50........

Your bot malfucntioned

Bump to new page.

I have a screenshot of the page i'll post if anyone needs it

YES!!! Please post the screen shot for everyone to see!

You?ve got a lot to learn about business my friend. I would expect a program owner to have a bit more tact than to come on a public forum and question the integrity of another program with absolutely no grounds to do so.

It seems a little odd that ?someone? would have just sent you this URL. If you?re going to question our integrity in this public manner you could at least have the common courtesy to advise us publicly of the identity of this mysterious ?someone?.

From what I know about you DamageX you seem to be pretty informed, and you should know this industry pretty well (running your own board and all) and know that threads like this could potentially create hysteria without a real reason just because it is posted and most people dont READ the whole thread, just the headers.

Once we heard about this thread we went ahead and removed the unused file to a few programs (older MPA3 installs) to make sure this type of un-reasoned threads started again. Funny thing is that the file in questions said "NO_SHAVING" which in my vocabulary is pretty straight forward. MPA3 = NO_SHAVING.

Here is a link to a newsbit you might or might not have seen: http://www.xbiz.com/pressrelease_piece.php?id=10993

It reads:

"Mansion Productions Pursues MPA3 Misconduct
Thursday, October 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES ? Mansion Productions, whose suite of software products streamlines paysite administration, has issued a notice of termination to a user of its popular MPA3 affiliate software.

The user was found to have altered MPA3's source code. According to a top Mansion Productions officer, "We discovered that a certain affiliate program had deployed an unauthorized module that seriously tampered with Mansion's own code."

These changes could have potentially affected the integrity of affiliate data. The officer added, "We wanted to nip this in the bud to prevent any further abuse of our product to potentially create inaccurate affiliate data."

Mansion Productions has zero tolerance for this type of activity, and has engaged counsel to take appropriate action.

For more information, visit www.mansionproductions.com. "

We take this more serious than anyone else, obviously being one of the most scrutinized affiliate program softwares in the industry due to the fact that we are an industry leader... And, I hereby invite you to come to my office and choose ANY of our programs and do a revision of the source code.

Any time. :thumbsup

edit.......

edit back at you.....

A program owner? Same Ol' Shit? hahaha . . . you are sure giving him a lot of credit.

As far as the source goes, he sent it to me via ICQ, so it appears Same Ol' Shit is once again up to the Same Ol' Shit.

Yeah, he has a lot to learn, but since he is 19, he already knows it all.

That provided ZERO answers to the question I asked.

Yeah, dude.

I still can't get over that MPA had a module for shaving webmasters.

I still try to this day to stay away from programs using MPA even thought they are like born again Christians.

Very simple.

Did you guys ever use the shave module?

YES or NO

Go on the record.

Here is an extract of the article AVN did on us this month in the print version of AVN Online of April 2006. I guess that should suffice:

" Eventually, MPA proved successful enough that Mansion decided to expand on its success by, Wright says, ?taking it to the next level.? Introducing MPA2, the first affordable cascading billing solution between multiple processors to be tied together under one linking code, ?made a huge difference,? Wright recalls. ?MPA2 came out in the spring of 2002 and [was compatible] with seven different payment processors, thus seriously optimizing the join process.? Wright and Owen then sat back and watched as the industry ate it up. ?The results were immediate,? Wright says. ?We saw that programs switching to MPA2 increased their sales by more than 20 percent overall. It was a shock, but a pleasant shock.?

Unfortunately, Mansion soon found itself embroiled in controversy when webmasters began to complain that the MPA2 software contained an undesirable ?shaving? option. Webmasters cried foul, but the feature had actually been included at the request of MPA clients as a way to protect program owners from foul play. ?We thought it was a really smart feature because it could offset webmaster fraud,? Wright offers. ?But that turned out to be a very bad misconception.? Realizing their mistake, Mansion immediately removed the feature, but the damage had already been done.

In the meantime, Too Much Media, which had been a client of Mansion?s, launched its own version of the MPA2 software in NATS, capitalizing on Mansion?s misfortune by loudly touting a ?no-shave? feature. They managed to lure away some Mansion?s clientele, although they essentially offered the same product. Wright gives props to Too Much for their timing but concedes, ?They had something pretty good to take a look at [using our version of MPA2] for about a year before they launched theirs.?

The next year was more difficult for Mansion, but it managed to stay on course, in spring of 2004 launching the next version of its proprietary software: MPA3?, which is ?so comprehensive it is hard to single out just a few of [its features],? Wright boasts. We?ll try. In addition to more than 20 different payment processors, there are a slew of features that make business much easier for program owners who work with numerous affiliates.

MPA3? immediately put Mansion back on the map, re-establishing itself as a major player in the industry. It also has the competitors champing at the bit to keep up. ?MPA3? has set a standard in affiliate program software that others are now trying to duplicate,? Wright says. ?Right now, I feel like we are 99.9 percent clear of that whole stigma we had for a while. These last few years have been very good.? "

I am sure most of you wont even take the time to read all of this...

Here is the actual article:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=263846

What are you missing here? There is no shave module in MPA3, so the answer to your question is NO! Had there been a shave module the answer would still be NO! I challenge you or anyone else here to post any evidence of shaving. If you have evidence of shaving post it now! Allie and I run our program with nothing but the utmost of integrity and this thread is a blatant insult to how we conduct our business.

But there was one in MP2, which you obviously used.

No that's where you're wrong, we've never used MPA2!

Ah, so that code was used to remove the shave module from MPA3? But wait, didn't people say there was no such thing in MPA3? Tsk, tsk, the plot thickens. :)

I like how you jump to conclusions.

I used to think you were okay, I may have to rethink this position. I understand Same Ol Shit trying to make a name for himself before he goes down in flames, but I did not think you needed to.

I can't please everybody. Neither have I ever tried to. I trust myself not to have to cry myself to sleep over your decision of rethinking your opinion of me.

You have deeper problems than worrying about my opinion of you.

Nice spin but I doubt anyone is dumb enough to believe that

I like your style ;) As soon as I heard there was a hint of insinuation that Jake&Allie were shaving I had a good laugh. Anyone that has ever worked with them or done biz with them would know that even the idea of them shaving is silly beyond belief. As for that software having a shave feature built in in previous versions, yah, old news... move on.

Keep rocking and rolling guys, you've reached heights few couples with a website could ever dream of. Don't let threads like this bring you down.

Yes, I'm sure you're in the position to know. Thank you so much for informing me. :)

That is all you had to say. You never used the shaved module that was in MPA. Period thread is over.

Knowlegde is power DamageX - you are hereby invited to come do an inspection of the MPA3 source code.

So what did you make this thread? To get brownie points from us? You have no idea what those codes ment but everyone know what you implied by making this thread.

If they really wanted to shave wouldnt they have stuck with mpa2? Why go to mpa3?

damn this thread exploded

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :Oh crap :disgust :upsidedow :( :mad:

omg, are you seriously this retarded? I know a few programs that used MPA2, and absolutely hated that they were forced to have this shave "module" in there, because they knew this exact situation would happen.

"Because it's there, you obviously used it" is the stupidest thing that a retarded GFYer could spew out just to sound dramatic.

It was A PART OF MPA2... it wasn't a module. It was just there. Whether they wanted it or not. Does that mean they OBVIOUSLY used it? No.

My TV comes with a sleep function... that means I obviously use it right? Wrong. I just turn the stupid thing off when I want it off. I don't set it to 30 minutes.

I think Oystein confused you with someone else to say that he thought you were "informed".... cause I've never thought that about you, and this just confirms it.

50's just aint what they used to be :(

If programs were so concerned about the shave module in MPA2, they could've simply chosen something else. I know of a few that did. If you wanna argue, try doing so without name-calling. Makes you look petty and stupid.

