GPTBoycott Watch List Open!

[Rob]

The GPTBoycott Watch List is comprised of all programs, with noted exceptions, for which we have received more than five or more formal complaints, via our submission form at http://www.gptboycott.com/submit.php. While the official requirement for a boycott to be considered is at least ten complaints, we hope the GPTBoycott Watch List will increase our efficiency as an informative tool, by giving some indication for which programs should be closely watched with regards to their honesty and trustworthiness.

It should be noted that the GPTBoycott Watch List should not be used on its own as a guide to the characteristics and honesty of a program. GPTBoycott.Com recommends additional reading and research in order to ascertain the legitimacy of any particular program. One useful place for this, is the GPTBoycott Discussion Forum, at http://www.gptboycott.com/forum. The Watch List simply comprises those programs with five or more outstanding complaints, which for one reason or another do not yet warrant a formal boycott. Possible reasons for this may include, but are not limited to: a) the program has not yet attained the ten complaints needed for a boycott consideration, b) the program is not yet considered worthy of a full boycott for one or more reasons, c) the validity of the complaints may be under question so much as to not use them as the basis for a formal boycott, but not so much as to dismiss them completely. It should also be noted that the programs appear on the GPTBoycott Watch List in alphabetical order only, and so programs at the top of the Watch List are under no more or less suspicion than those at the bottom of the Watch List.

There are notable exceptions to the Watch List. Those programs which are already under full boycott are an obvious exception, but others may include those programs occupying the GPTBoycott Dead List, or those which have undergone a formal process of unboycott. However, a formal unboycott does not automatically result in exemption from the Watch List, and in most cases of unboycott, the program is downgraded to Watch List status as part of the terms of unboycott.

The GPTBoycott Watch List does not seek to offer justifications or explanations for a program's inclusion on the list. This is because of the ubiquitous nature of the requirements for a program's inclusion on the Watch List; that is a program which has five or more formal complaints, which does not fall under one of the noted exemption categories. Requests for justifications of a program's inclusion on the list will not be answered, unless the correspondance is by or on behalf of the program's ownership. Similarly, the actual complaints against programs on the Watch List will not be released unless in response to similar correspondance.

It should also be known, that from time to time programs which are no longer in operation may appear on the GPTBoycott Watch List. This is because we do not routinely delete complaints pertaining to programs which no longer exist, because of the possibility that the program may return. The inclusion of such programs means the Watch List becomes no more difficult to use, as the list is sorted in alphabetical order. In this respect, one may easily find out if a program is on the GPTBoycott Watch List.

The GPTBoycott Watch List was formed on August 24, 2004, as one of a number of measures to increase the integrity of our boycott procedure, and to help GPTBoycott become a more wide-ranging and useful informative tool.

See the list at: http://www.gptboycott.com/watch/

[govind]

Hi Rob, The idea of maintaining a watch list is a good one. I know from my own experience that once Moody’s or S&P have put (or any rumor about it) a company on watch list, I will get out of the stock in a hurry. I will ask questions later! So, it is a very serious matter.
I was surprised to see some names in the watch list. At least on one program, I have not seen any hue and cry in the pages of the GPTBoycott about that program! No lengthy follow-up and heated discussions in tens of pages have been pursued!! In fact that program has saved me because most of my older programs have delayed payments! On my desk I have the name of this program placed against the wall!!
So, there is some problem (for me and perhaps not for others) about the method of arriving at the watch list. I think the solution lies in broadening the selection procedure.

[mateypeeps]

Glad to see AYS on the watch list.

They are as similar in their behaviour (in my opinion), as the Turner sites that many complain about, so should be as suspect and on this list.

However, I am very surprised at the IPTL inclusion. The management are not in the same league as all the petty little PTR/PTC scam sites that are included on the Watch list or Boycott list. I do get pad by them everytime I get $1 or more, which is more than I can say of AYS and the like.

However, I do acknowledge that they did do some things to rescue the site that annoyed people, including even me, although I support them in their need to do it, as the alternative was just to go bankrupt and vanish, which they had too much integrity to do.

I just wonder what the actual reasons were for including them here?

Not that I expect an answer as there is no discussion according to the rules "The GPTBoycott Watch List does not seek to offer justifications or explanations for a program's inclusion on the list."

Perhaps we need an Un-WatchList process to mirror the un-boycott one?

Anyway, well done Rob & Co, the Watch list is a useful adjunct to the full boycott list, even if we do not all agree on every inclusion.

[Rob]

I half expected some comments similar to this, so I thought I'd highlight a few quotes from the Watch List page to explain this:


It should be noted that the GPTBoycott Watch List should not be used on its own as a guide to the characteristics and honesty of a program.



The Watch List simply comprises those programs with five or more outstanding complaints, which for one reason or another do not yet warrant a formal boycott. Possible reasons for this may include, but are not limited to: a) the program has not yet attained the ten complaints needed for a boycott consideration, b) the program is not yet considered worthy of a full boycott for one or more reasons, c) the validity of the complaints may be under question so much as to not use them as the basis for a formal boycott, but not so much as to dismiss them completely.



The GPTBoycott Watch List does not seek to offer justifications or explanations for a program's inclusion on the list. This is because of the ubiquitous nature of the requirements for a program's inclusion on the Watch List.


In the future, I will not rule out a form of removal from the Watch List, where the administration of companies on the Watch List are willing to work and co-operate with us in assisting to discover the truth behind the complaints that we have.

Rob :)

[mateypeeps]

Thanks for the reply Rob, I was only expressing surprise at seeing IPTL there.

I read and understand all the paragraphs you repeated here, that does not stop the fact that I was surprised, and felt I had to say so.

I can relate to why every other one is there, even my personal favourites Betty Bucks and NileCash.

I do NOT say categorically that IPTL do not deserve to be there, as I do not know what others have had to complain about, so I am not arguing that they should be removed without reason, just that I am intrigued to know what the complaints may be.

After all, we know all about Spedia and BondJamesBond and ZWALLET from the FORUM discussions.

Any factual errors there can be pointed out by other members, to save the GPTBoycott admin the time investigating.

Here, however, we are all in the dark.

I am not so much worried that IPTL is a scam, they have been going since 2000, and except for a dark time, when they nearly folded, I have been paid and always treated well and with courtesy.

I am more worried that a site that I like, (and that others here seem to want to defend judging by the posts recently, asking what is going on with IPTL being on the watch list), is being attacked by some cheating/hacking/scum that got caught and punished, so is going around causing the maximum disruption possible, rather like that pain-in-your-side Venomx keeps trying to cause you trouble, as evidenced by the attempt to extract your personal details from ICANN or force you off the web if not able to.

Having been on the receiving end of that sort of cowardly behaviour, I hope you can see that it would be unfair to allow similar treatment of other sites, without the owners (of IPTL in this case) being told at least, even if you are not allowing their members to defend them.

If IPTL got put on the list from OLD historic 2002-2003 forum complaints, then the process of selection for the Watch List needs changing.

http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?t=790&highlight=iptl
is the only really bad thread I can find that slams IPTL, and now that the owners have been paying everyone WITHIN 1 DAY and automatically without begging to be paid, unlike most PTR sites, whenever they earn more than $1 from reading "VMAIL" messages or taking up offers, or having members upgrade to Gold under them, this thread is not valid anymore as a reason to ban now.

In my opinion.

If we have not got a formal UN-WATCHLIST process, then I start the ball rolling by suggesting that if the same number of people file a counter claim against a site being included, then the members or the Admin of GPTBoycott, should take steps to investigate further what is going on.

I also suggest that the original complaints be available in this case, possibly locked in such a way that only logged-in members can read them.

If the accusers are found to have falsely accused with malicious intent to do harm to the good name of the site, then the very least that should happen is that they lose their membership of GPTBoycott. And (can't start with" and"... remember the old days ROB?) they should have the IP banned to stop them signing up again.

I suppose in fairness, the same applies to the supporters, if they support a bad site (like the sites run by Venomx) by lying badly, as opposed to just making a genuine mistake in a few facts, or having a different point of view in interpreting "facts" as they see them. Essentially it would boil down to whether a statement (if made in a court) would render the person liable for perjury.

This is the first of any such counter-claim, if you want.

[Rob]

I agree that there needs to be some form of official process of removal from the Watch List.

While the unsuspension of formal boycotts must be a priority (only one thing on our list to do before we can achieve this goal), surely a process of removal from the Watch List.. formulated at least partially by webmaster responses to each lodged complaint must also be a goal of ours.

Rob

[Meroveus]

I think this is probably the best approach you can take, given you don't have hours a day to do this.

The only thing I can think of to add would be a list of possible violations at the top. Something like, "Sites on this list have violated 5 of the following criteria" and the criteria would be stuff like: late payments, illegal changes to ToS, not running ads in a timely fashion, etc.

But I don't think it's necessary. Matey Peeps has it right: we're all likely to be surprised by one or two sites we've had nothing but good times with, but for the most part we'll understand. I was one of the ones who got exactly squat from Nilecash's first PO, and the new owners said they'd make good but never did. If they're doing better now, that's lovely - I can understand MP liking them, but MP can also understand them being on the list for things that happened in the past. That's a good example right there of members having enough sense to evaluate the list for what it's worth, and not take it as a court ruling, LOL.

[usdollars]

Rob,

Am curious about something: prior to adding a program to the WatchList, do you contact the WM of the program once 5 complaints have been submitted to verify validity?

Thanks in advance.

[Rob]

Not at present, because of time issues.

The Watch List is merely a list of those programs with five or more complaints against them; no more, no less, and I cannot emphasise that enough.

Validation processes only occur during boycott considerations.

Rob

[teedy]

So does that mean that you could get 5 complaints from 5 different people that could be just complaining because of some imagined thing done to them by a site that could be their fault anyway and you would put them on the Watch List. Because of time issues.

[usdollars]

Not at present, because of time issues.

The Watch List is merely a list of those programs with five or more complaints against them; no more, no less, and I cannot emphasise that enough.

Validation processes only occur during boycott considerations.

Rob

Rob, for exactly the reasons teedy posted I think that you need to know that this "watch list" can quickly become abused therefore defeating it's purpose.

If Joe has a problem with "X" program all he has to do now is get 4 of his friends together to post complaints here, valid or not. In fact they don't even have to be members because the complaints aren't validated.

Am getting a little worried. :\

[Mallerie]

Rob, for exactly the reasons teedy posted I think that you need to know that this "watch list" can quickly become abused therefore defeating it's purpose.

If Joe has a problem with "X" program all he has to do now is get 4 of his friends together to post complaints here, valid or not. In fact they don't even have to be members because the complaints aren't validated.

Am getting a little worried. :\

Which was part of the problem before, correct?

If nothing can be backed up, then it's open season on any program that ticks someone off. This still won't be useful because it won't be correct. Just because someone is MAD at a program and wants to talk nasty about it doesn't make it accurate.

Mal

[Meroveus]

Shouldn't people have enough common sense to figure out that if Rob says they haven't validated the complaints, the complaints might not be valid?

Mero

[Mallerie]

Shouldn't people have enough common sense to figure out that if Rob says they haven't validated the complaints, the complaints might not be valid?

Mero

Common sense in ptr, are you serious?

You mean you haven't seen the people who go off like crazy people because they got caught cheating (mult accts, cheat software, etc), hit as many forums as they can yelling SCAM?

Common sense would figure they'd just buck it up and shut up. Chalk it up to they screwed up and got caught. And yet....

Mal

[usdollars]

Shouldn't people have enough common sense to figure out that if Rob says they haven't validated the complaints, the complaints might not be valid?

Mero

But what is the sense of having a list that isn't verified at least somewhat?

Am concerned about the malicious intent motive.

[Meroveus]

First of all, I think there may be one thing that needs clarified... it's not 5 complaints from one guy - it's X complaints from 5 different complainers. That narrows the chances of one person on a vendetta getting someone on a watch list for fun.

Now, l agree that ideally everything should be verified. But how exactly do you do that? You email the webmaster and ask if this stuff is going on? They say, "No", and then what? Do you take their word for it, or demand proof? If they give you pages of text with IP addresses and scripty stuff - do you accept that or point out that, duh, it could be fake?

Mero

[usdollars]

First of all, I think there may be one thing that needs clarified... it's not 5 complaints from one guy - it's X complaints from 5 different complainers. That narrows the chances of one person on a vendetta getting someone on a watch list for fun.

