I am done, outa here

[MichaelCorfman]

BB1web,

Your response makes it very clear you did not understand the full content of my previous posts on the subject (they make it clear you understand the first part of the logic only since your counterargument would make sense if the second half of the logic was missed). If you pm me your phone number and the best time to call I'm happy to give you a call on my nickle to walk through the logic until we can figure out what part of the logic is being misunderstood.

And, to be clear, this is not a case where I think different standards should apply to different websites. I think the strategy employed on the Casino City website is one that I would recommend to any ethical webmaster to employ as the most effective vehicle possible for warning visitors and I would commend any webmaster that properly employes that strategy.

Michael

[slotplayer]

I was looking for some casinos to promote by brand a few weeks back and saw the Casino City result in Google. I visited CC and it had the skulls next to the rogue properties, so in that case it worked.

However, I would prefer the links to the casinos not be present.

[MichaelCorfman]

I was looking for some casinos to promote by brand a few weeks back and saw the Casino City result in Google. I visited CC and it had the skulls next to the rogue properties, so in that case it worked.

However, I would prefer the links to the casinos not be present.

Did you read through the posts explaining why the links are necessary for the approach taken to work? If you did, and the explaination did not make sense, then please also pm me your phone number and when would be convenient to give you a call so I can go through the logic. I expect if you understand the full dynamics of the situation you will change your mind.

Michael

[arkyt]

I think the strategy employed on the Casino City website is one that I would recommend to any ethical webmaster to employ as the most effective vehicle possible for warning visitors and I would commend any webmaster that properly employes that strategy.

That didn't come across very well ... should I have been kneeling when I said that?

most effective way to do that is either to lie on the link (Visit Black Pirate Casino) from the general information page, which I view as unacceptable or to include the link at the end for those who are hell bent on getting to the site no matter how many warnings they see

So your argument seems to indicate that 1) you don't wish to mislead CC visitors who ignore your funnel of warnings and 2) that if they are going to visit that casino you might as well be the one sending them there.

My question and others as well seems to be - How would you be misleading visitors if you refuse to provide a link?

Why can you not be just as successful in communicating to them that you believe the casino is rogue (using how many ever warnings you want) and at the same time refuse to give a link?

Seriously are you going to use the reasoning that your initial link naming strategy (Visit Black Pirate Casino) prevents you from taking that approach? Change the anchor text! Black Pirate Casino Rogue - read more.

Does CC profit in any way off the links provided to the Black Pirate Casino (fictitious)?