As does making assumptions. You know about them right?
And you still aren't reading. It wasn't a module in mpa2. It was built in. It was a great program otherwise. Some programs wanted to use it, since it was the best at the time (NATS wasn't even around then)... but they didn't want to use the shaving feature.

Of course, you know that, right? You wouldn't just assume that a program would automatically steal just because they were capable of doing it.. right? Right?

Wait . . . you mean to tell me you are going to choose a piece of software based on whether or not it has more features than what you need/want?

That is like saying you are sticking with DOS because Windows has that annoying calculator function that I will never use.

baddog shut the fuck up you washed up biker dork

christ you're annoying....

You?ve come here and slandered our reputation with implications of shaving, now I'm asking you for the second time, please post this ?screenshot? you have so everyone here can see for themselves that it is nothing. I?m guessing you won?t do that though because you?ve probably been advised by someone who knows even a little programming that the code not ?shaving? as you?ve implied? Perhaps next time you should do that BEFORE you start a thread slandering a company?s reputation.

I?m also still waiting to hear more about this mysterious ?someone? who sent you the URL in the first place.

There are alot of programs that I worry about shaving my stats, but Naughtybank is not one of them.

Those guys should teach other programs how to run a site that converts and rebills. I have people rebilling for over a year on their site.

Thanks for you words of support. I?m sure the majority of the people will see this for what it actually is however there?ll always be that 10% who prefer to come to the boards and stir up baseless drama rather than use their time to pursue more productive endeavors. I?ll never understand why?

Mpa3 never had a shave module you said. You never had mpa2. Then why do you have this anti shaving thing?

That doesn't change the fact that with MPA2 you made it easy to fuck over webmasters. You sold software with a build in shave module you never thought it would back fire on you?

I will NEVER use a program using your software you helped programs owners STEAL from honest webmasters in my book you are scum.

That's a tad harsh... and as I said, I'm kinda anti-mpa myself over the whole shaving fiasco. But as I also said, some programs just liked the software and wanted to use it for what it was, and ignored the shaving functionality.

Not all programs are bad because they have an MPA package at some point.

I hate Microsoft for their crappy software but I'd never stop doing business with anyone who uses Windows because of it.

I only do business with linux users.

linux users are sexier, to be sure.

But Windows users have this undying determination to continue working through so many crashes, blue screens and reboots :1orglaugh

Ofcause there were honest programs using MPA2 that would never shave.
But you know as well as me there are programs that used it because it was there and the temptation were to big.

I have nothing against NaughtyBank or any other program running MPA3 but there are so many sponsors its easy to find a replacement.

Temptation is a bitch. How can I trust a program that used to have a shave module?

I just can't shake it out of my head that MPA did have a shave feature and kinda still stay away from affiliate programs using that program.

Mpa3 never had a shave module you said. You never had mpa2. Then why do you have this anti shaving thing?

extra parts :winkwink:

http://www.vm68.com/me/gun_pics/snip...xtra_parts.jpg

Franck, Verbal Kint, TheSenator, and all others with questions are hereby invited to come to my office (bring a PHP and SQL expert if you dont know it yourself) and get full access to the source code to see for yourself how it is built - and stop being so childish and accuse top notch people of things with unsubstantiated rubbish.

This is business, not a kindergarden, and you should treat people like you want to be treated yourself. This is ridiculus.

Jayman stood up and said what is right here and you should listen to him and other well respected program owners alike.

If you dont take my invitation serious, then you are not serious yourself.

Call me anytime to schedule it all. We are located in Los Angeles. Looking forward to seeing you all here.

Oystein

i love my MPA3 USB port adapter

http://www.number1nastyphonesex.com/pics/jackport.jpg

one thing i don't understand is if there was a shaving feature in mpa2 then the tables in sql would be named mpa2_ etc.

so the php removal tool would have to alter the mpa2_* stuff. it would not be altering mpa3_* unless there was some sort of shaving feature in mpa3.

that is unless of course you just decided in mpa2 to plan ahead and call everything mpa3.