GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   With all the DirectNic trouble lately (my thoughts) (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=686735)

dig420 12-14-2006 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11526410)
I have known most of the people involved with Directnic since before you could get on the internet. Interestingly, I don't have a single domain registered with them (and I have a large number of domains).

I also do no business with them.

I also know a number of other registrars, and I would come out to support them in the same manner as I am supporting Directnic right now. CP is a horrible, horrible problem that not only hurts our business, but hurts innocent children. I can never fault anyone for wanting to handle this situation carefully and not just pass the buck.

Chris, while I am sure you appreciate Pete's fine friendship, the nature of this thread and it's title is misleading, and looks like a very shrill sort of shill for your business. I would suggest that you privately ask him to better time his sales campaigns so that it doesn't look like you are trying to dance on Directnic's prematurely dug grave.
I'd say you've put at least 15 - 20 hours into directly answering each and every single little criticism of directnic over the last two days. Probably without sleeping. You're doing this for FREE Alex? You're either lying or dumber than I thought.

Peaches et al are simple kissasses. Mike and Co mock them at every opportunity, but because they hung out at Oprano she thinks she has some special connection with them. Kinda sad. Same for Sarettah, the Joe Leibermann of the boards, who feels very special because the conservatives like him. Gonzo, I don't know what his deal is. He's getting something out of it, for sure. Rawalex is the only one that mystifies me, he's smarter than this and considering it seems to be his mission in life right now to defend dnic to the death and beyond, he's gotta be shilling.

Here's some trivia for you: I called Gonzo a fat fucking nobody once, and he has since based his entire business around it. Cool huh?

darksoul 12-14-2006 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 11527174)
If DN wanted to fuck Slick in the ass, they would have reported him to the authorities immediately.

And I'll keep bringing up CP since that was the orginal issue, Slick has admitted at least one of his trades was questionable at best, and even those against DN's decisions have admitted that the girls looked underage.

So....had DN reported him to the authorities, he'd still have to come up with the same info DN is asking for - probably after his lawyer posted bond.

If you don't want to host with DN, then don't do it. But they did EXACTLY what Slick said they could do AND they saved his ass by not reporting him.
You again fail to realise wheres the problem.
But now I'm not even surprised.

seeric 12-14-2006 11:36 AM
i have no problems with direct nic. my domains will remain there.

Brujah 12-14-2006 11:39 AM
Just to clarify, I don't think DirectNIC is fucking anyone in the ass either.. and my points are in regard to the role of a registrar and how far it can be taken.

Peaches 12-14-2006 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11527222)
Peaches et al are simple kissasses. Mike and Co mock them at every opportunity, but because they hung out at Oprano she thinks she has some special connection with them. Kinda sad.
You forgot Kimmy Kim, OldJeff and several others who have backed DirectNic :thumbsup

Dig, surely you've been around long enough to know I don't give a shit what people think about me - certainly not those in the adult biz. I'm arguing FOR contracts, not for DirectNic. People seem to think that they can agree to a contract and then yell "Oh wait, there's no law that says I have to do Paragraph 1, sentence A" and that's that. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

RawAlex 12-14-2006 11:42 AM
Dig, actually, I slept 8.5 hours last night (set the alarm clock accordingly) and did a bunch of graphic work while this has been going on. Thanks for your concern.

Actually, I haven't directly spoken to anyone at Directnic or Mike himself in probably 2 years now, except maybe for an in passing post on a board here (I think I kidded him recently about domain kiting, something Directnic apparently did well enough to get attention on the subject from the mainstream).

No, my only agenda here is to sit and laugh at people who would spend all their time and effort to protect a CJ site that has some fairly questionable looking (but legal) thumbs on it but that trades traffic and links to some pretty glaringly bad sites, including CP, toolbar, virus, and spyware installers.

When I take out the tote board and figure it all out, Directnic comes out looking like champs.

Darksoul, so if I am missing it, where is the problem? Are you saying that Directnic is obliged to do business with someone regardless of the material on their sites? Is Directnic obliged to maintain a contract under any circumstance?

Please, enlighten me, preferably with actual paragraphs and stuff, okay?

darksoul 12-14-2006 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 11527255)
Just to clarify, I don't think DirectNIC is fucking anyone in the ass either.. and my points are in regard to the role of a registrar and how far it can be taken.
Thats pretty much the whole issue here.

crockett 12-14-2006 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11526298)
crocket, ID with the name, address, and other personal information blacked out.

What is so hard about that? Content providers have been doing that in some cases since 1995.
Let's put it this way.. Why don't you contact a few affiliate programs and see how many of them will supply you with blacked out ID's of their models. Then come back here and tell us all how easy it is to get.

