Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 92 of 92
  1. #81
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default Cityguard

    Please suspend member alphonso immediately and then discuss. If not I will hold you personally responsable for any theft.



    Just kidding.

    Let's get this done Steven please.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    pgaming (16 December 2009)

  3. #82
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    I know your right mojo this member should be banned NOW! I see you removed your Sigs smart move. I would suggest others do the same a hungry lion is roaming the GPWA streets.

    Good thing I did not post any other info would have been a waste of time.

    Happy Holidays!

    pgaming/ shaddy

  4. #83
    giggles7p's Avatar
    giggles7p is offline In Memoriam, 1962-2011
    Join Date
    July 2004
    Location
    Northeast usa.
    Posts
    1,600
    Thanks
    2,443
    Thanked 792 Times in 461 Posts

    Default

    Alright, i have sat back and waited for the "right thing" to be done with this member and it has not happened, so i will voice my distaste now. First of all, you are losing a wonderful member here in GFPC, he is a huge asset to this forum, and i am disgusted that the leaders that be will let a "ONE TIME POSTER" Such as Alphoso69 receive more respect and loyalty to their membership as non existance as it may be over a long time freindly and courteous member as Steven is.

    Next, this crap member STOLE, do i need to repeat this? HE STOLE! From a well respected and active member with no thought of the repercussions and no respect for the rules of membership here or the ethics of being a good affiliate. WHAT THE ****?

    This man [Alphonso} also stole from me....i am the writer of this article and because its coming up stolen it has affected me and i do not appreciate the lack of interest by the leaders of this forum. I am a good member here, I am active, I try to bring smiles to everyone's face and thats because i love the people and the atmoshpere of family and respect here. BUT IF I AM NOT BEING RESPECTED BY THE LEADERS HERE, AND MY WORK IS NOT BEING RESPECTED, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD ALSO NOT CONSIDER GPWA A FAMILY HOME FOR ME EITHER??

    Is this what you want? I mean come on....you are dragging on over a member who is not even a member. He doesn't contribute, he is not active, and he does not care about anyone here or the ethics that we all try to follow. But yet you do nothing about it, but give excuses of why you need to give HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT?

    Enough is enough. Either do something about his private and public membership or you can keep him and his loyaly membership and not have mine or stevens anymore. And btw. the only thing this crap member does here is steal, obviously he has no interest in being a member that contributes or even becomes friendly with others, he is only here to scam the forum looking for whatever he can take to make is sites better.

    Gambling forum offering the best in online gambling
    777casinoforum.com

    Online Casino portal featuring International Casinos
    qwertycasino.com

    The relaxed affiliate forum, filled with pleasant, thoughtful banter.
    Grab a cold one or a cup of coffee and relax with gambling industry professionals!

    GamblingAffiliatePlace

    Gambling & Casino News
    CasinoScamReport





  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to giggles7p For This Useful Post:

    Anthony (16 December 2009), thepokerkeep (16 December 2009)

  6. #84
    rwsop is offline New Member
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default About duplicate.

    Google is a big machine, and knows who are the owner of each content.
    dont forget that google bot is working very fast.

    This mean that if you are the owner of this content google knows it too.

    so even if 20 peoples steal your content, you will still get the credit for it, especially if you were crawled first.

    Regards,

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to rwsop For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (17 December 2009)

  8. #85
    Betpartners's Avatar
    Betpartners is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2009
    Posts
    1,597
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    315
    Thanked 784 Times in 419 Posts

    Default

    I am not sure why a review of the sites is now required in this instance if he has admitted theft.

    He may have a sob story, he may well not be so web savvy even to realise what he did wrong and so on but as in life wrong actions always have a consequence and i agree that this should be put to a vote now.

    So Steve you have my full support in a call for a vote now and i will be voting for a ban as i believe it is justified.

    I will also follow Steves example and state that if in three months he comes back and his sites are clean etc that i am one that is prepared to give him a second chance, especially in light of his confession.

    That said now the controversial part

    I am disappointed about some of the comments on here and to avoid getting in to a flame war because i dont want that i will just say that the US, Canada, Uk etc are the beacons of justice or are perceived as such.

    Not to go through due process and not to give a trial and not to give the wrong doer his day in the dock is simply wrong.

    If the day ever came that the GPWA acted without thought and without fairness and without due process then i would leave here in a heart beat.

    I have no time for summary justice.

    It would be a shame IMO if the day did come were the GPWA did have to choose between members that want due process and those that dont.

