Anyone here feel best qualified to be point man with the FSC?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Using an online processor for $100s of dollars where nothing is actually shipped has charge back written all over it. I would have concerns about accepting $300 from webmasters that understand chargebacks. Wouldn't you if it was your business?

Sorry SirMoby but you're all wet on this one. An FSC membership isn't like a pay site membership where you can download all the content in a few days. The value is in being a member, not in having been a member. Chargebacks is a non-issue.

Cost is also a non-issue. The number of additional people that would join if there were an online registration available would offset any costs for the CC processing many times over.

It's simply a matter of making it a priority and getting it done.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Toby

Sorry SirMoby but you're all wet on this one. An FSC membership isn't like a pay site membership where you can download all the content in a few days. The value is in being a member, not in having been a member. Chargebacks is a non-issue.

Cost is also a non-issue. The number of additional people that would join if there were an online registration available would offset any costs for the CC processing many times over.

It's simply a matter of making it a priority and getting it done.

How many webmasters would have charged back after the list of companies went to the DOJ? How many might try to chargeback now that the ruling came into play?

I'm sure at least a few would have charged back. I can't imagine someone really wanting to donate money and allowing a 3 minute process to stand in the way.

There's a reason why most sites that sell advertising don't use credit card processing and we seem to have no problems buying advertising using other methods.

[Far-L]

GG: want to do a radio show interview with spike and tom hymes?

[Bill]

SirMoby, if that's the best counterargument you can muster, then I am led to believe that you see the political wisdom and message of my argument.

I personally doubt that any webmaster who would join or renew in the first place would chargeback.

But, that is a technical issue, to be resolved in the backend. I can think of several solutions, including publishing the information on chargebacks.

I make political donations all the time - organizations like moveon don't seem to be having a big chargeback issue.

However, perhaps you are suggesting that the FSC fears it will be punished for incompetence or nonaction thru chargebacks?

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Bill

SirMoby, if that's the best counterargument you can muster, then I am led to believe that you see the political wisdom and message of my argument.

You're making an assumption here and I'm sure you know where that's going to go.

It's not an arguement. It's a fact that many webmasters in our business buy things and charge them back months later for many reasons.

Originally Posted by Bill

However, perhaps you are suggesting that the FSC fears it will be punished for incompetence or nonaction thru chargebacks?

Come on Bill. Why are you trying to lead my thoughts? I thought we were reasonable adults here.

[Greenguy]

Jim & I (the board) are members, but I forget in what capacity because the membership form/costs have change 2 or 3 times since we became members.

I think I registered as my company with the board as my primary domain? In any event, Jim & I are members

[cd34]

The FSC could ship a document with membership card Return Receipt Requested.

[RawAlex]

Sirmoby, the online signup doesn't have to be "with nothing shipped". Heck, they could ship a small membership package and information to each new member (or a Tshirt who cares) if they think it is an issue. Taking the signup over the phone isn't making it much more secure when you think about it.

The other thing is that membership wouldn't have to be $300 if they had more members. With a membership fee of $50 or $100, they would attract many more webmasters under the umbrella of the group. Putting the membership fee so high (especially for people who just build galleries or free sites) just encourages people to NOT join the game.

"friends of FSC" memberships would go a long way to getting people on the team and supporting the group.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Sirmoby, it isn't about "donating money", it is about building a group that counts a large part (if not a majority) of the online adult community as it's members. A group cannot even pretend to speak for "us" if so few of us are members (except because many felt they were held for ransom in the 2257 process).

If there are 50,000 webmasters out there, the group would be a stunning success if 30,000 of them were members. It would certainly lend credibility to them when they address courts, politicians, and the public. An "us" group with no "us" is just a few people with nice suits and an agenda.

Alex

[Greenguy]

Far-L - email coming

[Chop Smith]

I signed up online and ccbill was the processor. I have not looked. Did they change something in the last several months.

[Bill]

Yes, they changed it Chop.

My first $50 donation was made thru that same ccbill system.

Now they have this:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/contribution.php

[Far-L]

Just talked to Tom extensively... here are some key points to get across:

1. the old FSC is in serious transition and moving fast and hard to get everything online, message board, polling, memberships, etc. but it is taking time.

2. Just because Cambria is going one direction doesn't necessarily mean that FSC is going the same way.

3. Position Papers are being prepared and the voice of the webmasters will be included.

4. FSC is trying to get included in the hearings and making it clear that webmasters must be included is part of that effort.

5. The FSC Lobbyists do have a lot more support than what is projected in the media and we have to help our politicians understand the issues so they can help make sensible policies.

6. The idea of a filterable metatag is merely an idea and is open to discussion, debate, and counsel. The idea of a proactive approach is a good one regardless and that is what is being suggested for now until better ideas are presented.

7. Political process and lawsuits don't happen in Internet time and people have to be patient about certain aspects of the process. On the other hand - every single suggestion and plan of action presented by its members is helpful now and must be immediately considered. However, decisions in a democratic organization take time - even when there is online polling people will still need to be given time to make decisions.

[Bill]

Thank you Far-L. I'd been hearing many of these things, both from Tom earlier and from others who've been researching the FSC. That all sounds good, like a good start at least.

The comment about Cambria is interesting, and good news, because I think most onliners have been wondering why Cambria hasn't been doing a better job of describing U.S. webmasters and the U.S. online adult business.

Hopefully you can tell us more during the radio show.

[Bill]

Well, since activeX reveals me to be a dullard, the minimal demand I had been thinking of is now a moot point.