We aren't talking about buying content from a content producer.. We are talking about free sponsor provided content from FHG's.

dig420 12-14-2006 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 11527267)
You forgot Kimmy Kim, OldJeff and several others who have backed DirectNic :thumbsup

Dig, surely you've been around long enough to know I don't give a shit what people think about me - certainly not those in the adult biz. I'm arguing FOR contracts, not for DirectNic. People seem to think that they can agree to a contract and then yell "Oh wait, there's no law that says I have to do Paragraph 1, sentence A" and that's that. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
Allow me to clue you in then, and perhaps clear up your misunderstandings here: A TOS is a CYA document. Every TOS in the world, for every business INCLUDING mine, basically says that the person posting the TOS can do anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time they want. That doesn't make it so. The question in this discussion is what a registrar is legally empowered to do, whether they can force you to do certain things on pain of losing your livelihood, and whether it's their place to police the intarwebs. FSC says it's not. Moniker says it's not. It's never been done before, and my best guess is that it's not going to be accepted by the webmaster community. It is a gross abuse of power and a giant overstepping of their boundaries.

Give up the TOS argument, it's irrelevant, you've repeated it until everyone is ready to throw up in their mouth a little bit.

Peaches 12-14-2006 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11527271)
Dig, actually, I slept 8.5 hours last night (set the alarm clock accordingly) and did a bunch of graphic work while this has been going on. Thanks for your concern.
I've taken 2 tests, written 7 (small) essays and found 4 pieces of property to look at while posting so neener :upsidedow

darksoul 12-14-2006 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11527271)
Darksoul, so if I am missing it, where is the problem? Are you saying that Directnic is obliged to do business with someone regardless of the material on their sites? Is Directnic obliged to maintain a contract under any circumstance?

Please, enlighten me, preferably with actual paragraphs and stuff, okay?
So you're saying that DN can close those domains and forget about it if they don't want to continue biz with Slick ?

That would be fun to watch, they'll get their asses burnt in a second.
Your old friends are already backing out, they're already limiting to 14 random thumbs. Is that a joke or what kind of investigation is that ?

dig420 12-14-2006 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11527271)
Dig, actually, I slept 8.5 hours last night (set the alarm clock accordingly) and did a bunch of graphic work while this has been going on. Thanks for your concern.

Actually, I haven't directly spoken to anyone at Directnic or Mike himself in probably 2 years now, except maybe for an in passing post on a board here (I think I kidded him recently about domain kiting, something Directnic apparently did well enough to get attention on the subject from the mainstream).

No, my only agenda here is to sit and laugh at people who would spend all their time and effort to protect a CJ site that has some fairly questionable looking (but legal) thumbs on it but that trades traffic and links to some pretty glaringly bad sites, including CP, toolbar, virus, and spyware installers.

When I take out the tote board and figure it all out, Directnic comes out looking like champs.

Darksoul, so if I am missing it, where is the problem? Are you saying that Directnic is obliged to do business with someone regardless of the material on their sites? Is Directnic obliged to maintain a contract under any circumstance?

Please, enlighten me, preferably with actual paragraphs and stuff, okay?

Nobody is 'protecting a CJ site'. We're protecting OUR sites, because if they do it to this guy they'll do it to anyone. Especially considering that Mike has parked.com and many other competitive ventures with the people using his registrar service. It's only natural to suspect a less than angelic motive behind this action.

Also, NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, is going to spend this much time defending the actions of a company they have no connection with. If I went to every single thread that has erupted concerning this situation and made a post, you would answer every single post. This isn't a casual thing for you, it's like life and death. Or a paycheck. You're not doing it because you have some deep seated affinity for the untrammeled power of registrars.

RawAlex 12-14-2006 11:49 AM
Dig, sorry, but again: You would oblige Directnic to do business with someone even if they feel the contract terms have been violated?

The FSC says that the registrar cannot do a 2257 inspection. Then again, the FSC also said that the FBI couldn't do any either, and we know exactly how far that went. Mr Douglas does not have all the facts in front of him (and neither do we) and his offering of an opinion without the facts is a little, well... premature?

Please show me the laws that say that the registrars are NOT allowed to assure that they are doing business with are operating in good faith and within the laws... I would like to read that.

Peaches 12-14-2006 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dig420 (Post 11527296)
Give up the TOS argument, it's irrelevant, you've repeated it until everyone is ready to throw up in their mouth a little bit.
Then Slick has a choice - he can disregard the TOS or abide by them. Again - somehow you've magically managed to see the future and see what's going to happen between now and the cut off date (which Slick says has been extended) and that DirectNic is going to screw Slick over in one way or another.

Amazing - can you tell me what tomorrow's lottery numbers are going to be too?

RawAlex 12-14-2006 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 11527300)
I've taken 2 tests, written 7 (small) essays and found 4 pieces of property to look at while posting so neener :upsidedow
Damn, now I know why you apparently use to work for me :) :helpme

dig420 12-14-2006 11:52 AM
No, my only agenda here is to sit and laugh at people who would spend all their time and effort to protect a CJ site that has some fairly questionable looking (but legal) thumbs on it but that trades traffic and links to some pretty glaringly bad sites, including CP, toolbar, virus, and spyware installers.
--------------

so his site's legal and you STILL would support it being taken away from him?

wow that's quite a statement...

Peaches 12-14-2006 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11527330)
Damn, now I know why you apparently use to work for me :) :helpme
I forgot I also got the correct address for a letter I wrote back in October that never got received, rewrote the letter, did the envelope, wrote a check AND paid 4 bills. I'm a multitasking queen :)

dig420 12-14-2006 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11527324)
Dig, sorry, but again: You would oblige Directnic to do business with someone even if they feel the contract terms have been violated?
As far as I'm concerned, they can refuse to do business with someone simply because they don't like the cut of his jib. What they CANNOT do is seize his domains and take for themselves the benefits of years of his work.

darksoul 12-14-2006 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11527324)
Please show me the laws that say that the registrars are NOT allowed to assure that they are doing business with are operating in good faith and within the laws... I would like to read that.
Its been posted in a thread already, I wont dig that now, but ICANN does not
tolerate closing a domain because you just felt like it. You need to have a court order for that.
Directnic has to follow ICANN regulations or they're toasted.

Pete-KT 12-14-2006 12:18 PM
Very nice to tell someone your giving them an extension then the next day shut them down without notifying them, WOW CLASS ACT

scottybuzz 12-14-2006 12:19 PM
abosutley awesome - a thread reaches 3 pages because someone tried to poach customers.


theres me thinking adult is just a playground of fun.

oh wait - it is!

MacDevilish 12-14-2006 01:36 PM
In the event that anyone hasn't caught it yet...

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=18587

CDSmith 12-14-2006 01:47 PM
No offense to Pete-KT.... but I'd like to hear someone from Moniker post publicly on GFY that "we will not do to you what directnic has done to their client" (Slick).

I see them opportunistically spamming their service, I do not see them assuring anyone that their policy on handling complaints is any different than anyone else's.

MacDevilish 12-14-2006 02:01 PM
I believe that the bottom line on this is that DirectNic was doing what they thought was best, in the best interests of the general public, and that the intention was good. Everyone here at Moniker holds the crew at DN in high regard, even if are methods of handling the situation would be different.

Keeping those methods in mind, a registrars role is pretty well outlined in that our job is to keep our customer's domain names secure, and protect their interests as best we can, as well as ADVISE them of complaints.

MacDevilish 12-14-2006 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11528205)
No offense to Pete-KT.... but I'd like to hear someone from Moniker post publicly on GFY that "we will not do to you what directnic has done to their client" (Slick).

I see them opportunistically spamming their service, I do not see them assuring anyone that their policy on handling complaints is any different than anyone else's.
CDSmith, In the thread that you are posting in right here, I have posted a few times making clear what our course of action would be in this case... I look forward to your responses to them. Cheers!

CDSmith 12-14-2006 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonikerChris (Post 11528265)
I believe that the bottom line on this is that DirectNic was doing what they thought was best, in the best interests of the general public, and that the intention was good. Everyone here at Moniker holds the crew at DN in high regard, even if are methods of handling the situation would be different.

Keeping those methods in mind, a registrars role is pretty well outlined in that our job is to keep our customer's domain names secure, and protect their interests as best we can, as well as ADVISE them of complaints.
Thank you.


Although I do still see your mult-threaded campaign on here today as very opportunistic and spammish in nature. I'm sure you will get a sizeable chunk of Directnic's adult business from it though, which seems to be what you were going for, right?

Much luck to you. :D

directfiesta 12-14-2006 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11528205)
No offense to Pete-KT.... but I'd like to hear someone from Moniker post publicly on GFY that "we will not do to you what directnic has done to their client" (Slick).

From this actual thread ....
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...8&postcount=37

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonikerChris (Post 11526378)
Wow... I need to catch up on this a bit... I appreciate the support from Pete, recommending Moniker service in general, and the service I do my best to provide in specific. Whether he is trying to make money for me, or just being infomative, Moniker's dedication to our clients is verifiably excellent.

