Suggestions for Legislative Action

[DAzHiredGun]

Members:

The purpose of this thread is to compile suggestions YOU, as members of "Paid To" programs, feel should be addressed by legislative bodies. I seriously doubt there are any senators or representatives who are members of any "Paid To" programs; therefore, I am of the opinion that any proposed legislation pertaining to such programs should have input from those who are most directly affected - YOU, as members and owners of the "Paid To" programs. I am hoping each of you, including owners of "Paid To" programs, will present a problem for discussion.

One such problem I have noticed resurfacing deals with "Terms of Service" and "pay out". For instance, a person joins a PTR program with a "pay out" of $5, but upon reaching "pay out" finds it has been raised to $50. The company refers the member to its TOS - which, in essence, states the company reserves the right to make any changes it deems necessary without notification of the membership - and reminds the member of this agreement at the time the person joined.

In my opinion, both the company and the member should be bound to the original contract having the $5 pay out. After the original obligation has been met through payment of the $5 and notification of the increase, the member then has the option of continuing membership- with knowledge of the $50 pay out.


ron

[Keith]

I agree with you, but what can we really do about it? Do you think anyone will listen to these problems and pass laws to fix them? Or at least try and fix them.

Keith

[DAzHiredGun]

Yes - we CAN do something about it. THIS is one way to voice our opinions. WE have an opportunity to identify, discuss and document what we know, or have reason to believe, are weaknesses in the law. AND, we can, through the collective knowledge of the members, arrive at reasonable solutions - then, we can forward the information to the people WE elected to represent US in the different legislative bodies.

Whether anything gets done or not, begins here.

ron

[Rob]

I agree with your opinions about changing minimum payouts DAzHiredGun.

I also believe that there should be some legislature against companies who have a minimum of, say $100 and stop sending e-mails/giving credit for anything once the user has say, $90...

*cough Nitroclicks*

Rob

[DAzHiredGun]

I doubt government can dictate payout rates - if they could, there ought to be a cap on professional ball players' salaries!!

I do think legislation can eliminate the practice of raising payout before meeting the first contractual obligation.

Your example should either be addressed as "breach of contract" on the part of the company, where their actions make it impossible for the member to reach payout; or, handled as an act of fraud - citing the company for having received a service from the member and refusing to pay said member.

These are the kinds of things that should be covered by appropriate legislation.

Valid points, Rob. Thanks for the input.

ron

[Rob]

Well, another thing which I feel should be outlawed in the industry is where programs don't credit paid signups on a frequent basis...

Granted, mistakes can happen in tracking, but where support e-mails are left unanswered, and sign-ups aren't credited... isn't that protected against?

[snafu]

I think the goverment should be left out of it completely. Every thing the goverment touches becomes fubar.

Should anyone want to know, yes I am a program owner. Yes I have changed my TOS. I have gone from $15 dollar payout down to a $7.50. All members that have requested payment have gotten paid, usaually within a matter of hours. Not the 15 days my TOS provides.

I don't need the goverment telling me what is fair and honest. I believe 99% of our politicians are crooks anyway. Yes their are some crooks on the internet. However, I trust the webmaster of the Paid To site, more than I would ever trust the goverment to get anything right.

[DAzHiredGun]

Well, Rob, I wish I could say I understood the industry better than I do. Frankly, I find the different pay scales a bit confusing - and still am unable to understand how someone can "cheat" simply by reading paid mail, unless by holding several accounts under ficticious names.

However, I do feel that when a company fails to live up to its end of the agreement with the member - then, for all practical purposes, the company is essentially defrauding the member by failure to pay what is due.

ron

[DAzHiredGun]

Thank you, snafu. In my opinion, you should be commended for having reduced your payout, your expeditious payments and your obvious concern for your members!

As to your "fubar" theory - sometimes I wonder, LOL. Ironically, I've spent the past 15 yrs. working for a politician - an honest one, at that. I don't doubt your sincerity toward your members or your goals for success. However, much of this site is made up of complaints against "Paid To" programs for a variety of reasons. One such program was EmailTreasures. A number of issues came to light during that discussion, resulting in the creation of another thread for listing victims and their losses to that company.

