Well Doesnt Look Like Ill Be Offering Cascading Billing Anytime Soon

[gaybucks_chip]

Banning them in retaliation for not supporting one of your business entities while participating and therefore adding value to another is not a businesslike decision.

I agree with this. We need less fragmentation, not more. Banning will only fan the flames because it will be seen as more drama.

Chip, as I said before you have facts in error. I choose to answer for my company. That others do not feel compelled to respond to the self-serving error laden vitriol so common here is only a testament to their advanced maturity and therefore my lack of it.

Morgan, I've not intended to assert this issue as fact, because I am not in a position to know the facts. I am also very quick to acknowledge any errors I've made, or change my position as new information comes to light that warrants change. Nor do I think anything I've ever stated regarding these issues was self-serving. If you disagree, I would like to know where I've done this so that so I can prevent this from happening again in the future.

I think that anyone, including you, who chooses to speak out with the intention to clarify is doing the community a service. But I do have to disagree with the notion that silence is beneficial (or mature) in this situation, and I'm saddened that you consider this a game, because I don't.

It has never been my desire to inflame, to politick, or to play games with anyone. I have always believed in transparency and honesty in communications, and while perhaps the approach that AJ and I have taken to operating our businesses is seen by others as naive or holier-than-thou or something, we have never thought of ourselves that way, and we do our best not to judge the decisions that other companies make, unless those decisions are harmful to the community as a whole.

I am in favor of unity within the gay adult community, and I have always believed that communicating, airing controversies with the intention of resolving them amicably, calling people on behaviors that don't serve the best interests of the webmaster community as a whole, and finding ways to work together rather than segmenting or creating factions is, ultimately, in everyone's best interest.

I also try my best to be a straight shooter, and if somebody says something that seems disingenuous or doesn't add up, I will point it out, as much so it can be clarified as anything else. I hope that people will do the same with me.

I do remember several people posting and saying that CCBill was reporting that it was not allowed to sponsor the GayVN retreat, and more than one person defending the value of exclusive sponsorship (which, in principle, I do not have a problem with under most circumstances.) In fairness, I also remember Epoch sales staff saying there was no block on CCBill sponsorship, but CCBill saying there was. It just did, and does, seem odd that the principal parties didn't and don't wish to clarify the situation and are instead allowing a company that asserts it is a secondary party to speak for them. Now if Cybersocket is the designated PR representation for Epoch, and is speaking for Epoch in that role, then that's a different matter altogether, and changes things considerably. But as far as I know, nothing has ever been stated to that effect, and so I don't assume that's the case.

Again, I am not in a position to know the details on any of these issues one way or another. I do believe, based on what I have heard, that CCBill's hands are not clean on the GPF cancellation issue, and CCBill management has, by nearly all accounts, said some extremely hurtful and damaging things about gay webmasters that would probably significantly alter the perception if the information were generally known. But in this case, since I am not first party to that information, I don't wish to further inflame things by repeating hearsay.

On the GPF/AVN Retreat and related issues, there's an argument in favor of simply saying "It's in the past, let it go", and that might be the best choice. But by doing that, we also reward the culture of silence and lack of transparency, and I honestly do not believe that serves the interests of anyone except those who might be seeking to do deals behind closed doors at the expense of the community as a whole. (Not saying there are such deals, only that it's the only argument I can think of against transparency.)

So in my mind, there is no perfect solution.

I believed that Lee's actions were intended as an olive branch to Epoch. Perhaps they were instead a desire to create drama, but in any case, it is surprising that Epoch has not volunteered to clarify. I did suggest to Lee that he proactively contact Epoch and seek clarification, and then report to the community, so that people would be in a position to know if Epoch's decision with regard to Condom Cash has potential implications for other outspoken webmasters.

One of the most promising (to me) things about the adult business is the way that, when we all work together, we can actually all make *more* money than if we segment ourselves. This is the rare business situation where the mentality of abundance as opposed to scarcity actually enhances individual wealth.

It would be a huge disservice to everyone if we allowed gossip, innuendo, obfuscation, fear, or greed to harm what could, if people simply opened up to one another, be a community-based business model that could bring better influence to bear with political forces, and also allow each of our respective businesses to grow and prosper.

What can we *all* do to move in that direction?