    So there you are, its just my personal opinion and i dont want to antagonise anyone, even those that have a low opinion of me.
    Arthritis Care

    To find true bravery and courage all one need do is look in to the eyes of a sick child - A humble parent

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Betpartners For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (17 December 2009)

  10. #86
    thepokerkeep's Avatar
    thepokerkeep is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    London Canada
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    1,004
    Thanked 1,213 Times in 799 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rwsop View Post
    Google is a big machine, and knows who are the owner of each content.
    dont forget that google bot is working very fast.

    This mean that if you are the owner of this content google knows it too.

    so even if 20 peoples steal your content, you will still get the credit for it, especially if you were crawled first.

    Regards,
    While Google may be able to determine who published the article first there are many other reasons why content theft needs to be dealt with quickly and severely. (for the record - I'm not convinced that Google knows or cares who published first - they may punish the wrong site or both sites)

    Your last sentence above "so even if 20 peoples steal your content, you will still get the credit for it, especially if you were crawled first." should be changed to read "but only if you were crawled first".

    Content theft is theft, period!

    People work hard to produce original, high quality content for their websites - not for their competitors! Anyone who steals content should be busted and punished, period!

    People pay good money to buy articles for their websites - they expect that content to be unique when they get it. They expect that content to remain unique in the future!

    People who spend their time writing articles for other webmasters expect to be paid for their hard work - scraping their material and using it on another website for free is taking food off their table!

    This issue goes way beyond Google and duplicate content penalties/issues!
    Terry - The Pokerkeep
    President / CEO - Gambling Affiliates Union

    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Affiliate Resources
    Gambling Affiliate Program Blacklist

    Email: admin @ thepokerkeep.com



  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thepokerkeep For This Useful Post:

    GamTrak (17 December 2009), giggles7p (17 December 2009)

  12. #87
    casinojack's Avatar
    casinojack is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    Under Anthony's bed.
    Posts
    1,428
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    775
    Thanked 454 Times in 301 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rwsop View Post
    Google is a big machine, and knows who are the owner of each content.
    dont forget that google bot is working very fast.

    This mean that if you are the owner of this content google knows it too.

    so even if 20 peoples steal your content, you will still get the credit for it, especially if you were crawled first.

    Regards,
    You are so incorrect is not even funny. I have no idea where you came up with this but way way wrong.
    "CasinoJack"


  13. #88
    GamTrak's Avatar
    GamTrak is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    1,678
    Thanked 890 Times in 629 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by casinojack View Post
    You are so incorrect is not even funny. I have no idea where you came up with this but way way wrong.
    Unbelievable how some folks will brainwash themselves to justify the means! If it wasn't so sad it would be funny!

  14. #89
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,085
    Thanks
    807
    Thanked 5,162 Times in 1,673 Posts

    Default

    Let me cut to the chase and state that we have taken the action of suspending Alphonso69's status as a private member of the GPWA. We have also confirmed that none of his sites have a GPWA seal on them (if they did we would have suspended the seal).

    I'd like to apologize for our being more sluggish than I believe was appropriate here. But more importantly, I'd like to give more background information and explain steps we are taking to be more responsive in the future.

    In terms of being more responsive in the future, part of the issue was that fact that I was personally not aware of the issue right away. The post volume has gone up a lot, and it is easy for me to miss things and also true that it is easy for Steven to make a decision to delay involving me when I am very busy. That was much more true than usual over the past week or two. There were a dozen of us moving our office from one location in the building where we've been for over ten years to a different location in the building, and that completely broke my normal work routine since I was overseeing much of what was going on and moving myself. Anyway, I do not mean that as an excuse, just as part of an explanation. Further, although Steven was aware there was an issue this time, that is not always the case when he is busy with other things himself. We've talked about this, and have decided the solution is to put a better system of monitoring what is going on in place and to make sure we act more promptly in general when action is appropriate. We'll be making announcements on that front in the near future.

    Part of the issue was also having a philosophy of acting with deliberation and not taking action until after a thorough attempt to get in touch with the webmaster. There are actions that did go on behind the scenes here, and so I do want to quote from a post Steven made in the security committee area yesterday so folks here also have the same information:

    Quote Originally Posted by CityGuard
    Here is some background on what is happening from my end:

    There was an initial question raised about whether Alphonso69 should have been approved as a private member in the first place, with this comment made as a reply to his first post. The concern was that perhaps we should have a minimum activity requirement for acceptance as a private member. The thread is available at https://www.gpwa.org/forum/payment-v...es-185300.html.

    Rick/univeral4 had started this thread in response to that. I'd stayed silent in the security team thread since my response at the time would have simply been echoing thepokerkeep's comment in the private General Chatter thread (that the reason he was approved for private membership without having made any prior posts was because there are no activity requirements).