Certainly, you do not need the government (law) to tell you how to run an honest program - you seem to be doing quite well without them. On the other hand, VICTIMS of companies like EmailTreasures DO NEED laws in place so they will have some recourse against those who would take advantage of them - instead of hearing "We're sorry, there's nothing we can do, there's no law against what they've done to you."

This isn't about making laws to govern honest people - it's about punishment for criminals and rights for their victims.

ron

[snafu]

Ron

I agree with the communities actions against emailtreasures. I also was stung by them. If I remembered the amounts, etc. I would join your campaign against them. However, this is were I think it should stay. The community working against dishonest webmasters. I believe as a community we can do much more in the fight. Once the goverment is involved, then they have to take more money from me for taxes to support laws that really are not going to make any difference. This is an international community, US laws would only affect around half the webmaster's anyway so why bother. Keep it on a case by case basis as you are doing with emailtreasures. I agree that dishonest webmaster should be dealt with. I just don't agree that laws that cannot or will not be enforced and cost me more money thru the use of taxes is the way to go about it.

Also as a note. I do not allow advertising on my site for programs that are on the boycott list. The advertiser's money will be returned and an explanation with a link to this site will be provided to the advertiser. Currently, I have not had to actually do this, but this is how I plan on dealing with the problem when it come up. If more webmasters would follow this lead, there would be a lot less problems.

Ron

[snafu]

Some more information on this that I think needs to be addressed. I am the webmaster of CentsableMail.com. This information is for those that may think I am trying to hide my identity. I have not read any comments about this yet, but I wanted to nip it in the bud before it comes up.

It also seems a lot of Paid To members seem to think because we webmaster delete inactive accounts after a set number of days we are scams. We are not, look at it as if we owned a brick and morter store that sends out catalogs. If I have sent you a few catalogs and you have not purchased anything, why would I continue to throw good money after bad. At some point we have to trim the fat, so that we as webmaster and our active members continue to make money. If I am not making a profit what is my incentive to continue.

We are thrown many different types of members that try to cheat the system over a few pennies. The individuals that try signing up for multiple accounts. The individuals that just click the links and have no intentions of ever signing up or buy the product or program our advertisers are promoting. You think you as members of our programs have it hard. LOL

Yes, I do delete inactive accounts after 60 days of inactivity. No I will not try to restore an account that has been deleted for inactivity. Yes you are welcome to sign up again, but please stay active or it will happen again. No, when I delete inactive accounts I do not play favorites. If you are inactive you are inactive, does not matter if you are a webmaster with a 1000 members in your downline or a gold member or just a member. Let's face it, if you personally have not clicked a link in 60 days, you are no longer interested in that program anymore. We as webmasters are not responsible for your activity, you are. So please don't email us, when it is you that is at fault.

The advertising market is tough right now. It seems advertisers would rather put their money with the so called big programs with a lot of members (25000+), even though most of those programs are on the boycott list and MAY never intend on paying their members.

Webmaster and members must band together as a community, as is happening on this forum and on others. I think as a strong community we can do more for the fight against dishonest webmaster and members than to try passing legislation here in the US. Again this would only affect a few webmaster and would not help the international members at all. We can do more as a strong community than any legislation could ever do.

Now I would love to be able to display the GPTBoycott.com seal of approval on my website. However, at this time my members most not feel that my program is worthy at this time. I can accept that, all it really means is I have to work harder to bring Centsable Mail to a level that is worthy.

Thank you for your time and understanding,
Ron

PS. My comments in a earlier post about anything the goverment touches being fubar were uncalled for. I have a lot of problems with some of my goverments responses to a lot of things, but that is not what this forum is about. So I do apologize.

[toxox]

Should probably be a US somebody, and thus not me :-)

There are bound to be boards around that discuss illegal intenet use and what can be doen against it. Since these people will take themselves very seriously they most likely never thought of GPTREM programs. But the question whether you can just stop doing business by the time you have to pay your customers might have some very clear legal answers. Can somebody look for such a board and explain the situation there?

[snafu]

Toxox

I agree with your comment about webmasters that close their sites just when their members are about to be paid. It should already be covered by legislation in most countries. I just don't think new "internet" legislation is the answer. Current laws on the books should be modified in each country to cover this action, not new laws written.

I am really on the communities side in this. I try to keep the balances in my PayPal and e-gold accounts at the proper level where all active members can be paid minus their sign up bonus (which was a mistake on my part, if I were able to just start over there would be no sign up bonus), if something should happen to me and I should have to close down tomorrow. So why do I keep the sign up bonus, because I don't want to be one of the webmasters that changes their TOS to my members disadvantage. Example: where the sign up bonus can only be used for advertising, etc. All my TOS changes have been for the members benefit, except the clarification on 1 account period. But should I run into financial difficulty, I would like to be able to amend my TOS temporarily if not permanently until the situation is resolved and I do not need law enforcement breathing down my neck.

To sum it all up
I agree that there are a lot of dishonest individuals out there and something needs done.

I do not think passing legislation only in the US is the answer. There are to many international members involved. Each case should be dealt with on a case by case bases. As is being done with emailtreasures. Also in this case are any members from outside the US building a case against them. I am not real clear on International law, are non us members that sign up for the case being built here in the US really going to be listen to or should they be developing their cases country by country. This I will have to defer back to DAzHiredGun.

Webmasters and members must start communicating better. Leave your anger out of it. Expressions of anger only shut down the communication process. Think about emailing the webmaster before you sign up for a program, a lot miscommunication can be prevented this way. If the webmaster doesnt respond then you probably do not want to be involved in their program. I usually try to answer all question within 24 hours, but it sometimes takes up to 72 hours, depending on how many emails I get. If I havent answered your question within 72 hours, I didnt receive it.

[snafu]

Here is an email I just sent to my membership.

Hi Members

On GPTboycott.com we are having a discussion about Suggestions for Legislative Action.

Here is the topic thread http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=796

Here is an extremely valuable chance for you to get your voice heard. Please get involved with this discussion. Membership to the site is free and I believe it is one of the best forums for protecting you the members.

Here is one of your best chances as a member to help shape the future of internet law. Please don't pass it up.

As you read through the thread it will look like it is me against the world. This is not the case, I really am on your side. I personnally do not think new legislation is the answer, but I know some of my membership does and each individual is has a right to their own opinions. Again please take the time to voice yours now.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

[ComputerPro]

The terms in place at the time of a user joining should be "the law" until that person quits. Changes in terms should be emailed to the entire memberbase and posted on the website.

If this is not done, it is called the classic "switch and bait". Get the membership base and then change the terms to avoid paying paying out and pocketing the $$ themselves. (Crooked webmasters --> Enron CEOs)


Membership earnings do not affect site income as until the member requests payout, it should be listed as an "unpaid liability". Afterall, most webmasters do not guarantee they can pay anything.

If a webmaster is that crooked that he changes the terms and does not take the time to notify the memberbase , he has no business running a site and most members will quit because of the dishonest jerk running the site.

[Keith]

Ok so what could we do if we dont take legislative action? I mean if we can get many many users to stop using a program for a while maybe they will give in, or they could just close and run with the money. Unless someone has an idea on how to get these people i think legislative action is the best. I personally would rather not, but if it was the only way i would do it.

Keith

[StashuJ]

This is certainly a good topic for discussion. It happens all too often. I get really aggravated every time that happens to me--and it has happened more often than I care to count. I believe that the people running the programs should be forced to honor the original bargain and then raise the minimum but I also believe that many of them get into these programs without a clue what they are doing and run into trouble when the first couple hundred people all try to cash out at once. There is no way to sue anyone who has nothing so that wouldn't be the answer. Should the standards be raised as to who is allowed to open an on-line business? Most definitely. Should those who close up their sites and take the money and run when it comes time to pay the members be prosecuted? It all depends. Some have probably done it because they didn't know what they were doing when the started the business but others are professional con artists who close one site and open another in this world of anonymity and they ought to be stamped out by any means possible.

I like sites like this that help get the word out and I hope that in time we can make a difference and eliminate the fruad in online communities.

[mrbike]

I don't think that legislation will solve the problems with some of the programs that exist out there. The only way to solve the problems is for the industry (if that is the correct thing to call it) can "police" itself. The seal of approval is a good way to start, however, there are some good programs that exist that don't have the seal of approval, actually, I don't think that there are many programs that have the seal. I think that the seal of approval should be issued by this forum, and not be voted on by the members of a certain site. Maybe the webmasters that already have the seal could be the panel that would decide if a new site would be approved, based on, say a 6 month application process, and posts of "kudos" or complaints that have been listed on this forum. Of course the panel would have to contact those persons who posted to verify that they are "real" members of the site.

[Keith]

The Seal of approval was intended to help users pick good programs that users voted for. We cant have just 1 person say that a program is good or not, we need several peoples opinions. That's one of the reasons we picked to have users vote for it. The reason that their are only a few programs that have the seal is becuase it takes a while to get everything done for it and it's a new addition to this site.

I kinda like the panel idea. But i dont think that it should be all webmasters. Mabye the panel should be made up of 10 people. 5 webmasters and 5 non-webmasters? Then if the majority approve the program then we approve it. Also would people be willing to do this?

When you say "6 month application process", does the program have to be around for 6 months or do they have to request to be approved and then 6 months later we decide if they get it or not? I think 6 months is kinda long, how about 4 months? And they should pay x number of people so far.

Now what about members that dont have alot of downline members. I think most of those people dont like programs if they cant make alot in a few months. What about them? Should the other 5 non-webmasters be people that usually dont have a large downline?

I have to talk to rob before we decide on anything, and i would like to get users opinions.

What do you think?

Keith

[Keith]

Originally posted by snafu
Here is an email I just sent to my membership.

Hi Members

On GPTboycott.com we are having a discussion about Suggestions for Legislative Action.

Here is the topic thread http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=796

Here is an extremely valuable chance for you to get your voice heard. Please get involved with this discussion. Membership to the site is free and I believe it is one of the best forums for protecting you the members.

Here is one of your best chances as a member to help shape the future of internet law. Please don't pass it up.

As you read through the thread it will look like it is me against the world. This is not the case, I really am on your side. I personnally do not think new legislation is the answer, but I know some of my membership does and each individual is has a right to their own opinions. Again please take the time to voice yours now.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

Hey thanks for sending that email out! :)

Keith

[mrbike]

Keith;

I like the idea of 5 webmasters, and 5 non webmasters on the panel. I guess that I sounded kind of arbitrary in the 6 month waiting time, I didn't mean to be, the reason for the 6 month period is to give the panel time to do some investigation into the program to see what the members are saying about the webmaster and his program, and to make sure this isn't another one of those sites that are a "flash" in the pan, here for a couple of months sending out tons of emails, and then "poof" disappearing, never to be heard of again, before very many people get paid. If that can be done in 4 months, I certainly don't have any problem with that. I personally don't have much of a downline in any of the programs that I am a member of, so they have to be around for a long time before I am able to reach payout.

[DAzHiredGun]

snafu:

First, let me apologize to you and others for seemingly ignoring what's been going on here; but, we have been involved in prosecuting a capital case which just ended a few hours ago. This is the first case of its nature, in our area, that I've seen go into a Sunday. BTW, the defendant was convicted of Capital Murder and sentenced to life w/o possibility of parole.

It seems I struck a nerve with some of you folks - and to that, I plead guilty! I wanted to get different comments, opinions and ideas on this subject of legislation - and fortunately, you are responding and broadening this discussion beyond what I had hoped for. Thank you all.

snafu - it's been a real pleasure reading your posts. There are a few areas you touched on that I would like to respond to.

