twinkish - i like that one
well, if you were law enforcement or visa, what would you be more concerned about - a site packed with sexy 40 year old men with a few silver hairs or a bunch of guys who the average clerk would ask for i.d. before selling cigarettes?
Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD
OK, mark your calendars, guys. I'm defending Max on this one here
Brian, from what I've understood from what Max has said, the issue isn't the text per se, or anything with mundane compliance (broken links, etc.) My impression is that CCBill's acquiring bank is saying, in so many words, "This site makes us nervous. It has a bunch of young-looking guys AND language that is on or over the edge. Therefore, we think that it's trying to imply underage content, and that violates Visa rules."
Of course, that's conjecture on my part. But from what's been said (they don't want to examine IDs, they just aren't approving the site as-is), I think the whole concept of the site makes them nervous. Probably for the same reason that no reputable processor will process for Mike18. Now, Mike18 may well be legal, and the guys all have IDs that appear authentic... but it just looks and sounds like something isn't right.
Max, as far as how Boyfunk markets itself, yes, we're definitely on the line. But we're actually becoming more conservative, and in the next version of the tour, you probably won't even see language as edgy as what we have now (even though we had no problems with it.)
We aren't interested in marketing to people looking for underage content. Honestly, I'd rather try and encourage those customers to get help, so they don't go out and fuck up some poor 14 or 15 or 16 year old. (You wouldn't believe the stories we've heard from some of our models.) And we may, at some point, try and find a tasteful and non-offensive way to steer the people in need in the right direction. But until then, we're looking to move in the direction of doing what we can to attract clientele with a healthy sexual appetite, not clientele that wants underage boys, whether that means slightly shifting the kinds of models we recruit, changing the language on the site, or both. But that's important to us. Some things are more important than money.
You are right this site when it come down to made some guy at a bank nervous, its all very subjective. Yes this one site is a Teen Boy Action Site and really that was the biggest problem with this guy at the bank. They just wanted me to use guys that look 21+ in the sites tours (that would have really fucked up this site) and in fact would not let me use those totally 100% legal images I am sure we have all seen from maxpixies and 2 of the other top gay content providers even inside my site.OK, mark your calendars, guys. I'm defending Max on this one here
Brian, from what I've understood from what Max has said, the issue isn't the text per se, or anything with mundane compliance (broken links, etc.) My impression is that CCBill's acquiring bank is saying, in so many words, "This site makes us nervous. It has a bunch of young-looking guys AND language that is on or over the edge. Therefore, we think that it's trying to imply underage content, and that violates Visa rules."
Of course, that's conjecture on my part. But from what's been said (they don't want to examine IDs, they just aren't approving the site as-is), I think the whole concept of the site makes them nervous. Probably for the same reason that no reputable processor will process for Mike18. Now, Mike18 may well be legal, and the guys all have IDs that appear authentic... but it just looks and sounds like something isn't right.
Max, as far as how Boyfunk markets itself, yes, we're definitely on the line. But we're actually becoming more conservative, and in the next version of the tour, you probably won't even see language as edgy as what we have now (even though we had no problems with it.)
We aren't interested in marketing to people looking for underage content. Honestly, I'd rather try and encourage those customers to get help, so they don't go out and fuck up some poor 14 or 15 or 16 year old. (You wouldn't believe the stories we've heard from some of our models.) And we may, at some point, try and find a tasteful and non-offensive way to steer the people in need in the right direction. But until then, we're looking to move in the direction of doing what we can to attract clientele with a healthy sexual appetite, not clientele that wants underage boys, whether that means slightly shifting the kinds of models we recruit, changing the language on the site, or both. But that's important to us. Some things are more important than money.
I just wish they did ask me for the ID’s trust me I tried so many time to get them to do so. Once some guy says he is nervous about something he may not understand that is all it takes. No matter what documents you provide them or sites that use the same content. This guy took this so far that he was saying some of the biggest twink models in the world where not acceptable because they “might” be CP.
It would be so easy to fit a few bad links or document problems, and it would have never made it past Ccbill if that was the case.
This all begs the question, though, what put max's site on the wrong side of borderline?
Was he just so unlucky as to submit a site for approval in the midst of an unfriendly legal climate? Or is there something really off about his site?
There are a lot of sites a great many people would consider "borderline" being processed by reputable processors out there. So what tripped the switches on his?
I've never seen CCBill, Visa, et al be anything but fair, if not considerably generous, with approvals. So it'd almost seem one need to go out of their way to get rejected. Thus I'd avoid any such site like the plague.
CorbinFisher's Amateur College Men
You can look at the site they looked at as I am sure you have, and I worked closely with Ccbill when creating the tour (tour was the real problem with the guy from the bank) Personally I think it was a bit “edgy” but in no way did I do anything with the text that was not approved first. I was just thinking they might ask me to change a word or 2, but I will say again they did not care about the text (how could they Ccbill asked them about it before it was submitted to them)
It was a bad review guy, possibly a atmosphere of CP worries, a ever moving line of what legal sites they will work with, maybe I got some guy who hates gay people/content. At this point I will really never know, but I did nothing wrong, and would have worked with them on any text changes, ID’s, or any other reasonable request.
i think it's maybe just bad luck.
max showed me his site. what i saw looks like any other twink site, and honestly milder than many. also keep in mind that he says that ccbill didn't have an issue with the 6 pics that the bank wanted changed and usually ccbill catches problems and issues before they go to the bank so unless max changed something after ccbill saw his site - and the site is very graphical so a designer would have had to do it - perhaps he just got hit with murphy's law.
Thax Bass, Ya how it turned out they did not care about just the 6 pics in the tour, they wanted those guys removed no matter what set of pics they where in even inside my site. Now I have like 15+ sets with one model or another they had a problem with in the tour. I keep saying the tour because they had NP with any guy that was not in the tour, and like Bass said I did hold back a bit with this site and some of the guys inside the site might look a bit younger that in the tour, but they had NP with the guys inside the site.
It comes down to I was not able to use content that most twink sites can, for no real reason other than some guy did not like them. I just can not trust that when I add new content that they will not give me even more problem, this is a Teen Boy Action site I have to have guys that look 18-20. And they said I could only have guys that look 21+ basically.
They did say if I was marketing the site as a Bear or Hunk site the images would have been fine, but I can not have the same models in a Teen Boy site
I think some of the text you did use rather pushed it. You were intentionally seeking to push it, that's why you used that text. There was a deliberate attempt (assuming comprehension on your part of the text you were using existed) to really push it with some of the text you put on that site. I don't think you can deny that. You wanted it to be close to the edge.
That, in combination with some of the photos, could very well have contributed to someone's feeling less than comfortable with the site.
I think what some others have said in this thread are spot on. Whereas the "powers that be" might identify particular images or models as being the root of the issue, the overall impression generated by the site is probably the prevailing reason it was rejected.
It was a likely outcome of the impression you purposefully sought to create in order to generate interest and sales.
Regardless, I do hope it all gets sorted out for ya soon. And could make for a valuable lesson learned. Not just for you but for anyone else that comes along and seeks to present a similar site for approval.
CorbinFisher's Amateur College Men
I really think you guys are getting all caught up on the text when you should not be, I know that is easy to say the problem is, but it would be even easier to fix. I really do not know how I can say it in any other way, but I will try one last time.
(1) Ccbill approved all the text more than one time at my request
(2) Visa looked at the text before I sent them them site, and yes they had the tittle too
(3) If the problem was the text, would you not think they should have said “hey maybe you should just change so and so word" and that I would have not done this ASAP
As far as the reason this guy had a problem we will never know, but like Bass did say I could name many sites that have worse text in combination with younger models with Ccbill. But Yes I did push it a bit (why else make a site?) but checked at every opportunity I could that it would be ok. In fact at the point when I was going to send the site off to Visa I am sure the people at Ccbill where sick of telling me that the text and images where fine as long as I had the ID’s I did ask like 4-6 times
I'm not getting caught up on the text.
As factors, you have:
- The text
- The images
- The overall impression created by both the text and images in tandem
That third factor is the key, and can't be attributed to either the text or the images more than the other. It becomes an entirely independent variable.
CorbinFisher's Amateur College Men
It seems this is just a case of pretty much everyone saying the same thing but not seeming to get through. It seems like a waste of energy for everyone involved at this point. :bunny:
But thax man, I am sure I will get it worked out, I did want to push it a bit like people do when making PG13 movies they always make a R movies then have the reviewers cut it to PG13 so they can have the hardest PG13 movie possible.
I just don’t know why the people that know more about all this than you and me Ccbill, did not spot the problem or just ask for a change in the text rather than the bank just going way overboard with the models. Really this site has very limited text right now, and is made in a way that most people will never read the text. The upper part of the site really has nothing to do with text, and I have not added the bottom of it yet. I really could care less about the text, I just made text that people could read part of or just skim a few lines from time to time.
But I do know what you guys are saying, but I did talk to them many times, maybe the text might have set this guy off, but I would bet even without it I would have the same probems "why they did not ask about the text at all"
Because you are an idiot and no matter what advice anyone gives you, you will never 'get it'.
Im starting to think your time on GWW is coming to end.
Especially if you cant understand that when people are trying to help you, they are genuinely trying to help you.
Regards,
Lee
Max, I've said it 4 times already and I'll, just for the sake of my optimistic streak, try and say it one more time.
TEXT ALONE DOESN'T DETERMINE WHETHER THE SITE GETS ACCEPTED.
PICTURES ALONE DON'T DETERMINE WHETHER THE SITE IS APPROVED.
When you combine the text and the pictures, it creates an impression on the viewer of the site... the viewer infers meaning from the *combination* of the text and the pictures.
In your case, the text and the pictures combined together to create a site that, to the reviewer, was uncomfortably close to actively implying that the models were underage. And that is prohibited under Visa regs.
It had little to nothing to do with the fact that the models were legally of age. If an average person (or, in this case, a person who looks at adult sites all day, every day) looked at your pics combined with your text, and it made him uncomfortable, then something was obviously wrong.
It's not something wrong with the reviewer of the site. It's something wrong with the site you created. You were trying to sell a site by implying that the models were underage, and the compliance guy caught it and busted you for it and said you couldn't do it.
Don't go blaming Visa, or CCBill, or the bank's compliance person. It was not their fault. It was and is 100% solely your fault. If you'd taken the advice you were offered, you would have had no problems.
But you didn't.
So stop bitching and trying to justify yourself.
End of story.
Oh, and Lee.... I completely agree, as does probably most everyone else here.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks