New Warrior Special Offer (WSO) Rules

by Alaister 370 replies
Hi everyone,

We have decided to completely rewrite the rules for our Warrior Special Offer marketplace. We are focusing on building a high quality marketplace with special deals for our community that can not be found elsewhere.

Please make sure you read all of the new rules before posting your WSO. All new offers will be moderated based on these new rules.

Some notable changes include:

Rule #3: Free Offers

If your product is free, then this is to be posted in the Warrior Forum Classified Ads sub-forum.

Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.

Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
#warrior forum news #offer #rules #special #warrior #wso
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post


    Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

    Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

    Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
    Please clarify concerning the Warrior Forum's High Voltage Video Forum.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775685].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      Please clarify concerning the Warrior Forum's High Voltage Video Forum.
      Hi Kurt,

      These rules apply to the WSO marketplace forums. The purpose of Rule #23 is to prevent people from misleading buyers by using the Warrior Forum name.

      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      Good stuff and congrats on doing this so swiftly Alaister.

      I think we could do with some clarification on the "may" part of the above rule. As in the circumstances where proof is more likely to be asked for and where it is less likely to be asked for. Also what kind of proof - given that screen shots of bank accounts etc are notorious in MMO offers and often fake.
      Hi Mike,

      In regards to this we'll be judging the quality of the offers and focusing on presenting value to the community. If there is a great product and offer where the seller does provide income claims we'll ask them for some sort of proof in order to verify it and protect buyers as much as possible.

      At times income claims when backed up with proof is important when trying to sell certain products.

      In terms of the actual proof, the onus is on the seller to provide sufficient evidence for the offer to be approved. As you mentioned screenshots can be faked so we'll definitely be looking at them closely. When we do decide to approve an offer with an income claim, we'll clearly state the sort of proof that was provided by the seller and it's still up to the buyer whether they want to proceed to purchase or not.

      The point of this is to prevent sellers trying to artificially generate hype around their product with unverified or even falsified claims. Income guarantees or promises of any sort will not be allowed. An example of this would be a headline like "How you can make $10,000+ in the next 7 days".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775789].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        Hi Kurt,

        These rules apply to the WSO marketplace forums. The purpose of Rule #23 is to prevent people from misleading buyers by using the Warrior Forum name.
        Yes, I understand that. However, my question was about a specific situation concerning the WARRIOR FORUM High Voltage Video forum.

        The "letter" of the rule says calling it the WARRIOR FORUM would be against the rules. However, I believe the "intent" of the rule would be that it's OK to use "Warrior" since it is a Warrior Forum Forum....
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777183].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        First I'd like to commend you guys on making changes to the rules with the goal of improving the WSO market place.

        Alaister, we've had enough private exchanges for you to know I'm very critical thinker so take that in stride with my post. haha

        I totally get that the Forum wants offers to avoid the appearance of not being affiliated with products being sold by not allowing the use of the word Warrior or WSO etc. etc., in titles and copy but on the other hand screening income claims and verifying them is a type of endorsement and as such sends mixed signals to every one.

        Then posting on the sellers thread (I'm assuming that's what will happen), that the income claims were investigated and verified?

        You might not deem that as an endorsement but don't you think it's possible buyers will see it as an endorsement? I think they will.

        What happens when an income claim gets past the moderator but it was posted that the claim was verified and it turns out the forum got duped?

        Look, I'm all for improving the offers but the forum is basically acting as a fiduciary on behalf of buyers by screening income claims.

        How about not allowing income claims period. You'll save moderators tons of time and you'll avoid the appearance of endorsing a WSO which is what you're actually trying to avoid by not allowing the use of your trademarks in the copy and titles. Right?

        The word "may" in rule 17 is clearly a waffle! What this tells me is that the forum is going to pick and choose which income claims they are going to investigate. Again sending mixed signals to buyers and vendors alike!

        Think of it this way...

        Offer A has an income claim for which the forum investigated, verified, and posted or notified potential buyers as such. I'm guessing on the actual thread.

        Offer B which is perhaps in the same niche as offer A also has an income claim but it's not as much as offer A so it gets passed without investigation and as such there's nothing on B's offer that states it was verified.

        I don't know about you but as a buyer I'm not BUYING offer B because I see the forums investigation and verification as an endorsement so I'm heading over to Offer A and buying that instead.

        So now you've taken vendor B's money and sort of screwing him at the same time, that's how I see it.

        Truthfully if you want your verification of income claims to really mean something then NO ONE should get a free pass, every single income claim should be verified.


        Also I'd like to point out the rule 18 could use a little clarification about opt ins. Some WSO's are offers to join membership sites and new customers need to register to the site to get the access to all the content.

        Are you considering this a forced opt in and if not could we get a little clarification added to rule 18 please?

        Could you please make more clear the logic behind allowing vendors to immediately bump their WSO as soon as it falls off of page one? I think I get why it's a benefit to the forum but not to vendors. = )

        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        Hi Kurt,

        These rules apply to the WSO marketplace forums. The purpose of Rule #23 is to prevent people from misleading buyers by using the Warrior Forum name.



        Hi Mike,

        In regards to this we'll be judging the quality of the offers and focusing on presenting value to the community. If there is a great product and offer where the seller does provide income claims we'll ask them for some sort of proof in order to verify it and protect buyers as much as possible.

        At times income claims when backed up with proof is important when trying to sell certain products.

        In terms of the actual proof, the onus is on the seller to provide sufficient evidence for the offer to be approved. As you mentioned screenshots can be faked so we'll definitely be looking at them closely. When we do decide to approve an offer with an income claim, we'll clearly state the sort of proof that was provided by the seller and it's still up to the buyer whether they want to proceed to purchase or not.

        The point of this is to prevent sellers trying to artificially generate hype around their product with unverified or even falsified claims. Income guarantees or promises of any sort will not be allowed. An example of this would be a headline like "How you can make $10,000+ in the next 7 days".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778911].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author diogoim
        Hi Daniel,

        What is the position of warrior forum regarding the new VAT policy changes in the EU? Will you adapt your payment platform to reflect these new events?

        With Regards

        Diogo de Castro
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post


    Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

    Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved.
    Good stuff and congrats on doing this so swiftly Alaister.

    I think we could do with some clarification on the "may" part of the above rule. As in the circumstances where proof is more likely to be asked for and where it is less likely to be asked for. Also what kind of proof - given that screen shots of bank accounts etc are notorious in MMO offers and often fake.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Regarding #10 - paid video testimonials, does that include written ones as well?

    Last week there was a mention that blind offers were disallowed but I didn't see anything where that was mentioned. I know that it will be hard to explain offers in some cases without giving the secret/process away, but in many cases of blind copy the results are not good because the buyers get something they would never have bought if they had known.

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775934].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      Regarding #10 - paid video testimonials, does that include written ones as well?

      Last week there was a mention that blind offers were disallowed but I didn't see anything where that was mentioned. I know that it will be hard to explain offers in some cases without giving the secret/process away, but in many cases of blind copy the results are not good because the buyers get something they would never have bought if they had known.

      Mark
      Hi Mark,

      Yeh this is a good point. This rule will apply to both written and video testimonials. I'll make the change now.

      Blind ads are addressed in rule #20.

      Rule #20: No Blind Ads

      Sellers must not post blind ads. This is an ad where you advise what the product is not rather than what it is. Your product should be clearly understood by both moderators and members.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775938].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        Hi Mark,

        Blind ads are addressed in rule #20.

        Rule #20: No Blind Ads

        Sellers must not post blind ads. This is an ad where you advise what the product is not rather than what it is. Your product should be clearly understood by both moderators and members.
        Ironic that I couldn't/didn't see the one mentioning something blind. I've read this whole thing a couple times and never saw that rule. My bad.

        Mark
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775944].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alaister
          Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

          Ironic that I couldn't/didn't see the one mentioning something blind. I've read this whole thing a couple times and never saw that rule. My bad.

          Mark
          haha yeh...I was wondering how you missed that one. I thought you would've been on the look out for that rule.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Rule #7: No File Sharing

    If you have purchased a product, you are not permitted to share, reproduce or sell the product, or part thereof, without the seller’s explicit consent.
    One of the reasons Allen previously recommended to NOT give out review copies is because they wound up being shared. So maybe this also needs to include products received as a review?

    Of course, it's hard to track these things down but it wouldn't be good for some know-it-all to claim the WF doesn't have a rule against sharing review copies - only paid copies.

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775935].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      One of the reasons Allen previously recommended to NOT give out review copies is because they wound up being shared. So maybe this also needs to include products received as a review?

      Of course, it's hard to track these things down but it wouldn't be good for some know-it-all to claim the WF doesn't have a rule against sharing review copies - only paid copies.

      Mark
      Yeh this rule definitely applies to review copies also. I'll edit that now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Some very positive changes. Thanks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775940].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author barbling
    Can one use the acronym WSO in one's product title?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775979].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      Originally Posted by barbling View Post

      Can one use the acronym WSO in one's product title?
      In most cases this won't be allowed, however each offer will be assessed on a case by case basis.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776021].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author barbling
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        In most cases this won't be allowed, however each offer will be assessed on a case by case basis.
        Sounds good! Will begin the process of moving my freebies over to the classified sections.

        Since it's case by case.... if a paid WSO is rejected, will the reasons why its rejected be shared in the followup email so folks know what to change?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776100].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alaister
          Originally Posted by barbling View Post

          Sounds good! Will begin the process of moving my freebies over to the classified sections.

          Since it's case by case.... if a paid WSO is rejected, will the reasons why its rejected be shared in the followup email so folks know what to change?
          Yeh that's great.

          We will be providing people with feedback with the reasons why WSOs are rejected.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776135].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Alaister,

            As I was reading through those, I kept nodding my head and thinking, "Yes," "Nice clarification," "Yep," "Good stuff," etc. Then I hit rule #17 and the Hallelujah Chorus went off in my head.

            No more income promises.

            The single most important and positive change in policy here in years.

            I also liked the emphasis on civility of comments, the specific list of "spammy" offers that aren't allowed, and the restatement that WSOs must be special offers exclusively for visitors to this forum. And the multiple mentions of how to report problems and encouragement to do so.

            There are others, but rule #17 is the biggie.

            I'd have said "No guarantees of income or specific results," to avoid the "Rank #1 in Google in 4 hours" stuff, but this is still an enormous jump forward.

            Nicely done, gentlemen.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776425].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jkennedy
    Great changes! Two questions:

    1. If we already have some free WSOs out there, do we need to either add a buy button (with a price) or do we need to pay the $20 for re-listing in classifieds.. or do you guys plan to move all free WSOs to their proper sub forum?

    2. Some of the clearly defined previous text was removed in that WSO products must be created by the seller or a partner of the seller and are 100% unique to the seller. The way it reads now someone could argue that they edited some PLR to "make it their own". I just thought this might could use some further clarification.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776678].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    A standard classified ad is $20. It's $100 if you want it "pinned" at the top for a while.
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776699].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jkennedy
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      A standard classified ad is $20. It's $100 if you want it "pinned" at the top for a while.
      Thanks, change reflected. Not sure how I did that haha.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776718].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        As you mentioned screenshots can be faked so we'll definitely be looking at them closely.
        By "looking at them closely" do you mean you'll visually inspect the actual screenshots closely to detect fraud, or something else?

        I ask because screenshots and videos can be faked in ways that are undetectable to visual inspection. There aren't many ways to provide proof I can think of that couldn't be easily faked, and of those I can think of, most aren't likely to be something many will want to do.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777444].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The purpose of Rule #23 is to prevent people from misleading buyers by using the Warrior Forum name.
      Does this mean no more "WSO of the Day", "WSO of the week/month/quarter", "named best WSO" ...etc? That has been deceptive for members here for quite some time.

      Some really positive changes in the new rules. It's obvious FL put a lot of thought into the new requirements and I think they'll help resurrect the WSO section.

      kay
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.
      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776719].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danieljb
    1. If we already have some free WSOs out there, do we need to either add a buy button (with a price) or do we need to pay the $20 for re-listing in classifieds.. or do you guys plan to move all free WSOs to their proper sub forum?
    To remain in the WSO Marketplace the WSO must abide by all rules, including to be a paid offer and to have a buy button. In the coming weeks, free offers will be moved to the Classified Ads. Sellers do not need to pay a re-listing fee.

    2. Some of the clearly defined previous text was removed in that WSO products must be created by the seller or a partner of the seller and are 100% unique to the seller. The way it reads now someone could argue that they edited some PLR to "make it their own". I just thought this might could use some further clarification.
    This is part of the overarching Moderator's Discretion rule mentioned in the introduction, but we'll make this clearer. Such offers like you mentioned have no place in the WSO Marketplace. Where appropriate we'll ask the seller to provide a copy of the product for evaluation.

    Does this mean no more "WSO of the Day", "WSO of the week/month/quarter", "named best WSO" ...etc? That has been deceptive for members here for quite some time.
    Exactly right. The only time such "WSO of the {Day|Week|Month|Year|Decade}" can be used is when it has been awarded by the Warrior Forum. External parties are not authorised and have no place implying that we endorse a WSO that we have no affiliation with.

    Yes, I understand that. However, my question was about a specific situation concerning the WARRIOR FORUM High Voltage Video forum.

    The "letter" of the rule says calling it the WARRIOR FORUM would be against the rules. However, I believe the "intent" of the rule would be that it's OK to use "Warrior" since it is a Warrior Forum Forum....
    The Warrior Forum High Voltage Forum is part of the Warrior Forum and we don't consider it a WSO. In this example, you have nothing to worry about it and nothing that requires changing. Hope that this makes it clearer.

    By "looking at them closely" do you mean you'll visually inspect the actual screenshots closely to detect fraud, or something else?

    I ask because screenshots and videos can be faked in ways that are undetectable to visual inspection. There aren't many ways to provide proof I can think of that couldn't be easily faked, and of those I can think of, most aren't likely to be something many will want to do.
    We are being very strict with these. We'll inspect them all visually and where appropriate ask the seller for further proof. If the seller does not want to provide this proof then he or she will not be permitted to make the claim.

    We will be rolling these out to existing offers over the next few weeks, but they do apply to all new offers being submitted.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777563].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by danieljb View Post


      The Warrior Forum High Voltage Forum is part of the Warrior Forum and we don't consider it a WSO. In this example, you have nothing to worry about it and nothing that requires changing. Hope that this makes it clearer.
      Actually, the High Voltage forum has a WSO thread. Part of the agreement I had with Allen was that the WSO would be bumped automatically, the same with the Kindle forum. However, when you guys took over, you removed the auto-bump for these two Warrior Forum WSOs.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777659].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author danieljb
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Actually, the High Voltage forum has a WSO thread. Part of the agreement I had with Allen was that the WSO would be bumped automatically, the same with the Kindle forum. However, when you guys took over, you removed the auto-bump for these two Warrior Forum WSOs.
        The WSO thread about the High Voltage Forum is fine because it is a part of the Warrior Forum. The rule is about addressing sellers using terms that imply affiliation with the forum when the WSO is in no way endorsed by us.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777665].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

      Where appropriate we'll ask the seller to provide a copy of the product for evaluation.
      I'd be interested to know how a moderator who knows nothing about pay-per-click marketing, for example, will evaluate a product about that topic.

      The "pay-per-click" example could be anything (list building, SEO, video marketing, etc.). Are you going to have an expert in each topic on staff? Otherwise how can someone evaluate the quality of something they know nothing about?

      This raises another question. Suppose a moderator reviews a product and approves it. Can the seller say "moderator reviewed and approved" in his sales copy?
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777821].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        I'd be interested to know how a moderator who knows nothing about pay-per-click marketing, for example, will evaluate a product about that topic.

        The "pay-per-click" example could be anything (list building, SEO, video marketing, etc.). Are you going to have an expert in each topic on staff? Otherwise how can someone evaluate the quality of something they know nothing about?

        This raises another question. Suppose a moderator reviews a product and approves it. Can the seller say "moderator reviewed and approved" in his sales copy?
        Dennis, great point and a valid concern too!

        If my offer has to be subjected to this level of scrutiny you better believe I want the right to say moderator reviewed and approved because that's the truth! Again it's another form of endorsement if you ask me. lol
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JNAssociates
    You saved the forums. Literally. These changes needed to be made. Bravo.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    I agree with Rus that putting a moderation note in any of the sales threads that the income claims have been "proven" when it is nigh impossible to really prove them, would be taken as an endorsement and should it turn out to be a dodgy offer that indeed, the income claims were not based in reality, the Warrior Forum would possibly have liability for providing that endorsement... or at the very least, look complicit or discredited.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778957].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Truthfully if you want your verification of income claims to really mean something then NO ONE should get a free pass, every single income claim should be verified.
      Its the one part of the rules I see being ditched sooner or later or else it will have the unintended effect of continuing income claims without substantial barrier. I n a digital age there is no digital verification of income to a third non privy party. Theres probably already a guy /gal kicking out templates of multiple financial institution screens as we speak. Anything that relies on pixels to print or display can be made to look completely legit.

      However the whole issue of no income claims is slippery because MMO is in itself an income claim.You could say no specific income claim but I suspect there would be people in the copy writers section chomping at the bits to imply incomes with out being specific.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779095].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        Oh the irony of having an advertising platform for making money online products that doesn't allow income claims. LOL

        Advertisers have rights to you know, hell they paid for the ad right? kekeke

        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Its the one part of the rules I see being ditched sooner or later or else it will have the unintended effect of continuing income claims without substantial barrier. I n a digital age there is no digital verification of income to a third non privy party. Theres probably already a guy /gal kicking out templates of multiple financial institution screens as we speak. Anything that relies on pixels to print or display can be made to look completely legit.

        However the whole issue of no income claims is slippery because MMO is in itself an income claim.You could say no specific income claim but I suspect there would be people in the copy writers section chomping at the bits to imply incomes with out being specific.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779109].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

          Oh the irony of having an advertising platform for making money online products that doesn't allow income claims. LOL

          Advertisers have rights to you know, hell they paid for the ad right? kekeke
          Yeah that was my point. So I think it probably would be better for the rules to focus on the kind of income claims and/or disclaimers that should or should not be allowed rather than verification. Thats going to prove impossible to truly do and not allowing any kind of income claim would be financial suicide.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779118].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      There are others, but rule #17 is the biggie.

      I'd have said "No guarantees of income or specific results," to avoid the "Rank #1 in Google in 4 hours" stuff, but this is still an enormous jump forward.

      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      I agree with Rus that putting a moderation note in any of the sales threads that the income claims have been "proven" when it is nigh impossible to really prove them, would be taken as an endorsement and should it turn out to be a dodgy offer that indeed, the income claims were not based in reality, the Warrior Forum would possibly have liability for providing that endorsement... or at the very least, look complicit or discredited.
      Agreed....

      The "slippery slope" comes in with any income claims....

      Here's why.....

      You'd have to use net income... or bottom line...

      Why?

      The seller says he "made" $500,000.......

      He may have $500,000 come in the front door.....

      But, he conveniently "forgets" the....

      $275,000 paid to affiliates.....
      $100,000 for paid traffic.....

      Plus, thousands in other expenses.....

      He may have $120,000 in net income...... while he says he "made" $500,000... That is a massive difference.

      In order to provide any remotely accurate income statements, it would take many, many hours of research and verification..... This would be similar to performing "Due Diligence" before buying a company.

      It would be simpler to go with "No guarantees of income or specific results" as Paul wrote.

      It is not a big deal if everyone is forced to follow the same rules.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780039].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NetSensei
        In your post you mentioned specifically that the word warrior couldn't be used. If someone had a site such as marketingwarrior ]dot] com and produced a series of wso's that included the words "a marketingwarrior production".... would this be permitted?

        The above site is a purely made up name and if there is such a site, I am unaware of it and just using an example.

        But I ask because I do have a site with the word warrior(s) in the name and was thinking of offering a series of trainings that would be branded with the... "site name productions".

        Example: "a marketingwarrior production"

        Mark
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780064].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
          Originally Posted by NetSensei View Post

          In your post you mentioned specifically that the word warrior couldn't be used. If someone had a site such as marketingwarrior ]dot] com and produced a series of wso's that included the words "a marketingwarrior production".... would this be permitted?

          The above site is a purely made up name and if there is such a site, I am unaware of it and just using an example.

          But I ask because I do have a site with the word warrior(s) in the name and was thinking of offering a series of trainings that would be branded with the... "site name productions".

          Example: "a marketingwarrior production"

          Mark

          With any trademarked name, if it is in a related Trademark Classification to my business, I would be hesitant to use it...... (Note: Link goes to a third party site listing Trademark Classifications for examples)

          The only reason why I could think you would want to use "a marketingwarrior production" in the IM space is to imply a connection with Warrior Forum...

          This will probably lead to WF sending you a "friendly" cease and desist letter... as they need to protect their Trademark... and reputation.

          Why not choose another name?

          A Solid Marketing Production
          A Michael Ray Jones Marketing Production
          A Sunmedia Marketing Production

          I could go on and on.... There is no shortage of options as far as names go....

          Note: I am writing "you" in general... relating it to your post about the "theoretical" scenario .... Not specifically to you, Mark. :-)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780116].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author NetSensei
            Originally Posted by RichBeck View Post

            With any trademarked name, if it is in a related Trademark Classification to my business, I would be hesitant to use it...... (Note: Link goes to a third party site listing Trademark Classifications for examples)

            The only reason why I could think you would want to use "a marketingwarrior production" in the IM space is to imply a connection with Warrior Forum...

            This will probably lead to WF sending you a "friendly" cease and desist letter... as they need to protect their Trademark... and reputation.

            Why not choose another name?

            A Solid Marketing Production
            A Michael Ray Jones Marketing Production
            A Sunmedia Marketing Production

            I could go on and on.... There is no shortage of options as far as names go....

            Note: I am writing "you" in general... relating it to your post about the "theoretical" scenario .... Not specifically to you, Mark. :-)
            First let me say that I am not set on the idea. Nor am I posting to make this a big issue. If WF said it was a problem for them, then it would be a non issue for me. I just wouldn't use it.

            All that said, your assumption that the only reason I would use such a reference would be for the purpose to connect myself to the WF is completely wrong and offbase. If I made a reference to my site, the reason would be to brand my products and me. Not to the WF, but to my site and line of products that were a series of marketing training and tools.

            I am no lawyer, but I do know a bit of business law. It is unlikely that anyone could claim exclusive rights to a word as general as warrior.

            That said, it may well be with in legal rights for warrior forum to disallow any reference to that word in a paid advertisement on their site.

            So again, I am not here to argue whether it is ok. I was ASKING A QUESTION. Can you understand the difference? If WF says I can't or they don't like or don't want... no problem. I just won't do it. And I have not made up my mind to do it even if they say ok.

            So your reference that I might get a cease and desist is also way out of line, because I am asking the question first, and then will move forward based on WF answer. So if they say no, don't do it, then I wouldn't do it. I am quite sure others would just jump and suffer the consequences afterwards, but that is not my style. I ask and move forward based on my understanding of what I am told.

            So again, for general and future understanding I just want to clarify with someone from WF... is the use of the word warrior completely off limits in any circumstances with a wso? Or only not allowed if used to make it appear that the offer is somehow directly related or specially approved by WF?

            Which?

            Mark
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780168].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
              Originally Posted by NetSensei View Post

              First let me say that I am not set on the idea. Nor am I posting to make this a big issue. If WF said it was a problem for them, then it would be a non issue for me. I just wouldn't use it.

              All that said, your assumption that the only reason I would use such a reference would be for the purpose to connect myself to the WF is completely wrong and offbase. If I made a reference to my site, the reason would be to brand my products and me. Not to the WF, but to my site and line of products that were a series of marketing training and tools.

              I am no lawyer, but I do know a bit of business law. It is unlikely that anyone could claim exclusive rights to a word as general as warrior.

              That said, it may well be with in legal rights for warrior forum to disallow any reference to that word in a paid advertisement on their site.

              So again, I am not here to argue whether it is ok. I was ASKING A QUESTION. Can you understand the difference? If WF says I can't or they don't like or don't want... no problem. I just want do it. And I have not made up my mind to do it even if they say ok.

              So your reference that I might get a cease and desist is also way out of line, because I am asking the question first, and then will move forward based on WF answer. So if they say no, don't do it, then I wouldn't do it. I am quite sure others would just jump and suffer the consequences afterwards, but that is not my style. I ask and move forward based on my understanding of what I am told.

              So again, for general and future understanding I just want to clarify with someone from WF... is the use of the word warrior completely off limits in any circumstances with a wso? Or only not allowed if used to make it appear that the offer is somehow directly related or specially approved by WF?

              Which?

              Mark
              Mark,

              You misread my post.... I was in no way arguing.... I intentionally called it a "theoretical" scenario....

              Originally Posted by RichBeck View Post

              Note: I am writing "you" in general... relating it to your post about the "theoretical" scenario .... Not specifically to you, Mark. :-)
              I was simply stating it is better to be safe than sorry... Especially, when it comes to Trademark infringement.


              Your answer lies in Post #1.....

              Originally Posted by Alaister View Post


              Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

              Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

              Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
              Based on this, any use of "Warrior" is not allowed.

              Whether or not they can legally enforce this exclusive use of "Warrior" outside Warrior Forum in the Marketing category is another issue.... One would have to lookup what trademarks they own in what categories.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author azsno
    I thought FREE WSO's are being MOVED to the Classifieds Ad Section...

    I see MANY posts on the WSO Thread today that are "FREE"

    Some are "bumps" from existing and past WSO's, are these NOT being MOVED too?

    One person has 4 threads that are nothing more than sign up for my FREE Coaching program...

    I realize this process may take some time, but is there NOT a mechanism to MOVE existing threads to another Section? I've run a few forums and each had a feature where an administrator could MOVE existing threads...

    Anyway, I think the new changes are a GREAT move in the right direction...Thanks for taking the time to IMPROVE the Warrior WSO thread...

    ~AzSno...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
    Alaister,

    I am really impressed with the effort to clean things up.... Awesome work!

    Off the top of my head, there are several WSOs that fall into these categories...... What will become of these "old" WSOs? Will they be moved.... or deleted?


    Rule #5: WSO Approval Policy

    The following are examples of products that are not permitted to be sold as a WSO:
    - Mass Account Creators
    - E-Mail Harvesters
    - Lead Scrapers
    - Cookie Stuffing Scripts
    - Mass Automation Tools
    - SEO Spam Tools
    - Blog Commenting Tools
    - Wiki Poster Tools
    - Spamming Tools
    - Automation Bots
    - Forum Posting Tools
    - Classified Ad Posters


    If your WSO is any of the above, your offer will not be approved.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780034].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PaidAllDay
    I don't think anyone should have to prove net income that's a bit tough to determine. ClickBank has had these proof of income requirements for years and they just want screenshots to show proof that the money was made. Also you can't prove that it was made from the method shown.

    You could sell products as a vendor and then post it as affiliate income for example.