Not exactly, as I posted earlier:

If Joe has a problem with "X" program all he has to do now is get 4 of his friends together to post complaints here, valid or not. In fact they don't even have to be members because the complaints aren't validated.

Now, l agree that ideally everything should be verified. But how exactly do you do that? You email the webmaster and ask if this stuff is going on? They say, "No", and then what? Do you take their word for it, or demand proof? If they give you pages of text with IP addresses and scripty stuff - do you accept that or point out that, duh, it could be fake?

And I do think that the complaints need to be validated somehow. Perhaps in a private forum between the member and the webmaster? I just have a problem with the ease of which a program could end up on the watch list.

[Meroveus]

Like I said, requiring 5 separate complainers cuts down on the possibility of a single person vendetta - I agree it doesn't eliminate the possiblity. I'm not sure any system would.

In regards to your suggestion about the member and webmaster in a private forum - that sounds more like mediation than investigation. The question remains: WHAT would be considered proof that the webmaster is or isn't doing the things the member claims? From either side - what would you accept as proof of the member's claim, and what would you accept as proof from a webmaster?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot... I've been asking myself these questions and I'm not getting answers I'm satisfied with. With everything digital and therefore easy to fake, it gets complicated.

Mero

[usdollars]

Like I said, requiring 5 separate complainers cuts down on the possibility of a single person vendetta - I agree it doesn't eliminate the possiblity. I'm not sure any system would.


Well verifying those complaints somewhat would surely minimize any vendettas.


In regards to your suggestion about the member and webmaster in a private forum - that sounds more like mediation than investigation. The question remains: WHAT would be considered proof that the webmaster is or isn't doing the things the member claims? From either side - what would you accept as proof of the member's claim, and what would you accept as proof from a webmaster?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot... I've been asking myself these questions and I'm not getting answers I'm satisfied with. With everything digital and therefore easy to fake, it gets complicated.

Mero

I've already suggested that GPTBoycott consider an Arbitration and Mediation Panel here http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5822

Personally, from the amounts of complaints I've seen submitted over the years and the direction I've watched them take, I still believe this to be a good direction to move into. I realize the members of GPTBoycott are already stretched for time but I do hope this idea comes into work some time.

As to the proof to substantiate claims, I would guess that each side would have to provide as much hard evidence as they could on each side and then the panel would make a decision.

And yes, like anything in life it will have its faults - I doubt there is ever a perfect system anywhere unfortunately.

[Meroveus]

Well, I like the idea of mediation, and I'm going to reply to it there. However, I think it exposes the members making the complaints.... some members are going to be identifiable JUST from their complaints. And so that blows anonymity out of the water.

I still am not seeing WHAT would constitute hard evidence on either side. What if a member says "I was deleted for no reason" and the PO whips up a log that supposedly shows he was sharing his computer with another account holder. The member says "No one touches my computer, and I only visit my account on that computer - that log must have been faked". Who do we believe? Either side is plausible, given the lengths we've seen both members and PO's go to cheat.

Anyway, off to reply in your mediation thread,

Mero

[usdollars]

Except that by keeping records of the complaints eventually a pattern will be developed. If the same program owner repetitiously has the same complaint, when then I dare say there is a problem. Likewise on the members side.

[Rob]

Shouldn't people have enough common sense to figure out that if Rob says they haven't validated the complaints, the complaints might not be valid?

Mero


Thanks Mero,

Yes, the Watch List does assume a degree of common sense on the visitor's part, which I don't perceive to be unreasonable.

There is the possiblity that the list could be used in the wrong way(s), but I do not see this as such a major problem once we tie up a few things, and can begin to think about a process of removal from this list.

Rob

[Meroveus]

US Dollars, how about if someone on GPTB staff took the time to go through the praises and complaints type folders here and at GPF and searched for each program, and looked for violations of a similar nature to those they've received complaints about? If for example I complained that BadPTRSite had paid me late, and they looked through the forums and saw several other people complaining about the same thing... would that be good enough for the watch list, in your opinion?

Mero

[usdollars]

At this point, I do think that any type of investigating would be a good thing. So long as there is a definite pattern developing.