And, presumably, the FSC is taking steps to develop their site, as Far-L says in item 1 in his list, so action on the website is also a moot point.

So, that means we need to move to the next most important and symbolically powerful issues.

So, anybody have any thoughts on what the next most important issue should be?

I'm thinking it should be something we can realistically expect can be well started in this upcoming year.

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by Far-L

Just talked to Tom extensively... here are some key points to get across:

1. the old FSC is in serious transition and moving fast and hard to get everything online, message board, polling, memberships, etc. but it is taking time.

2. Just because Cambria is going one direction doesn't necessarily mean that FSC is going the same way.

3. Position Papers are being prepared and the voice of the webmasters will be included.

4. FSC is trying to get included in the hearings and making it clear that webmasters must be included is part of that effort.

5. The FSC Lobbyists do have a lot more support than what is projected in the media and we have to help our politicians understand the issues so they can help make sensible policies.

6. The idea of a filterable metatag is merely an idea and is open to discussion, debate, and counsel. The idea of a proactive approach is a good one regardless and that is what is being suggested for now until better ideas are presented.

7. Political process and lawsuits don't happen in Internet time and people have to be patient about certain aspects of the process. On the other hand - every single suggestion and plan of action presented by its members is helpful now and must be immediately considered. However, decisions in a democratic organization take time - even when there is online polling people will still need to be given time to make decisions.

Yep!

[Bill]

For the moment, I'm happy enough to have Spike do a little recon on the FSC. Most of us know who he is, altho he doesn't spend much of any time here, and I don't know where he does hang out online.

Since we are still in the research phase of things, having anybody who is trying to gather information about the FSC should be good enough.

We'll see how things go.

------------------

Let's see, what to ask the FSC to do to represent us?

How about an anti-spam and anti-scumware campaign? As far as most people are concerned, spam and scumware is synonymous with porn.

How about getting the FSC to push the idea that bulkers and the toolbar crowd are criminals that are hated by real adult webmasters, and to tell people that spam is the problem, not legitimate adult entertainment?

Hah. That oughta make the bulkers and the sponsors happy, eh?

[MrMaryLou]

Bill have you looked at the options on the membership link there is an on line option http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

[RawAlex]

Freedom isn't free - and the FSC is proving it.

If I was an indivdual, I would pay $50. As a company, I would pay between $100 and "the shy is the limit".


Your company’s Annual Dues are calculated based on the Company’s gross Annual Sales Volume according to the chart below (Please check the most appropriate box):
Annual Sales Volume :

$10,000,000 & over

$8,000 per yr.
$5,000,000 -- $9,999,999 $4,000 per yr.
$1,000,000 -- $4,999,999 $2,000 per yr.
$500,000 -- $999,999 $1,000 per yr.
$200,000 -- $499,999 $500 per yr.
$100,000 -- $199,999 $300 per yr.
$0 -- $99,999 $100 per yr.

[Bill]

Ooops, my mistake then. The penalty for tunnel vision.

What link did you follow to get to that page? I looked for something like that, and thought I followed every link off the index.

Oh. It looks like it's an activex link - and I usually surf with active x turned off.

That's it. It is an activeX link. And I never saw it before, because I surf at high security.

Now see, that's what I'm talking about. What kind of designer makes a critical link like that an activex link?

[Greenguy]

Great info Far-L - thanks!

[SirMoby]

Let's see the position papers. I think they're going to require a lot of work and agreement and until they're right and everyone is on the same page I'd like to stay focused on the most basic of issues.

I want our stance very clear on the FSC website. I've heard many lawyers speak including another one 2 nights ago and they don't seem to have a message that the American people can understand. Until that's in place there's no reason to move on to other things.

[Bill]

Well, I wouldn't think this would be the best time to take off the pressure, but I wouldn't mind taking a couple month break from thinking about this stuff.

---

I tried to log into whatever that private area is on the FSC website, but the ID/pass I was using didn't work. I used the forgotten password link to get the password, but get an invalid message.

Anybody else getting inside that area? What's in there?

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Let's see the position papers. I think they're going to require a lot of work and agreement and until they're right and everyone is on the same page I'd like to stay focused on the most basic of issues.

I want our stance very clear on the FSC website. I've heard many lawyers speak including another one 2 nights ago and they don't seem to have a message that the American people can understand. Until that's in place there's no reason to move on to other things.

Don't hold your breath...

Even if you get almost everyone on the same page, the issues involved here will naturally entail certain differences of opinion. The important goal to move forward is to achieve a consensus that at least MOST folks can agree on.

You are absolutely right about the attorneys... but that is par for the course... everything they say is a matter of opinion based on their interpretations... We have to decide what works for us and part of that is realizing clearly what risks we are willing to take as well as what risks need to cleary be avoided. For the risks we are willing to take we need to be prepared to go the distance to prove our point, set a precedent, and hopefully enact positive change.

[Bill]

Okay, we took a month's break from talking about the FSC, and from putting pressure on them, waiting nicely to see if they would do anything, get back to us, or even talk much about the online sector in their newsletters.

It looks like the answers are no, no, and as far as I can tell, no.

So let's see if we can fire off the old boardtracker, and start discussing our political options vis a vis the Free Speech Coalition again.

We got the House of Representatives trying to push a bill to make 2257 apply to us secondary producers, and we got democrat senators trying to introduce a mandatory .xxx bill in the senate.

If we don't get proactive we are going to be handed the shitty end of the stick.

So, I'll probably be starting a new thread soon.