question, and I am quite surprised that no one has seen fit to do so . . . however, comparing CJ to sex.com, or even comparing you to either of them seems like comparing apples, to oranges, to walnuts. :2 cents:

Yeah, that's an important question to resolve.

I mean, here WE all are standing together, in support of progressive change in the industry and sensible legislation. But some of us are being discrminated against for our BUSINESS MODELS.

Sleazy is simply the warmest, most giving person I have ever met. Second only to my mom. It hurts me that he should ever be made to feel ashamed of what he does.

j-

Isnt it better that the big boys take care of this. Atleast I think so... program owners and big wealth Gary is fine.

It's not hard to figure it out.

Elite only.

TGP?

:1orglaugh

this all could be a april's fools joke on you.

Sleazy is one of the biggest players in this industry and contributes a lot to the overall community... I can't understand

(a) why they wouldn't want his donation

(b) why is is taking ASCAP so long to give him a serious answer to his question....

This just seems bad to me.... hopefully we will get an answer soon...

Terry
www.projectvoyeur.com

since the asacp doesn't think it's neceassary to explain this, maybe you can.

revenue aside, what's the difference between a site like sex.com and sleazydream when it comes to dealing with advertisers and 2257 compliance in how our sites operate?

thanks terry - but i'm FULLY aware that i'm a small fish in a BIG pond.

Hey Aly :Graucho

I spoke to Gracie on Friday and I am going to help- out on Saturday afternoon!

Look foward to seeing ya there :thumbsup

First off, I think you totally misinterpreted what I was saying, and I am not about to try and make excuses for ASACP, primarily because it is not my place, and secondly because I do not know why they refuse your money.

However, the differences between a TGP and a SE should not be that difficult to see.

Comparing either to CJ was really stretching it IMHO

Bump for this very good question.
I would have thought an answer would have been given by now.

So it says,
"ASACP is the organization that helps the adult site industry make a difference in the battle against child pornography"

I can't say I understand fully on what their reason would be. But from their slogan above, I would think ANY adult site, given that they had proper compliance, is more then welcome to donate and support the cause. But why a site would be turned down if the site met the rules and proper compliance, make no sense.

Sounds like politics to me.

I'm very curious to hear the answer to this question.

Isnt that group also for the .xxx fiasco?

I ran into the same problem but it wasnt with the TGP issue
It was because I ran a pill program. No other reason other than that My affilate program is a pill program.

I guess the money has to come from PORN to be used with them

Still a good cause but i think something needs to be re thinked
turning down good money

i would like to know the difference from a 2257 standpoint between a SE an TGP

I agree. I don't have a single 2257 nor any links to them. I simply link to paysites much in the same way that a TGP would so why would a SE like sex.com be treated any differently than a TGP?

WG

I'm going to be VERY clear here.

I told the asacp (joan) that i'm not able to controll what other people have on their sites that I link to, but before i link to them I have a contract that states they are 2257 compliant backed by financial commitment on their part. I assumed all their members were paysites and controlled all their own content. Under that assumption i was ok with not being a member - but learning sex.com was a member I realized that they are in a VERY similar position as I am (a site that links to other sites that pay them for the links)- yet they are a member and I can't be. I don't understand that and would like an explaination on it - as I still havn't got one yet.

I went cow tossing tonight..... BUMP :winkwink:

Did the cow cooperate?
WG

I hear that the cows there are easier to toss, wanna get in a 6 page discussion about it? ;)

Steve Lightspeed

hater