With regard to DirectNic, they are good people and friends of ours, and I am unsure exactly what the motivation was for their inquiry and actions, but I don't think that it is an "across the board" policy for their company. Since I don't work for them, I won't guess how their policy is changing, or what future plans they might have.

What I CAN speak to is MONIKER'S policy with regard to complaints or objections to our clients websites and domains. We don't shut you down for complaints... Let's face it... it is the adult industry, SOMEBODY is going to have a problem with it somewhere, so we expect for there to be complaints... the difference between us and many other registrars is that we will TALK TO YOU about it before taking any action.

From this standpoint, RawAlex, it is understandable why Pete would be talking about Moniker and me... We PROTECT HIS INTRESTS. We make sure that he, and all of our other many adult and adult related clients continue to make money by NOT yielding to complaints. On a daily basis we recieve complaints and orders to "cease and desist"... I don't get shaken up when they come in, because normally they are just sent to rattle cages and try and scare us into shutting a site down. Suffice it to say that we don't scare easily.

I am grateful for all the clients that I work with, and for the friendships that I have with my clients. Pete is a good friend, as are many others. I will continue to protect their interests as best I can.

Pete-KT 12-14-2006 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11528334)
Thank you.


Although I do still see your mult-threaded campaign on here today as very opportunistic and spammish in nature. I'm sure you will get a sizeable chunk of Directnic's adult business from it though, which seems to be what you were going for, right?

Much luck to you. :D
When i made this thread chris had no idea i was makin it, I made it because I was saying ive never had a problem with Moniker

CDSmith 12-14-2006 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete-KT (Post 11528371)
When i made this thread chris had no idea i was makin it, I made it because I was saying ive never had a problem with Moniker
That is why I said no offense to you. :D

They were ignoring or otherwise missed my post in their other thread though, the one made by one of their staffers, so I figured I might better get their attention in this one.


And don't get me wrong, I too will be carefully considering whether or not to move my own domains away from Directnic. Pending the outcome of this issue of course.

Cheers Pete.

MacDevilish 12-14-2006 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11528334)
Thank you.


Although I do still see your mult-threaded campaign on here today as very opportunistic and spammish in nature. I'm sure you will get a sizeable chunk of Directnic's adult business from it though, which seems to be what you were going for, right?

Much luck to you. :D
CD, I have been largely focused on this particular thread because of the importance of the subject. There is no opportunism there, just a different writing style than me. I believe that Jrzeygirl was just answering in her own way, and hadn't had the opportunity to see this thread... thanks for the caution on it! Our intention is NOT to be opportunistic, but instead to be supportive of or clients, and respectfully present the differences between Moniker and other registrar's policies.

jonesy 12-14-2006 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 11528334)


Although I do still see your mult-threaded campaign on here today as very opportunistic and spammish in nature.

I'm sure you will get a sizeable chunk of Directnic's adult business from it though, which seems to be what you were going for, right?
capitalizng on others faux pas' is smart business.

Anthony 12-14-2006 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonikerChris (Post 11528435)
CD, I have been largely focused on this particular thread because of the importance of the subject. There is no opportunism there, just a different writing style than me. I believe that Jrzeygirl was just answering in her own way, and hadn't had the opportunity to see this thread... thanks for the caution on it! Our intention is NOT to be opportunistic, but instead to be supportive of or clients, and respectfully present the differences between Moniker and other registrar's policies.
I'd like to take this time to thank Chris, Monte, and everyone at Moniker. Moniker is our Registrar and have been for years.

We are more than happy with Moniker, and can understand Pete's wanting to let people know how great a company they are.

crockett 12-14-2006 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex (Post 11526951)
Then there is no issue, because Slick would have all the needed documents to say the model was 18 when the stuff was shot, and would even pass a 2257 inspection... THINK!

Are you suggesting that Slick is a victim of content producers trying to sneak CP onto his site?

Hey RawAlex.. since you think everyone has easy access to 2257 info and photo ID's of sponsors provided content..

Do you have the photo ID for this?

http://www.ddcup.com/big-tits-blog/office-party.jpg

or if it's redx's the link is here.. http://www.ddcup.com/big-tits-blog/office-party.jpg

btw I assume that your blog because I found it linked from the blog that rawalex.com links too..

crockett 12-14-2006 03:03 PM
btw RawAlex the point of my post above isn't to attack you.. But honestly I keep seeing you post in all these threads acting as if it's no big deal for Slick or anyone else to get these photo id's.

So I just like to know if you have the ID's and 2257 info for this picture and the others on your sites?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 PM.
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123