Don't get me wrong, I think a watchlist is a good thing and I commend GPTBoycott for doing this to protect the members. Am just concerned about it going in the other direction and bringing harm to reputable owners and their programs.

[govind]

I just visited the Get Paid Forum and collected data for the GainMail only for yesterday.


Paid By GainMail;

1. Reference-GetPaidForum
All these people were paid on September 1, 2004

USER number of times got paid

Rid**** 1
Mightykye 2
Litldevl 2
Wolf.. 1
Indie.. 3
Dchal 15
Felixsss 1
Mommab 11
Ichase8 3
Derex 1
Tnek 2
Page96 1
ZIs7 10

2. Reference--GPTBoycott

I have been paid 13 times.

[Meroveus]

Govind, good work - but late payment isn't the only complaint.

I see EVERYONE agrees you simply cannot get a response from the admins no matter how you try to contact them. Maybe that was the complaint.

Okay, how difficult would this be? Create a set of codes, like:

1. LAte payment
2. No communication from owner
3. Illegal change to ToS
4. Unexplained deletion of account
5. Unmarked cheat link

Then, the watch list would look like this:

Gainmail - 2
OtherBadSite - 1, 3

etc.

Would take some work - maybe more time than anyone has - but it would clue readers of the watchlist in on what to look for.

I personally think not being able to contact admins is very bad - however, they do seem to pay. I would have to balance the two to make up my mind.

Just a thought.

Mero

[govind]

Hi Mero.

In response to some questions raised by a member of GPTBoycott about the GainMail program I had written the following:

I see that some members R having problem in getting paid by the GainMail program. Hope UR problems R ironed out in a timely fashion. All I will say is that I have been paid 13 times by GainMail without any hesitation on the part of the WM. I have no active referrals. THIS IS THE BEST PROGRAM I HAVE RUN INTO IN A LONG TIME in terms of the payout, fast payment, frequency and intensity of paid mails, absence of the abrasive language to the members, and the right way to check for honest members by requiring the verified PayPal account!
Good luck 2 all and I hope U R able to resolve the problem in an amiable manner!!

I remember that the WM had once not responded to my e-mail but my problem was resolved anyway. Here is the reason. The WM as is the case with most people whose mother tongue is not English tends to be shy about writing or speaking in English! Believe me I know because I have been there. So, I will not connect this issue with the honesty of the WM.

Regarding the current payment status, it is taking about 7 days to receive the payout. The WM does not write any confirmation letter and debits the account as is done in UR case So, I will not worry about it for several days.

Good luck and hope that the WM makes U a happy member!!

The WM of the GainMail does change his modus operandi from time to time without informing the members (again problem with the language!). But I have usually ignored this weakness of the program!!

[Meroveus]

Believe me, the last thing I want to do is say anything negative about a program that does seem to be paying. But some people are saying they will only pay VERIFIED PayPal users and this is not in their ToS. So while this should not necessarily stop anyone from joining, it is information people should have.

http://www.getpaidforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=234133

This thread is an example of someone seeing what they thought was a great program on the list, and asking others for opinions. I think the thread gives you a pretty fair balanced idea of the benefits and potential downsides to the program. Some downsides won't apply to some people (for example, I'm verified PayPal, so no problem). I think the people in the thread are making up their own minds, and that's exactly what I hope to see.

Mero

[AloraLyric]

Since you scanned the forums for some GainMail praises, I thought I'd take a quick peek at some posts as well.
I notice you say payouts are taking 7 days, but I saw posts claiming they've waited a month or more. Maybe it's the members fault they aren't getting paid like everyone else, but how will they know that if the webmaster doesn't respond to emails?

I think it's nice for you to be able to ignore the "weakness" as you call it, but maybe others don't want to ignore it. If that's the case, then I think they have a right to be heard.

[govind]

I think UR points R well taken! I believe that even one person not being paid is too many and that person has a right to be heard. But we must resolve this issue in the context of the reality of the situation. We all will differ according to our experience, knowledge and information. That’s why there R all kinds of products in the market for everybody!
There is a seller who thinks that the stock price is too high and then there is a buyer who thinks otherwise. This makes our world so interesting and worth living!