now i'm not saying the asacp is a bad thing, i agree with what they are trying to do and I link to them on my site and have even tried to give them money but was told i couldn't cause i was a TGP- and have been told by them that I'm one of their largest traffic senders, but i'm curious - why does a tgp like 'mine' (and that's the key there as my TGP is unlike many others out there) where i have 2257 on all my own images and i have advertising agreements backed by financial commitment agreeing to the existance of 2257 on all my advertisers not get accepted by the asacp and sites like sex.com that operate in a very similar fashon with their advertisers do? As well as all the paysites that belong to the asacp that have plug in feeds and upselling within their sites..... How is that any different than my situation?

I'm very curious as to the answer to that.

hmmm, that is kind of surprising to me . . . I thought Joan wore your tattoo, and I would think anyone that would wear your tattoo would certainly accept your financial contributions . . . if you want, you can give it to me, and I will give it to them

Always the diplomat I see ;)

Get a life.

B

As Paul McCartney and Wings would say, "hands across the water, hands across the sea."

Hahaha......only you would refer to Paul McCartney. Solomon-like advice, my friend :)

Ya left me out!

Seems to me that if ASACP wants to represent the adult industry, that should include the TGPs. :2 cents:

B

i agree with not supporting people that don't have 2257 - and MANY TGPs don't, but my site has the same or better 2257 as most paysites and other advertising sites like sex.com


I'd like to know why sex.com is accepted and sleazydream isn't

I'd like to know as well.
WG

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