    Allegations of copying first occurred on December 10th, in a public thread at https://www.gpwa.org/forum/gpwa-memb...nt-185558.html. The request to expel Alphonso69 from private membership occurred in the same post alleging the copied content.

    On December 11th (a Friday), I sent a forum private message to Alphonso69 requesting a formal response to the allegations raised.

    I took the weekend off, then on Monday I saw that I did not have a response from Alphonso69. Since records showed that he had logged in after my PM was sent, I checked his PM configurations to try and determine if he saw the message and had chosen not to reply yet, or had not seen the message. The settings excluded all alerts (no email with the message contents, and no pop-up about having a new PM when he logged in), so it seemed plausible that he hadn't seen it. Wanting to make sure he saw the message, I sent a similar message on Monday (December 14th) to the email address listed on his account.

    I received a reply the next day after sending the email in the form of being CCed on a message to GFPC (posted here). In this reply Alphonso69 indicated that he was sorry for the mistake and that he had removed the article.

    I sent a reply to this message the same day asking for Alphonso69 to commit to reviewing his sites to ensure that there is not other copied content on them (reply sent December 15th). He replied today indicating that he agreed to do this type of review, and expected that it would take 2-3 weeks since he has several sites to go through.

    I haven't yet replied to that message. I think the appropriate response would be to encourage him to do such a review sooner. I am concerned about holding an expulsion vote at present because I think it is a real positive sign to have him agree to make changes and commit to a timeframe, and I would not want a vote to discourage him from making this change. I think a vote on expulsion should be held based on the fact that violations did occur and an expulsion request was made, but I am genuinely torn on how much time should be given to Alphonse to do the follow-up he promised before the vote occurs.

    I also asked GFPC if I could give him a call to discuss. He sent over his phone number privately about 2 hours ago but I haven't called yet because I'd like to think through the situation until I'm less torn on the timeframe before speaking with him.

    I think 2-3 weeks is a bit long and 2-3 days is too short. I'm somewhat inclined to reply to Alphonse asking that he prioritize the review more highly and complete them within a week, then hold an expulsion vote starting next middle of next week (irrespective of whether or not Alphonse has completed the review by then). I don't view it as a question of whether the vote should occur - there was a request for a vote made in seriousness, which I view needs to be a sufficient condition to hold one. My concern is about giving appropriate time for Alphonse's response to play out so we can understand if the response is a professional/responsible one or not.

    I'd really like to hear thoughts on the situation overall and timeframe in particular.
    In going over this situation, I've decided that we will immediately bring situations like this up for vote in the security committee on whether private membership should be suspended over the near term while the situation is more thoroughly identified. In the meantime, on a one-time basis for this particular situation, I have made an executive decision that since Alphonso69 has admitted that he copied the article in question such a security committee vote is not necessary in this case.

    I believe the question about whether the current suspension should be made permanent is properly resolved by a poll of the private members here. I would like to suggest that the proper time for such a poll is after Alphonso69 has completed his review of his sites and reported back to us on the actions he has taken. There are many reasons I hold this view, one of which is that I believe that will maximize the the level of effort he will put into fixing the current situation both with respect to GFPC and with respect to other webmasters.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot

    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  15. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    aksana (17 December 2009), Anthony (17 December 2009), Chalkie (17 December 2009), Chips (17 December 2009), GamTrak (17 December 2009), pgaming (17 December 2009), universal4 (17 December 2009)

  16. #90
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    ---edit--- issue resolved

    Thanks Michael

    Happy Holidays

    pgaming/ shaddy
    Last edited by pgaming; 17 December 2009 at 12:18 pm. Reason: issue resolved removing post

  17. #91
    GamTrak's Avatar
    GamTrak is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    1,678
    Thanked 890 Times in 629 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman View Post
    I believe the question about whether the current suspension should be made permanent is properly resolved by a poll of the private members here. I would like to suggest that the proper time for such a poll is after Alphonso69 has completed his review of his sites and reported back to us on the actions he has taken. There are many reasons I hold this view, one of which is that I believe that will maximize the the level of effort he will put into fixing the current situation both with respect to GFPC and with respect to other webmasters.
    Seems fair to me. Thanks Michael!

  18. #92
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    I believe the question about whether the current suspension should be made permanent is properly resolved by a poll of the private members here. I would like to suggest that the proper time for such a poll is after Alphonso69 has completed his review of his sites and reported back to us on the actions he has taken. There are many reasons I hold this view, one of which is that I believe that will maximize the the level of effort he will put into fixing the current situation both with respect to GFPC and with respect to other webmasters.
    Better than nothing I suppose however much I disagree. If when the GPWA gets a little tougher I will be waiting. There is more to this story and no sense in saying anything else.

    pgaming/ shaddy

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •