Anyways tahts how i feel.
Linking to a CP site is just as bad.

KUDOS to Stafford and the rest of the bunch at Python for exercising due diligence.

Sorry if it made your life difficult, V_Rocks, but overlooking 2257 requirements is a very bad idea.... AS IS typing 'Fuck the asacp'!

Where? I am going through my sites right now and I am not seeing what you are claiming.

Im talking to you on ICQ>
If we dont get it there ill post the link here

For those still reading, the link was to a trade, the trade has a thumb, the thumb is a candid shot of a girl with her skirt up on the street, in the foreground is a 10 to 12 year old boy walking the other way (not looking at the models ass) and the OTHER TGP, not my own, decided to crop the boy to obviously get click throughs to perceived CP.

I am going to,

#1 Set the trade inactive and let the TGP know that is not OK.
#2 Inform the sponsor that they cannot have a 10yr old kid in a pic even if its a candid and the kid is fully clothed and is not the subject of the picture.

I hope you all learn a lesson from what I am doing. You don't need to pull a fire alarm in a crowded movie theater because you see a roach. You just inform management and have it exterminated.

V_rocks,

in reading post, it is very confusing.

Some facts from your post:

1) you received an email from Stafford at python

2) Stafford wrote in his email to you that ASACP had contacted him about your universaltgp.com website and inappropriate content.

3) you then say you submitted your TGP to ASACP for review.

4) you said you got a response back with the folllowing:
"We could not determine whether the models are
`clearly` under the age of 18; therefore, we are
unable to report the website to the authorities. "

-----------------------------------------------

Let start with #3, so did you apply for ASACP membership?

The response in #4 sounds like something that would have been sent in response to someone who had submitted a suspected CP website to ASACP. The response clearly says that universaltgp.com was not reported as having CP.

So to fact #1, it appears that whoever submitted the CP lead for universaltgp.com didn't like the ASACP response that it COULDN'T report the site, and went to find one of your sponsors.

They probably forwarded the text in #4 to Python, that reached Stafford who took a look at universaltgp.com and saw alot of very young looking girls, and decided to drop your account.

As Joan has written, the text from #4 was ONLY sent to the person that submitted the CP lead. The ONLY way that Python would have seen this text is if the submitter contacted Python.



So given these observations, it appears that ASACP didn't "rat" you out to anyone.

If Python wants to drop you because your thumbs look really, really young, that's their right, and if you have a problem with that, you should be posting the thread title as being Fuck Python!

If the way i see it is true, based on the facts presented, then you owe ASACP an apology.



Fight the Fire Alarms!

Don't get me started on you crazy lady :winkwink: j/k

Thank you Joan for clearing up the misconception I had.

I sent them my own link, and that was their reply. This TGP shares a DB with 5 other websites I own. I submitted them all myself and got a clean bill of health back on all of them. The reply is in my email box. I sent it to Python in response as a sort of, hmmm... we are getting conflicting emails about my site. They are telling me it is OK and you that it has CP? Weird.

I talked to Python and showed them all of my 2257 data that I collected on my galleries. I challenge any TGP to be as thourough as I have been. I have collected more specific 2257 data on my galleries than any other TGP in the history of TGP's!

Everything is squared away with Python... they see my evidence and agree with me. I am clean. But the ASACP told them I am not. So my beef is still with them. Why have they not contacted me about it? Is that to hard? I sent Joan and email and another to [email protected] and I got zero reply from either of them even though Joan asked me to send her an email.

I would love to appologize once we have discussed the situation. Until then, I am waiting for the ASACP's reply.

As requested, please contact [email protected]

ok, so if Stafford said the ASACP reported to him about universaltgp.com, then i can understand your point.

Given Joan's response, ASACP would not have contacted Python.... if they did, isn't it kind of silly to notify Python that universaltgp.com wasn't reported as CP? Your post quoted the message:

"We could not determine whether the models are
`clearly` under the age of 18; therefore, we are
unable to report the website to the authorities. "


Kind of a funny message to send if that was the case.

Looks like some confusion between you and Python, that has nothing to do with ASACP.

Given your later posts, it looks like you would be genuinely concerned if CP images were on your site.


Fight the Misunderstandings!

50 false alarms

And I would have NEVER sent them SHIT for review. Why in the fuck would I care what they think in the first place? You must have done that due to some kind of guilty conscience or something. If it's all legit then you should have had ascap fuck off from the beginning.

It all comes down to personal opinion.....

Some think that using girls that look under 18 or trying to make them look under age is catering to the CP audience, and that makes it wrong - Refer to the Chris Malik, ASACP, Lightspeed fiasco for a lot of debate about that.

At the end of the day its the sponsors that decide what is best for them.... and so they should - they have to protect themselves and other affiliates

OFFICIALLY I AM RENAIMING THIS THREAD,

"What the fuck ASACP?"

And I am sending you a second email.

Though ICQ is quicker, 1611-24816.

Is AOL not working with you ASACP? I have sent a second email, labelled, email #2.

Perhaps the spamming fiasco got you AOL banned or something? Shall I try hotmail?

Sorry, Im not sure I meant Chris Malik...... It could have been Gary Kremlin

I get confused easily :Oh crap

FYI on the issue of 2257.... i saw your 2257 page that you posted, and it's a long list of content providers.

Ask yourself this one 2257 test question:

If the DOJ pointed to one of the thumbs that looked really, really young and asked you to identify where you got that SPECIFIC image from... could you do that?

Your answer can't be, look at my 2257 page, because the DOJ agent won't know which content producer is associated with the SPECIFIC image.

Under the EXISTING 2257 statue, you need to be able to answer this question.

The real lesson from this, is not about not including a pic that has a fully clothed boy in the background that was cropped out.... it's documenting where you got your content from, associating pics to content producer, such that if you do dabble in young looking content, that you can answer the simple question that could be asked of you.

Since it seems you are running your sites via DB, you might be able to include an extra column that tags where the image came from at the point you enter it into your db, and that would really go along way towards 2257 compliance.

Consulting an attorney about how you are handling your 2257 issues would be a good idea, and i can referer you to some if you wish.


Fight the Pop Quizzes!

V_Rock and I have talked about things and as far as I'm concerned the only outstanding issue was the 2257. That has been cleared up and all is well.

V_Rock - you Rock

Stop the insanity

Humm.. interesting point. But what TGP CAN do this? Can Thumbzilla tell you what content producer is matched with each gallery? How about Shemp? Or theHun? Can anyone other than the sponsor do this? I would have to contact each sponsor and ask them. Do you know what they would say? They'd say, "Sure, and you can pay the employee's hourly wage that is getting the data together." Or they'd most likely just laugh at me and tell me no, it isn't possible and they will not give me that kind of info.

Apology #1, Seems the ASACP cannot send to AOL right now because some asswipe spammed people and forged the headers to look like the asacp.com website sent them.

Joan and I are now using Hotmail instead.

TGP are in an interesting grey space with 2257, because while you show sexually explicit images, and therefore fall under 2257, you don't necessarily license the content, it's provided to you.

Your images have a source, somewhere, somehow you received them since the thumbs are served off of your server. At the point that you received the image (maybe through a form upload), you probably have an additional field that includes the link for the clickthru. You could ask the individual that is submitting the image to also include the content producer info.

If they can't provide it, then you do have a problem with 2257. sleazydream.com has a different approach since he licenses his content, so he has all the 2257 info in place.

I started an interesting thread about the "click here if over 18" type language found on the front of many sites that might interest you. http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...6&page=1&pp=50

I am bringing the 2257 issues up since you had posted that you felt you did more 2257 documentation than any other TGP.. and by looking at your list, it would appear you have.. you have alot of content producers listed.. but that's only a small step towards compliance, and you are missing the bigger part, knowing where each image came from (ie. content producer).

Not trying to bring you down, just trying to help you out, since you seemed genuinely concerned about the CP stuff and 2257.


Fight the 411!

i dont show thumbs, its text only. you are responsible for the thumbs on your page

Right, you also can't link to CP either, so we are both on the same boat.

Thanks for your reply. I hate to keep using this thread though, it is bashing the ASACP more than I'd like to just in the title. I will read the thread you posted and then go there for replies if needed. I'd like to let this thread die for the sake of the ASACP.

who is linking to CP?

Neither I nor you. The point was that someone asked, if the DOJ asked, "[Shemp] can you prove that this partner (paid or not) posted link does not point to CP?" You would have to prove that it didn't. Do you have the content providers proof (Legal ID) that each and every link on your site isn't CP? ie, have 2257 data on every single link you have rotating through your sites 24/7. No... No TGP does because gathering the ID's of all of the models in all of our sites would be crazy! You check to make sure the spot their got it from (the sponsor) has a 2257 link and then go with that. But according to the 2257 law, that isn't enough?

And that is what I was asking and that is what I was told "no" on. But no TGP has this data. So don't point fingers at me for not having it either. And that is where you came in.

I don't know for you guys but this guys "V_rocks" is hard to keep track.

Really hard to trust him in my opinion of this thread. I saw this Tgp around 4-

5 times in the last 2 years because he trade with some friends and the

looked really young.

Anyway...Please Joan keep an eye on him.

Rockbear

I was resisting to not post again in this thread to let it die out, but so much to correct in your last post.

My 2257 points were about thumbnails you display on your site that are sexually explicit, require 2257 compliance.

If you link to someone that has CP, you have a whole separate issue to deal with as for as FBI or DOJ goes.

Current 2257 doesn't require that you have the ID's of the models.. not sure where you picked that idea up since it was never mentioned in this thread. Having the model ID was proposed for new 2257 regulations, but they haven't been approved and would be countered in court by adult legal beagles.


Fight the wazzzn't me!