if this shaving module was from the older one... shouldn't it look like this then ?

Possibly, as I said... I haven't seen all of the code or know exactly how it works, which is why I also said that I can't be absolutely certain... just how it looks.

Now, if mpa3 installs and automatically upgrades the prefix of the database from mpa2 to mpa3 and THEN does all the work on it.... then the code might look as it is now.

And as I said before, I'm not trying to defend them... for all I know, this could be just as bad or even worse than how it looks initially. But for all we know, without seeing more, this could simply be a removal system from old to new.

and you wonder why people hate you?

bump for Naughty Bank

Sonofsam, as you most likely know MPA3 has been out now for about 2 years, following MPA2 ? the two programs are completely separate and MPA3 was written new from scratch.

In the time when we upgraded clients from MPA2 to MPA3 we made sure that ANY possible shaving mechanism would be removed and replaced with the opposite ? an anti shaving feature that would allow us for the most part to easily see if a client added code that could mess with the MPA3 code in any way shape or form.

Trax is right in what he is saying. This was a code that we had to add to remove any shaving that was in the mpa2. So when our old customers upgraded we were removing any module like this using this particular script with the inane name of ?no_shaving_update.sql? ? we have written upgrade scripts that were copying the table structure over to mpa3 database as they are. Should we have named is something else to avoid gfy threads like this?

StuardD ? you seem like a smart guy ? you are right on track and that is exactly what that file did. This file was used to remove anything associated with the old mpa2 shave feature. And the file is mostly in older MPA3 versions where this was a necessity to ensure that all upgrades or new installs were squeaky clean, which they all are. Newer versions will not have this file in it to begin with.

Anyone who understands a little SQL would see that this is what this code is doing, and I believe that having a no shaving was something everyone wanted, not the opposite.

Now, if there are still some conspiracy theorists out there that still want more info on this ? come into my office, let?s have you pick out any random MPA3 client and ask for their permission to review their source code with us. Anyone welcome of course.

Shhh... you'll ruin my GFY reputation with such comments :winkwink:

Are your customer allowed to add custom modules? Or is your code as is?

File is 404 now

So what you're basically saying is that your previous version of this software was helping NaughtyBank shave their affiliates, and now you're making sure to stop this malicious practice, which you created in the first place? :1orglaugh

And thats wrong...Why remove it when theres nothing scary about it as just mentioned?

Fiddy...,.

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.