You mentioned: "This is an international community, US laws would only affect around half the webmaster's anyway so why bother."
Perhaps - then, the victims only have to worry about the half that are not based in the US. If we cause legislation that reduces the number of victims by 50%, or the number of scam programs by 50%, the thought occurs that we have done some good. Something in the back of my mind is reminding me the US is a world leader. Why should I not believe that such legislation brought forth in the US would not lead to other countries following suit?

You also mentioned: "We can do more as a strong community than any legislation could ever do" ; and, "...we can do more for the fight against dishonest webmaster and members...", etc.
True, when it comes to issuing a warning, this is much faster and reaches more individuals. However, without law, there is no legal recourse, no punishment; hence, we are left to the mercy of those who would take advantage of a situation that would be "illegal" - if only the written law were there! And, yes, it should apply to all - not just webmasters or program owners, but any individual who commits, or attempts to commit, any illegal act designed to defraud another via the internet.

Somewhere, you said something about modifying current laws and not writing new laws.
That would probably work, assuming the laws are there to revise. If not, then they have to be written.

Increased taxes seems to be a concern. I know this will sound strange, but is passing part of the tax burden on to advertisers a consideration - in the event taxes enter the picture? Forgive my ignorance, but not being a webmaster of a "Paid To" program, I don't have a clue as to how you make money.

You expressed a desire to display the GPTBoycott.com Seal of Approval on your site and indicated your members may not think you are worthy. I would take exception to that and would argue that you exemplify the good qualities the webmaster of a PTR program should have. I would like to join Keith and thank you for directing your members to this thread and commend you for your honesty and genuine concern. Perhaps, if more of your members join GPTBoycott, you will get the Seal you so well deserve.

ron

[kaotika]

First, in response to this quote:
"You expressed a desire to display the GPTBoycott.com Seal of Approval on your site and indicated your members may not think you are worthy. I would take exception to that and would argue that you exemplify the good qualities the webmaster of a PTR program should have. I would like to join Keith and thank you for directing your members to this thread and commend you for your honesty and genuine concern. Perhaps, if more of your members join GPTBoycott, you will get the Seal you so well deserve."
I'm a member of his PTR. I'm not leaving. He's more than fair to members.
Then, as to the topic of this discussion....
Legislative Action of any kind would take a very long time...with no guarantees. It would also be hard to enforce.
It would be nice if all webmasters agreed to payout as it was earned, for those who were already members when the TOS got changed. But anyone can own a GPTRE Program...anyone at all.
I believe the majority of PTR owners are trying to run decent, honest programs. But I also believe those owners are probably decent, honest human beings to begin with.
I've only been doing this a few months, have no downlines on most of what I belong to, and intend to be around a while yet. But in those few months, I've hit a few bumps, been scammed a couple times,(which is how I wound up a member here) and decided just to drop any program that has a hard time answering support issues (unless a notice of the site being down happens) and getting away from programs with rude owners. If they're rude before I've earned money, I'll never see what I earn. I also drop programs that change for no reason, or have actual rants in the member mailings.
I think the day we have legislation that CAN protect us, keep us from being scammed, we'll also have Big Brother reading our email so much we won't need to do it ourselves. Our best way to not be scammed is to be aware, pay attention to each program, and read the mails instead of just clicking.
uuummm...guess I'll shut up now.....
Charlene

[DAzHiredGun]

Whoa, Charlene, hold on.

snafu said: "Now I would love to be able to display the GPTBoycott.com seal of approval on my website. However, at this time my members most not feel that my program is worthy at this time. I can accept that, all it really means is I have to work harder to bring Centsable Mail to a level that is worthy."

In response, I said: "You expressed a desire to display the GPTBoycott.com Seal of Approval on your site and indicated your members may not think you are worthy. I would take exception to that and would argue that you exemplify the good qualities the webmaster of a PTR program should have. I would like to join Keith and thank you for directing your members to this thread and commend you for your honesty and genuine concern. Perhaps, if more of your members join GPTBoycott, you will get the Seal you so well deserve."

Your response: "I'm a member of his PTR. I'm not leaving. He's more than fair to members."


My comments were not meant to be suggestive that you or any other member of Ron's program should abandon it. Though I am not a member, I support his efforts. He sounds like a person of character, good morals and a sense for business. I may not agree with his opinion on legislation, but I respect him for it. The Seal is awarded after a voting process and requires twenty votes, I think. Frankly, I don't know if Ron has twenty members of his PTR - that are also members of GTPBoycott and eligible to vote. Personally, I'd like to see him get it just because of what I think of him as a person. Obviously, you also think highly of him. Not being a member of his PTR, I don't think I can nominate his program - but you can.

As far as legislation is concerned, I do not believe for one second that it will stop internet crime any more than current laws have stopped murder, rape or robbery. However, there exists a need for some guidelines where there are none - which is the reason for this discussion. Again, this isn't about making laws to govern honest people - it's about punishment for criminals and rights for their victims.

Thanks for the input,

ron

[kaotika]

[My comments were not meant to be suggestive that you or any other member of Ron's program should abandon it.]

Sorry.
I didn't think you were putting him or the program down.
That's just me saying he's fair, and I'm staying.
And I was saying anyone at all can buy a website...start a program, get members, never pay, and disappear. I don't think legislation is what we need, as much as places like this, so we can stay aware, informed, ....and unscammed.
Maybe if we had been talking face-to-face, I'd make more sense.
I guess I oughta go learn what those little yellow guys really are, since I'm never sure how to use them. They are kind of cute.
Now I'm going to pull back into my shell, and go read the rest of the posts.
Charlene

[mrbike]

I am just shooting from the hip here, so my ideas may be a little rough and need some (ok, alot) of polishing. Maybe the legislation, if there is going to be any, should include not only what the site can or can't do, but also should have some qualificaitons as to whom can be an owner of the site. When I say qualifications, I am talking about maybe a bond or some such thing so that the owner of the site has something to lose if he (going to use masculine pronouns to shorten the letter) decides to just "close up shop" and run away with whatever profits that he has earned without paying his members. This bond could be used to pay the members at least part of their earnings if the owner runs. I don't have any ideas on who or what should hold the bond, but I think that it is just too easy and inexpensive to be able to start a site. I think that we all can agree that we want the owners of the sites to be around for a long time, so the bond shouldn't be too cost prohibitive.

[DAzHiredGun]

Charlene:

There's no need to apologize. I applaude you for standing up for Ron. Too often, people are quick to criticize but slow to praise - myself included. FYI, because of some things Ron said about himself, but mostly because of your dedication and support of Ron and his PTR, I joined his program. Thanks for the "recommendation"; and, thanks for being here to voice your opinions.

ron

p.s I liked the sound of it as well and joined under Ron - Taff

[DAzHiredGun]

For someone "shooting from the hip", your aim is pretty good, mrbike. Bonds for site owners, hmmm, interesting - to say the least. Held by whom, the site host? What if the site owner hosts his own site? Are those who list the site, such as MSN, Google, Yahoo, etc., also to be held responsible for the site owner's actions? We're getting into a new realm, here, which is exactly what was intended by starting this thread - considering ALL aspects of internet usage and measures of control needed via a standard guideline for all who use it and hopefully reducing the number of victims of internet crime by enactment of such measures or guidelines.

Thanks for the input - keep it coming.

ron

[mrbike]

I don't think that the host should hold the bond, as that may make it more difficult for owners of the sites to find "good" hosts. I know that one of the things that I hate is when you have to wait and wait to get into a site because it is so slow in loading. I guess I was talking about a purely independant party, such as a bank or insurance company holding the bond. I don't want the site hosts or the listors of the sites held responsible for the actions of a "dishonest" owner. That would be like holding the bank responsible for someone who writes bad checks. This is still an idea in the works, maybe someone else has some iother deas on whom should or could hold the bond. I am also wondering if some of the gptr sites fail because of lack of funds behind them. This bond would be one way of keeping out owners that are low on funds, or at least pairing up with several people so that the funds are available.