    Still these rules will stop people from just going to google images and grabbing income proof for their sales letter. Also, most launches are self hosted now so it's not like this will revolutionize our industry. It might make the WSO section a little more honest. Should stop the affiliate reviews posted in the WSO section for google rankings too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780244].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
      Originally Posted by PaidAllDay View Post

      I don't think anyone should have to prove net income that's a bit tough to determine. ClickBank has had these proof of income requirements for years and they just want screenshots to show proof that the money was made. Also you can't prove that it was made from the method shown.

      You could sell products as a vendor and then post it as affiliate income for example.

      Still these rules will stop people from just going to google images and grabbing income proof for their sales letter. Also, most launches are self hosted now so it's not like this will revolutionize our industry. It might make the WSO section a little more honest. Should stop the affiliate reviews posted in the WSO section for google rankings too.
      From an Accounting perspective, net income is the only way.....

      If you were looking into buying a "real" business and they told you they "made" $500,000 a year, you wouldn't want to know their yearly expenses?

      It is the same with MMO methods....

      If the seller "makes" $50,000.... $35,000 goes to Affiliates.... $5,000 goes to paid traffic... The seller can say in his sales letter and other marketing materials he "made" $50,000?

      In MMO, that may make sense... In the "real" business world, everyone wants net income.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780938].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PaidAllDay
        Originally Posted by RichBeck View Post

        From an Accounting perspective, net income is the only way.....

        If you were looking into buying a "real" business and they told you they "made" $500,000 a year, you wouldn't want to know their yearly expenses?

        It is the same with MMO methods....

        If the seller "makes" $50,000.... $35,000 goes to Affiliates.... $5,000 goes to paid traffic... The seller can say in his sales letter and other marketing materials he "made" $50,000?

        In MMO, that may make sense... In the "real" business world, everyone wants net income.
        Okay so we should hire auditors to verify income claims?

        What if I show you $500 in adwords spending and say I made $5,000 because I didn't show you the $6,000 I spend on Bing? Case closed end of story wake up it won't work. You aren't buying a business you're buying a WSO.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781585].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
          Originally Posted by PaidAllDay View Post

          Okay so we should hire auditors to verify income claims?

          What if I show you $500 in adwords spending and say I made $5,000 because I didn't show you the $6,000 I spend on Bing? Case closed end of story wake up it won't work. You aren't buying a business you're buying a WSO.
          I'm writing those who are "remotely business savvy" will want to know this...

          Don't believe me? Head over to the WSO section.... You'll see many of them where potential buyers ask about expenses... It is VERY common.

          If you're claiming you "made money," it is reasonable to expect "Auditors" or whoever "verifies" to verify both income and expenses....

          If the FTC came by and actually looked a WSO with income claims, they may view it as a biz op.... which has a long list of legal requirements in the US of A.

          In the end, I'm simply in favor of what Paul suggested.... No income claims.... It makes things simple.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783142].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
        Originally Posted by RichBeck View Post

        From an Accounting perspective, net income is the only way.....

        If you were looking into buying a "real" business and they told you they "made" $500,000 a year, you wouldn't want to know their yearly expenses?

        It is the same with MMO methods....

        If the seller "makes" $50,000.... $35,000 goes to Affiliates.... $5,000 goes to paid traffic... The seller can say in his sales letter and other marketing materials he "made" $50,000?

        In MMO, that may make sense... In the "real" business world, everyone wants net income.
        Yes... during the discovery process you would review all factors related to net profit. Not typically revealed in the sales listing unless explicitly noted. If that were the case mergers would be done over lunch and not months.

        Anywho... Books and income are faked in the real world every single day with plenty of lawsuits to back it up.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783712].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Antonios
        Originally Posted by RichBeck View Post

        From an Accounting perspective, net income is the only way.....

        If you were looking into buying a "real" business and they told you they "made" $500,000 a year, you wouldn't want to know their yearly expenses?

        It is the same with MMO methods....

        If the seller "makes" $50,000.... $35,000 goes to Affiliates.... $5,000 goes to paid traffic... The seller can say in his sales letter and other marketing materials he "made" $50,000?

        In MMO, that may make sense... In the "real" business world, everyone wants net income.




        We can use the business financial formula: income (earnings) - expenses = profit

        Profit could be positive or negative. Negative is where a loss is experienced, that is, that expenses were more than income.

        Income is any money going to ones account: being these of products and services sold by oneself or by affiliates.

        Expenses is any money that goes out of ones account that is part of the business process: affiliate payments, ad campaigns, traffic, trainings, electricity, software bought, hardware bought, legal services, accounting services, taxes, internet service, hosting, domain name, autoresponders, memberships (examples: WF, BBB, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.), brick and mortar facilities, if any, etc.

        If I state in my WSO that I had an income of $500,000, I bet you that to get to this amount of money I did had to make quite an investment to get there, in software, even outsourcing and specially in TRAFFIC. And if I was offering an affiliate program, probably 60 % or more of this went to affiliates commissions.

        So that from that income I could end with a profit of $50,000 ????

        I think that what we are considering here, specially for newbies, is "PROFITS" or net income.

        Most newbies don't understand business principles and when they are presented with a screenshot (supposedly legit), they are looking at income, not PROFITS !!!

        That marketer could have had a negative net income or negative profits (a loss), and it didn't show in the screenshots, and it still is income!

        As seen by the comments of Warriors here, it is not easy to establish rules that can rule out all dishonest attempts of WSO creators.

        But rules can reduce the incidence of dishonest offers.

        Sincerely,

        Antonios

        Signature
        Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
        Click the link below now to start today:
        http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784089].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author prakhargupta2113
    The following WSO was closed. Can you tell me what is wrong so that I can correct it.

    Code:
    http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-special-offers/962409-get-0-00-per-website-click-facebook-like-lowest-price-internet-guaranteed-2.html
    Thank You.

    Or anybody that I can contact? Is it the title of the WSO or anything else? I have complied to all rules & it's been almost an year since this was up. But suddenly today it got closed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danieljb
    Originally Posted by prakhargupta2113 View Post

    The following WSO was closed. Can you tell me what is wrong so that I can correct it.

    Thank You.

    Or anybody that I can contact? Is it the title of the WSO or anything else? I have complied to all rules & it's been almost an year since this was up. But suddenly today it got closed.
    I have sent you a PM about this with what needs to be changed. A member reported the offer because you are offering cashback in return for reviews; this has never been permitted.

    The Help Desk is the best point of contact for quick response: Freelancer.com - Powered by Kayako Help Desk Software

    Warrior Forum - The #1 Internet Marketing Forum & Marketplace - Announcements in Forum : Warrior Special Offers

    Based on this, any use of "Warrior" is not allowed.
    This is correct. WSO listing must not attempt to imply affiliation or endorsement with the forum. The use of the term "Warrior" in the product title implies this. The only exception to this is when products are genuinely endorsed by the forum, such as we (the Warrior Forum) featured the WSO.

    Income claims update:

    Thank you all for your input regarding this.

    We have revised rule #17:

    Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

    Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.


    The only time income claims will be permitted is when in reference to a product being sold on Warrior Payments, as this is the only platform we can confirm accuracy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

      We have revised rule #17:

      Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

      Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

      .
      Okay I am lost now. Unless you are defining an income claim as a specific income claim (in which case that should just say so) then that reads as if you are outlawing Make Money online offers on a predominantly Make Money online forum. How can ANY MMO product not be guilty of implying money will be made or income will be derived??

      Thats kind of going right into the territory that Rus and I were just discussing as financial suicide for this board. Either that or that new wording needs a whole lot more clarification .
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781631].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PaidAllDay
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Okay I am lost now. Unless you are defining an income claim as a specific income claim (in which case that should just say so) then that reads as if you are outlawing Make Money online offers on a predominantly Make Money online forum. How can ANY MMO product not be guilty of implying money will be made or income will be derived??

        Thats kind of going right into the territory that Rus and I were just discussing as financial suicide for this board. Either that or that new wording needs a whole lot more clarification .
        It means you can't imply that they will make an income if they purchase your product. You can still show your income and claim it was from the method. But you will need a disclaimer stating that results aren't typical, no results are guaranteed. This is pretty standard stuff I'm actually surprised it never existed on this forum before.

        In other words you can't say something like: follow this method and I guarantee you will make $500 a week.

        I would be more worried about the fact it says it has to be verified through Warrior Payments. So if you sold a product through JV Zoo or Warrior Plus or even ClickBank you can't put an income claim in your sales letter?

        My results on this forum have shown me that without and income claim you're dead in the water.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781703].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cali16
          Originally Posted by PaidAllDay View Post

          It means you can't imply that they will make an income if they purchase your product. You can still show your income and claim it was from the method.
          From what I understand, this is incorrect - unless the product you're selling is a WSO about creating and selling WSOs - because the WF mods / admin must be able to verify your income claim. And the only way they can do that is if you received the payments (for whatever method you're selling) via Warrior Payments. And WP is used for WSO sales.

          In other words, if the money-making method in your WSO is about fiverrr gigs, some sort of arbitrage, CPA, offering offline services, etc., you won't be able to make any income claim because it can't be verified via Warrior Payments.

          Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this is per Daniel's response in another thread (bolds are mine):

          Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

          What Mark has said is correct. We have no way of verifying any income claims unless you are referencing a product sold through Warrior's own platform, Warrior Payments. https://payments.warriorforum.com/

          Because Warrior Payments is our platform, we can verify the claims being made. For other platforms that we do not own we cannot verify the claims you are making.
          Signature
          If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781761].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author danieljb
            Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

            From what I understand, this is incorrect - unless the product you're selling is a WSO about creating and selling WSOs - because the WF mods / admin must be able to verify your income claim. And the only way they can do that is if you received the payments (for whatever method you're selling) via Warrior Payments. And WP is used for WSO sales.

            In other words, if the money-making method in your WSO is about fiverrr gigs, some sort of arbitrage, CPA, offering offline services, etc., you won't be able to make any income claim because it can't be verified via Warrior Payments.

            Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this is per Daniel's response in another thread (bolds are mine):
            Thanks for the post, this is what I meant. Another way of putting it is:

            Was the income made through Warrior Payments?

            Yes: Then sellers can talk about their income with figures in their copy. We will verify the accuracy.

            No: Then sellers cannot make income claims because we cannot verify this.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781776].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
              Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

              Thanks for the post, this is what I meant. Another way of putting it is:

              Was the income made through Warrior Payments?

              Yes: Then sellers can talk about their income with figures in their copy. We will verify the accuracy.

              No: Then sellers cannot make income claims because we cannot verify this.
              Maybe I'm missing something here, but...

              If the only income claims a seller can make is if the product is sold through Warrior Payments, then doesn't that in turn mean the only income claims a seller can make is about how much their WSO has earned?

              If that's true, then the only MMO offers that could have a relevant income claim would be for products that teach how to make money selling WSO's.

              It should also be noted that income does not equal profits. A person could, in theory, have a Warrior Forum verified income of $5k for a product, but if the seller spent $6k on traffic he actually lost a grand.

              Someone buying that product because of a verified income of $5k might not be too happy to find they keep losing money trying to implement it.
              Signature

              Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781867].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post


                If that's true, then the only MMO offers that could have a relevant income claim would be for products that teach how to make money selling WSO's.
                Seems there's an echo in here, Dennis.... (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

                Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                It should also be noted that income does not equal profits.
                True. Perhaps the term income should be changed to "net profit".
                Signature
                If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781882].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
                Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                It should also be noted that income does not equal profits. A person could, in theory, have a Warrior Forum verified income of $5k for a product, but if the seller spent $6k on traffic he actually lost a grand.

                Someone buying that product because of a verified income of $5k might not be too happy to find they keep losing money trying to implement it.

                Spot on..... Report both income and expenses which lead to net income.... or nothing.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783154].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MKWeb2
              This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page
              I use Delavo to manage all of my products and it is integrated with the WF. Will that no longer be an option?
              Signature
              Mark 'MKWeb' Hultgren
              www.2GSM.Biz and www.2GetSales.com
              www.MKW-Ind.biz (Hosting and Domains)
              www.EasyBenjamins.com (Training Site)
              Looking for JV Partners
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783760].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
              Originally Posted by GlenH View Post

              No income claims, Period. IMO that is the way to go.

              Then there is no need for the 'admin police' to have to validate a WSO (or not).


              I’m also wondering when and how all these current threads listed with ‘income claims rules will be weeded out of the WSO’s section.

              Since they are already in the WSO section, the vendor could ‘bump’ them forever if they wanted to.

              Or will it be the case that when a vendor ‘bumps’ a thread, that thread will be assessed for ‘income claims’ and if the thread violates the new rule, then the ‘bump’ won’t be allowed until the thread is changed.

              Agreed.

              If you are going to lay down the hammer on claims then just make it no claims period. No banner ads with income claims. No WSO's with income claims. No claims period like;

              How to rank #1 in Google in 5 hours 20 minutes and 18 seconds while eating a sandwich with one arm tied behind your back and locked in a room with a hungry Pit Bull."

              How to get 50,000 clicks from 1 cent Facebook ads even if you working on a commodore 64 with a 300 Baud modem in your Gam-Gam's basement.

              How to become an offline expert in your own hometown even if you flunked common core, don't know a darn thing about business and your tattooed body looks like a treasure map to lost Egyptian crypts.

              If claims like these examples above (admittedly overly exaggerated) can't be proved to a moderator... then these statements are blindly being approved by the "Warrior Forum" so to speak.


              Originally Posted by franchiseguy View Post

              Would a picture of me sitting in my Ferrari, surrounded by babes smiling with a mouthful of Gold teeth be construed as an earnings claim? Just sayin'

              Nope. Just construed your a big d#$che


              Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

              We have revised rule #17:

              Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

              Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.


              The only time income claims will be permitted is when in reference to a product being sold on Warrior Payments, as this is the only platform we can confirm accuracy.
              This would only matter or make any sense if the product was selling "How to bank (insert big claim dollar figure here) selling WSO's (oops-- just violated endorsement rule). And even then, you just opened yourself up to being classified as a pyramid scheme. Not only that - but being endorsed by the very forum itself.

              And how can anyone prove the method sold was the method used to produce those results?

              You can't.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783816].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
                Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

                This would only matter or make any sense if the product was selling "How to bank (insert big claim dollar figure here) selling WSO's (oops-- just violated endorsement rule). And even then, you just opened yourself up to being classified as a pyramid scheme. Not only that - but being endorsed by the very forum itself.

                And how can anyone prove the method sold was the method used to produce those results?

                You can't.
                I agree. The exception to the new income claims rule is the only thing about it that bothers me. Income claims might generally indicate that an offer lacks the substance to stand alone without them, but it doesn't automatically follow that those offers that can make a case for themselves without one are golden. I'd be amazed if there weren't junk offers made in the past by marketers who have managed to make bundles of sales for a product without resorting to income claims.

                This won't change in an hurry, and neither will the behaviour of many of the duped buyers who would rather wave goodbye to their money than acknowledge their own gullibility by seeking a refund, or keep quiet instead of risk being shouted down by a 'respected' seller and his or her clique on the sales thread. Yet as long as that seller can use Warrior Payments to reel in enough buyers, he can go on to make an income claim that will receive an endorsement from the Warrior Forum.

                Of course (and this is where the exception really starts to fall apart and get daft for me), his offer will have to relate to how great his method is for pushing WSOs as the Warrior Forum can't verify anything else. The money he made from combating the effect of penguins and pandas by scrubbing Google down with a wet Facebook page is what's relevant to the sale as far as the buyer is concerned, not how much he made by flogging the method, but since that's the only information the forum can verify then the next WSO he tries to make money from is going to be about how to make money from a WSO. Using Warrior Payments. Handy since he couldn't have provided data to back up the power of The Wet Facebook Page Method anyway.

                I'll admit that my cynical self thought at first that the exception was an attempt to claw back any money lost in the implementation of the new rules by pushing the Warrior Payments platform a bit a harder, but since no-one could seriously think that a page selling little else but WSOs teaching how to sell WSOs will do any more for the reputation of the forum than a page full of income claims, there's obviously something I'm not seeing.

                Until someone points it out to me, I'm in full agreement with those who say the forum should do away with income claims altogether.
                Signature

                Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784018].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author diffie11
              I have read at least 50 posts concerning the rule changes and agree with all of them. The one glaring rule change I don't see is when promising support in the sales copy, there is none, you can't even get an email back from the vendor. I joined the forum because I have never made a dime online and thought maybe joining one of the most revered sites online might change that. Sadly, such has not been the case. I clearly recognize there are people hear who want to help others, but when your priority is putting together another WSO to promote there simply isn't enough time for support. Maybe there should be a way for vendors to PROVE there WSO's work with proper support. I hope no one is offended by my post as that is not my purpose here. When PDF's and videos don't answer the questions one might have, a simple email or skype would sure go a long way. Thanks, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now.
              Signature

              Despite what some people say, the light at the end of the tunnel ISN'T really an oncoming train.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787300].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author hustlinsmoke
              I knew this place would change and not for the better, and don't delete my comment just because you don't agree with it, or is freedom of speech still not allowed here.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799473].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by PaidAllDay View Post

          It means you can't imply that they will make an income if they purchase your product. You can still show your income and claim it was from the method. But you will need a disclaimer stating that results aren't typical, no results are guaranteed. This is pretty standard stuff I'm actually surprised it never existed on this forum before.
          Even though as its been pointed out thats wrong I think I more grasp what you guys call income claims (not that heavy into MMO). Its what I would call specified income claims. I guess newer people will eventually figure it out.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782789].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Thanks for the post, this is what I meant. Another way of putting it is:

            Was the income made through Warrior Payments?

            Yes: Then sellers can talk about their income with figures in their copy. We will verify the accuracy.

            No: Then sellers cannot make income claims because we cannot verify this.
            Someone who has been running/bumping multiple WSOs in the MMO field making promises of easy/fast/big money...and running all their sales through the fairly new Warrior Pay system....could be "verified".

            A member who is highly successful OUTSIDE the WF with years of profitable business experience - could not be "verified" here because he's not a serial WSO-seller.

            Over the years I've known marketers who made their income ONLY through running WSOs and selling directly to members in this forum. Outside the WF, they earned squat. Those aren't people I want to buy from.
            Signature

            Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.
            I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782864].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JoeBradley
      While I understand that the Warrior Forum can not verify offers that have not been made through Warrior payments it is surely unbalanced and discriminatory for sellers not to be allowed to discuss income made outside the Warrior forum. I know that there has to be control and the current situation should not be allowed to continue but it needs to be done on an equal basis.

      While spurious income claims should be discouraged and as much as possible prevented, genuine offers with proof of income should be allowable even if payment was not made through Warrior payments, assuming sufficient proof is provided when challenged. Failure to allow these genuine offers air time is doing a dis-service not just to the promoters but also to people who would like to be made aware of them.

      From a legal standpoint, the Warrior Forum, even after checking claims to whatever extent practical should not endorse or confirm earnings even if the figures are available from Warrior payments and the forum should also include a statement on the offer pages stating that it does not endorse any income statements or other guarantees made by the promoter of the offer.
      Signature

      PM for Warrior Discount - Fast Unmetered Web Hosting for All Your Websites at Low Cost.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    Wait what?

    So my next WSO is how one can make money doing Google helpouts and that I've personally made 5K a month doing it.

    Please tell me how selling my WSO through the Warrior Payments platform helps any one verify my claim?

    All you can verify are the sales you've processed through the platform and that has nothing to do with my income claim.

    It doesn't and just like Dennis said, you'd have to actually have a WSO ABOUT making money with WSO's, which by the way I'm VERY MUCH against! For other reasons though, but yeah.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781927].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NetSensei
      While I share some of the same concerns expressed on this thread... I am also inclined to look at it from a different angle. WF no doubt has come to a point where income claims are expected and buyers are leery if none are presented.

      At the same time however, most are jaded and think that those very income claims are somehow faked. So while they expect them, they also feel frustration from not knowing if the claims are real or faked.

      I think it is possible that the WF not allowing most wso's to make income claims is an opportunity to get the buyers to look for other cues to help them understand if it is a good offer for them or not.

      It may cause some confusion and difficulty at first, but I think if it became the standard that it would not be long before the buyers would understand, that no claims are part of the rules of the forum.

      Then, both buyers and sellers could focus on other ways to show the prospects that the information is valuable and worth purchasing.

      As has been amply demonstrated in this thread and others, no matter what is done to verify, there are other variables that will let clever marketers get around the income verification.

      And even when the income proofs are real... they are still not a demonstration of how well it will help the buyer to get similar results.

      Case in point... someone makes a wso and they show their results. They are well known, with many products that they have sold, they have influence, perceived authority, contacts and experience.

      The buyer has none of those things, and they buy the product... follow all the steps and still fail to get hardly any or perhaps no results what so ever. Why? Because the experienced marketer sent an email to his list of affiliate and jv partners suggesting they promote it... some do and so the results are great.

      But the buyer follows all the steps, but is an unknown, has no list of buyers or affiliate partners and so their attempt is a complete failure.

      It is so easy for the experienced marketer to use proof of income... but that serves little real proof of the wso offering to be one that the buyer can succeed with.

      As marketers I think it is our responsibility to create products that can get results for the buyers. When we make such a product, then I believe that its value can be amply demonstrated in the sales thread without income claims. Income claims which under the best of circumstances are poor proof that it can or will be similarly successful for the buyer.

      Mark
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
        Originally Posted by NetSensei View Post

        While I share some of the same concerns expressed on this thread... I am also inclined to look at it from a different angle. WF no doubt has come to a point where income claims are expected and buyers are leery if none are presented.

        At the same time however, most are jaded and think that those very income claims are somehow faked. So while they expect them, they also feel frustration from not knowing if the claims are real or faked.

        I think it is possible that the WF not allowing most wso's to make income claims is an opportunity to get the buyers to look for other cues to help them understand if it is a good offer for them or not.

        It may cause some confusion and difficulty at first, but I think if it became the standard that it would not be long before the buyers would understand, that no claims are part of the rules of the forum.

        Then, both buyers and sellers could focus on other ways to show the prospects that the information is valuable and worth purchasing.

        As has been amply demonstrated in this thread and others, no matter what is done to verify, there are other variables that will let clever marketers get around the income verification.

        And even when the income proofs are real... they are still not a demonstration of how well it will help the buyer to get similar results.

        Case in point... someone makes a wso and they show their results. They are well known, with many products that they have sold, they have influence, perceived authority, contacts and experience.

        The buyer has none of those things, and they buy the product... follow all the steps and still fail to get hardly any or perhaps no results what so ever. Why? Because the experienced marketer sent an email to his list of affiliate and jv partners suggesting they promote it... some do and so the results are great.

        But the buyer follows all the steps, but is an unknown, has no list of buyers or affiliate partners and so their attempt is a complete failure.

        It is so easy for the experienced marketer to use proof of income... but that serves little real proof of the wso offering to be one that the buyer can succeed with.

        As marketers I think it is our responsibility to create products that can get results for the buyers. When we make such a product, then I believe that its value can be amply demonstrated in the sales thread without income claims. Income claims which under the best of circumstances are poor proof that it can or will be similarly successful for the buyer.

        Mark
        Good post + reasoning, Mark. You have your head screwed on straight.

        The only real value to "income claims / proof" is that it (theoretically) shows that it IS possible to make (any/SOME) $$ using the method(s) being sold. As opposed to method(s) where it's really NOT possible to make some/ANY $$.

        I don't think any clear minded person would ever assume that he/she would be *guaranteed* to make a certain amount of $$ -- or in many cases, believe that it is even LIKELY that a certain amount of $$ will be made.

        Personally, I see WSOs all the time that have PLENTY of income "proof," and I still say to myself, "Lame! That will NEVER WORK in the real world!" Conversely, I've seen plenty of WSOs that have no "income proof," and I assess that they have the ring of truth, and I say to myself, "Now THAT makes sense! I think that WOULD make me some $$."

        Everyone must assess, in their own mind, what the possibilities, risks, expenses, etc. are, in any particular case. This individual assessment can (and SHOULD) be made WITHOUT needing to see "income claims / proof."

        In other words, y'gotta use your own judgment + common sense when deciding what WSOs to buy -- with or without "actual" income claims or proof!

        -- TW
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author luckyman2k
    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post


    Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

    To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

    This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.
    Hello

    One doubt. We are using 2checkout. Due to 2checkout Policy, we can sell from our website. We can't use There Buy Buttons any where else.

    My question is, how we can use 2checkout or Blue Snap to sell On WSO Section ?

    My request is, Please change this rule, "To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. "

    Thanks
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782663].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
    To be honest, I find the WSO Forum a lot harder to read than the others because of all the income claims. All those dollar signs and figures just make it look like a badly-formatted knitting pattern to me and it's more difficult to maintain my concentration if I'm looking for something specific - I often have to make a conscious effort to stop my mind from wandering. It's the entries without an income claim that stick out for me, possibly because I take one man's income claim about as seriously as the idea that two identical shops in different parts of town will be make the same amount of money and so am practically blind to any figures given.

    I realise I'm probably in the minority, but there is a small chance that some people might actually do better with their offers once the WSO forum stops looking like it's sinking under a tidal wave of competing dollar signs and comes across as a bit 'cleaner'.
    Signature

    Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GlenH
      Originally Posted by Diana Lane View Post

      To be honest, I find the WSO Forum a lot harder to read than the others because of all the income claims. All those dollar signs and figures just make it look like a badly-formatted knitting pattern to me and it's more difficult to maintain my concentration if I'm looking for something specific - I often have to make a conscious effort to stop my mind from wandering. It's the entries without an income claim that stick out for me, possibly because I take one man's income claim about as seriously as the idea that two identical shops in different parts of town will be make the same amount of money and so am practically blind to any figures given.
      I agree. Trying to read that WSO section today makes your head spin.

      I realise I'm probably in the minority, but there is a small chance that some people might actually do better with their offers once the WSO forum stops looking like it's sinking under a tidal wave of competing dollar signs and comes across as a bit 'cleaner'.
      Let's hope that's the case, because it's about as a bad as it can get now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783753].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rosetrees
    I rarely come here any more, but was curious after receiving the email about the new rules. One of which, apparently, states no income claims in WSOs. I just went to the WSO forum and 3 of the first 10 products have income claims in their heading.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782707].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Greedy
    Great Stuff. Some need changes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782748].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author efhale
    Within #4
    "Reviews must be of the product, not the seller nor the seller’s previous products."

    Good job!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782774].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chuckharris
    I wonder why this in #5 "Automation Bots"

    There are MANY cases where automation just makes sense. We write a lot of bots that have 100% legitimate use. It's called working smarter, not harder.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782826].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    I think that the existing way the WSO forum is set up has contributed to the problem of the big income claims that we often see in the WSO thread titles, right.

    So obviously the WSO title appears on the overview page or whatever it's called so all the titles are competing against 49 other titles for a click through.

    Now it used to be that a WSO couldn't be bumped until it hit the 3rd page but now those rules have changed and you can bump the second it drop's off the 1st page.

    So now I believe what will happen is that WSO's will be dropping off the first page even faster then before, so if you ask me its a total disservice to those who've posted a WSO and only serves to increase the advertising revenue for the forum itself.

    Intended or not the consequences for vendors will be that they won't get any value at all for their ad spend.

    Income claims or not, if the forum is taking money for advertising space they have a duty to their advertisers as well, not only buyers.

    Honestly I'm not sure there is any implied duty to buyers at all "UNLESS" membership became paid instead of free.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782845].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author chuckharris
      Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

      I think that the existing way the WSO forum is set up has contributed to the problem of the big income claims that we often see in the WSO thread titles, right.

      So obviously the WSO title appears on the overview page or whatever it's called so all the titles are competing against 49 other titles for a click through.

      Now it used to be that a WSO couldn't be bumped until it hit the 3rd page but now those rules have changed and you can bump the second it drop's off the 1st page.

      So now I believe what will happen is that WSO's will be dropping off the first page even faster then before, so if you ask me its a total disservice to those who've posted a WSO and only serves to increase the advertising revenue for the forum itself.

      Intended or not the consequences for vendors will be that they won't get any value at all for their ad spend.

      Income claims or not, if the forum is taking money for advertising space they have a duty to their advertisers as well, not only buyers.

      Honestly I'm not sure there is any implied duty to buyers at all "UNLESS" membership became paid instead of free.
      I agree, bumping available once the ad falls off of the first page seems like a backward step to me and certainly won't add any value to running ads.

      IMHO, ads moving so fast off of the first page is probably the primary reason that many depend on affiliate relationships rather than the forum. I would think the idea would be to bring value to advertisers again and then they would want to advertise more right?

      I think such a short bump would do just the opposite and will again just increase the speed of the thread.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782875].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author igrowyourbiz
    Awesome....long needed changes

    Gj alaistair
    Signature
    Get LEGIT! Make 6, 7 or 8 FIGURES Per MONTH
    Just Like The Other Students I Mentor Do!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author maxqsoft
    Information like this is great for new comers like myself. Since I usually find it difficult to find and understand the rules. For example I recently posted a email marketing 13 video course which was remove and considered as Spam.
    Is it ok to include videos in post?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Coby
    Some positive steps in the right direction!

    While I have used many "Free WSO" to build my business and will miss that option but am glad to see some steps being taken about all the income claims that plague our industry.

    Good work FL!

    Cheers,
    Coby
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Trivum
    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

    Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

    Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.
    This is a good one, and sorely needed. However, I hope it extends to things like, "Make $45,967 a week for only $7!"

    Not sure if that's considered a "claim" or a "guarantee," but WSO's are rife with that kind of BS, and they make the whole site look cheap and scammy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783026].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steve B
      It would seem appropriate to me that you extend the "no income claims" rule to the "scammy" banner ads that grace the top and bottom of the main discussion forum. You know, the ones that cost $100/day and typically make outrageous income claims. If removing income claims from the WSO section is a positive step (which I agree it is) why should that not be extended to the rest of the forum?

      Steve
      Signature

      Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
      SteveBrowneDirect

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783051].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dog Rescuer
    Not trying to be snarky but there are Rule #17's up all over the place:
    http://i.imgur.com/txA1fL3.jpg

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783042].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author franchiseguy
    Would a picture of me sitting in my Ferrari, surrounded by babes smiling with a mouthful of Gold teeth be construed as an earnings claim? Just sayin'
    Signature

    Who Makes $16,000 PER CLICK Promoting Businesses and Franchises? I do! MegAffiliate

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783078].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jalexanderseo
    New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783201].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author chuckharris
      Originally Posted by jalexanderseo View Post

      New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.
      Send me a link, I'll buy two! :-)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783627].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
      Originally Posted by chuckharris View Post

      Send me a link, I'll buy two! :-)
      Originally Posted by jalexanderseo View Post

      New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.

      Unfortunately this is a blind offer... and would be against forum rules.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783695].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jalexanderseo
        Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

        Unfortunately this is a blind offer... and would be against forum rules.
        I agree guess I have to say use this method but you can't make money because that would violate the WF rules so make sure you do nothing and lose money by taking no action today.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784091].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Daystar11
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by chuckharris
        Send me a link, I'll buy two! :-)

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by jalexanderseo
        New sales copy revised to be compliant with WSO rule you might make money you might not I can't tell you because the WF would ban me from selling this to you if I did. So nothing secretive here as that would also ban me but I can't tell you about it because that would ban me. But buy my stuff anyways and see whats inside.


        Unfortunately this is a blind offer... and would be against forum rules.
        CHECKMATE! lol
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785674].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author faisalmaximus
    Will these rules be applicable to existing WSOs ? or only for the new WSO which will be posted from now ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chrisuchi
    perfect, love this development, a lot of fake income claims
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ProsperityNow
    I could see how they could enforce using "Warrior " or Warrior Forum "on the Warrior Forum website that they own.

    2. However, I doubt very seriously that Warrior Forum could have any legal right or recourse to the word "Warrior" being used on another website that is not owned by the Warrior Forum.

    3."Warrior" is such a general word, that has been in existences for hundreds of years before there was a Warrior Forum website.

    I checked Google for the name warrior and there were tons of variety of websites using warrior for many products, services etc. Even Amazon, Twitter and Facebook popped up under the word "warrior.

    Just my opinion..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783442].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wordpressmania
    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

    Hi everyone,

    Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

    To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

    This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.
    I believe the new rule will make the Forum more clean. Specially not allowing people to claim about earning $$$$$$$$ without proved by a trustworthy way . I am sure it will save a lot of newbie at the long run.

    I only have one complain.....That is about buy button. I use Fastspring as my payment processor. It does not allow me to send people directly to their cart page other than from my website. So I usually send people to a specific page from where they can go to the payment processor.

    So, I think you would be kind to ensure that people like me can use WSO section. Other than it seems I will not be able to release any WSO in near future until paypal comes to my country ( may be within next few years )

    Thanks
    Sabbir
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783453].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    I can see both sides of the issue.

    On the one hand, how can I convince potential customers that the technique I have been using really does have the potential to help save their mortgage or help them have that long awaited second honeymoon or send their kids to college without presenting some real numbers or potential numbers. This new rule will hurt many sellers who now cannot share those numbers.

    On the other hand, anyone that is half decent and uses common sense can see that many of the existing claims are untruthful, unrealistic, or unsustainable.

    If it was all 100% on the up and up, the sellers need to be sharing their techniques with Congress because with the numbers, promises, and hype we have enough right here to overcome world hunger and poverty. This is especially true once you realize, according to many of these promises that a customer needs no knowledge nor website, the technique can be done from anywhere, and there is no risk of saturation.

    Those kinds of claims, along with *perceived* scammy marketing techniques, have given the WF a bad name and reputation amongst many.

    For example, there have been some threads lately about churn and burn email marketing.

    Yes we all understand that it's not technically spam to get 3 emails a day because we agreed to share our email address for the free report or whatever. But the mothers (regular people) of the people that are doing it would call it spamming (or worse) too. Yet some here never take the side of the consumer - it's their fault for signing up. We say to new emailers with questions "you aren't your market so it doesn't matter if YOU don't like getting 3 emails a day or having 5 downsells or 14 popups - it works so just do what works!" This is hilarious when at the same time there have been many posts recommending throw away email addresses when signing up for said free report. Talk about hypocritical.

    Regular folks would be saying their computer must be infected because they can't leave a site (with all the exit popups) yet some say it works so they keep doing it and keep getting the same bad rep. Then someone pointed out that they and others, marketers, use software to block ads. Again, we don't like it but we impose it on others.

    Likewise, someone complains about a WSO and some are quick to pull the "buyer beware" card because everyone's hands are tied and the WF is just an advertising platform. Then we try to overcome the perception of being ripped off by throwing out the "if you learned one tiny tidbit you didn't know then you weren't scammed" line.

    That attitude (amongst many here but not all by any means) isn't helping the WF. Those WSOs, while paying the bills, aren't helping the reputation of the WF either in many cases.

    Note that above I'm not calling anyone a scammer or spammer. I'm talking about regular folks and the perception or feeling that many have of this place. Don't believe me? Get some of your real friends on some email lists or invite them to the WSO forum. Some of the guys I"m talking about above will say to that "well they aren't my target market so..."

    This kind of "correction" always happens and always effects even those that aren't "guilty."

    Look at all the rules along with all the complaining about Google, Youtube, FB, Craigslist, etc. For example, your FB account may be in danger of a shutdown (if it even remotely feels suspicious no matter if you've done anything wrong or not) because someone else decided to open 300 FB accounts with fake profile info and pretty girls as the profile pic. That may have been learned on the WF.

    My email address was recently sold or shared several times by these wonderful friends that post here after I trusted them with my email address. It works, right - all about the numbers.

    I am glad to see the changes - they are much more "regular folks" friendly. However, I hope that FL hasn't bitten off more than they can chew with these much needed changes but a most assuredly decreased income. Before the balance was maybe too much in the favor of the marketer/seller and now the balance has shifted to be more on the consumer side - some say too much.

    In the end, I hope it all balances out and we can have a win-win-win experience here for all.

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783473].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Terry Jett
    Bravo! Just might be enough to get me back to the WF when time permits.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783512].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author benjamenjuan
    It's really not that hard to prove you made money with a particular technique with no screenshots or videos. You'd have to provide temp login info for a mod. I'd be fine with that, as long as there's an agreement that the mod will not use your log in creds for anything else. Then change the password after approval.

    Thanks for the awesome changes it's good to see some application of some long overdue improvements.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783675].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danieljb
    Thank you all for your input regarding the new rules, particular Rule 17.

    Eliminating questionable income claims is one of the most important features of the new rules. We know that a lot of buyers are potentially being misled with current income claims and promises of income if the buyer were to purchase the WSO.

    Here are some examples to clarify what is an income claim:
    - Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
    - I made $100 by selling eBooks.
    - Earn $100 every time you press this button.
    - I made $100 selling a domain.
    - Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
    - Make $5+ in 30 days.

    Under the new rules, any such statement is not permitted in the WSO Marketplace, which includes all sub-forums.

    We require all sellers to read through the rules thoroughly and adjust any offers accordingly.

    Many of these rules have been in place for some time. Their presence in the new rules means that these rules will be addressed for sellers who are not adhering to them.

    In answer to the specific questions raised here:

    It would seem appropriate to me that you extend the "no income claims" rule to the "scammy" banner ads that grace the top and bottom of the main discussion forum. You know, the ones that cost $100/day and typically make outrageous income claims. If removing income claims from the WSO section is a positive step (which I agree it is) why should that not be extended to the rest of the forum?
    This will be addressed in the coming weeks.

    Will these rules be applicable to existing WSOs ? or only for the new WSO which will be posted from now ?
    This is applicable to all WSOs.

    This is a good one, and sorely needed. However, I hope it extends to things like, "Make $45,967 a week for only $7!"

    Not sure if that's considered a "claim" or a "guarantee," but WSO's are rife with that kind of BS, and they make the whole site look cheap and scammy.
    This is definitely an income claim, which is the kind of misleading statement that we’re addressing with the new rules. No new offers with such claims will be approved. Sellers must adjust their existing offers.

    Bravo! Just might be enough to get me back to the WF when time permits.
    Great. We're changing the rules so potential buyers can feel secure browsing the offers in the WSO marketplace while knowing they can pick up a great deal on IM related products.

    I’m also wondering when and how all these current threads listed with ‘income claims rules will be weeded out of the WSO’s section.

    Since they are already in the WSO section, the vendor could ‘bump’ them forever if they wanted to.
    This will be rolled out to existing offers in the coming days and weeks. No new offers that contravene any rules will be approved henceforth.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783747].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
      Originally Posted by danieljb View Post

      Thank you all for your input regarding the new rules, particular Rule 17.

      Eliminating questionable income claims is one of the most important features of the new rules. We know that a lot of buyers are potentially being misled with current income claims and promises of income if the buyer were to purchase the WSO.

      Here are some examples to clarify what is an income claim:
      - Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
      - I made $100 by selling eBooks.
      - Earn $100 every time you press this button.
      - I made $100 selling a domain.
      - Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
      - Make $5+ in 30 days.

      Under the new rules, any such statement is not permitted in the WSO Marketplace, which includes all sub-forums.
      .
      Ummm... not exactly true.

      "I made $100 by selling ebooks" is not an income claim. It's a statement. It would only be a claim if it stated "I made $100 selling ebooks and YOU CAN TOO."

      Same as for "I made $100 selling a domain" no way implies you will too unless so stated.

      Don't get me wrong. I understand this is being done for the better good of the forum and the protection of it's members. However, if there is no foreseeable way for the Warrior Forum to verify income claims without banning all income claims then I think we should just ban ALL claims altogether.

      If not, I see an even bigger onslaught of bogus claims from SEO rankings, 1-click plugin wonders to Facebook Fan Page trickery and instant Kindle success taking over the WSO section. I mean seriously, do you really think those who make unsubstantiated MMO claims are just going to go away?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783986].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by benjamenjuan View Post

        It's really not that hard to prove you made money with a particular technique with no screenshots or videos. You'd have to provide temp login info for a mod.
        That would be against the TOS of many payment processors. If I were a mod, I wouldn't want anyone's login info anyway. If something bad happened in that time frame the mod would be the first one blamed.

        And besides, it wouldn't necessarily prove the income was from the method/system being sold in the WSO.


        Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

        Ummm... not exactly true.

        "I made $100 by selling ebooks" is not an income claim. It's a statement. It would only be a claim if it stated "I made $100 selling ebooks and YOU CAN TOO."
        It is a statement, but it's a statement that makes a claim. Adding "YOU CAN TOO" makes it an income guarantee. Without the guarantee it's just a claim. You're claiming you earned X amount.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784109].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
          I don't understand why you won't be allowing scrapers and automation tools? I understand you don't want people selling tools that are used for spamming but that's not a software issue, that's a people issue.

          Only real problem I have it the rule regarding software.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784153].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author PatriciaS
          I certainly understand the desire -- and need -- to clean things up a bit relative to claims being made about income to be made with this or that spectacular, never-seen-before offer from stellar marketers, and endorse the effort.

          However, after reading through this thread to this point, I'm not convinced that the owners/administrators really have a firm handle on WHAT it is they want and need to do, or perhaps HOW to do what they want and need to do.

          I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful analogy from a niche that also has to deal with a Federal governing agency -- alternative health products and the FDA. Whether you personally "believe in" herbs and other nutritional supplements, in my experience they have great efficacy if you have the right thing for the right problem and take them in the right doses. That said, the problem becomes making claims for the products which, like the income statements here and elsewhere, may be true or not, ay apply to individuals who becomes customers or not.

          What the FDA allows -- thankfully -- is "testimonials," in the form of people's individual stories of what a particular herb, herbal formula or supplement did for them. So if I happen to be selling Purple Loosestrife as an herbal supplement, I wouldn't be able to say: your blood pressure will drop with this tincture, but I could say: MY blood pressure dropped from x to x wit this herb. And I could also use the stories of other people.

          Personally, I see no reason why that can't work here--- "I made X amount of dollars over y period of time with this method" is no guarantee of anything, especially if the claim (and the forum) provides an explicit earnings disclaimer.

          I especially think this is important since to my way of thinking, WSOs without any indication of how much can be made -- under the best of circumstances, perhaps -- would be pretty meaningless. I mean, would anyone want to buy a product outlining a method for which even the cleverest marketers with large and responsive mailing lists only make a few bucks a week or even less?? That's the best we can expect if ALL mentions of income potential are banned.

          Just a thought.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784154].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Antonios
            Originally Posted by PatriciaS View Post

            I certainly understand the desire -- and need -- to clean things up a bit relative to claims being made about income to be made with this or that spectacular, never-seen-before offer from stellar marketers, and endorse the effort.

            However, after reading through this thread to this point, I'm not convinced that the owners/administrators really have a firm handle on WHAT it is they want and need to do, or perhaps HOW to do what they want and need to do.

            I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful analogy from a niche that also has to deal with a Federal governing agency -- alternative health products and the FDA. Whether you personally "believe in" herbs and other nutritional supplements, in my experience they have great efficacy if you have the right thing for the right problem and take them in the right doses. That said, the problem becomes making claims for the products which, like the income statements here and elsewhere, may be true or not, ay apply to individuals who becomes customers or not.

            What the FDA allows -- thankfully -- is "testimonials," in the form of people's individual stories of what a particular herb, herbal formula or supplement did for them. So if I happen to be selling Purple Loosestrife as an herbal supplement, I wouldn't be able to say: your blood pressure will drop with this tincture, but I could say: MY blood pressure dropped from x to x wit this herb. And I could also use the stories of other people.

            Personally, I see no reason why that can't work here--- "I made X amount of dollars over y period of time with this method" is no guarantee of anything, especially if the claim (and the forum) provides an explicit earnings disclaimer.

            I especially think this is important since to my way of thinking, WSOs without any indication of how much can be made -- under the best of circumstances, perhaps -- would be pretty meaningless. I mean, would anyone want to buy a product outlining a method for which even the cleverest marketers with large and responsive mailing lists only make a few bucks a week or even less?? That's the best we can expect if ALL mentions of income potential are banned.

            Just a thought.





            Excellent presentation.

            Would this be considered an indirect claim?

            What about fake testimonials?

            And if testimonials are real, how to separate those from experienced marketers that have huge lists (jv's) from newbies with no lists?

            Example: There is a famous book from a bestselling author that says that he made several thousands of dollars in 24 hours in certain mmo starting from scratch.

            What he doesn't disclaim is that he used his mailing list of thousands of subscribers built from his many years at online marketing to send the offer too.

            Will a newbie make that money, not in 24 hours, but in a year? Of course not!

            Testimonial real, but misleading for a newbie.

            Sincerely,

            Antonios

            PS: To be truthful, the bestseller author in reality didn't start from SCRATCH, he already had a several thousand subscribers mailing list, that although, not created through this mmo, mailing lists are considered part of an mmo.
            Signature
            Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
            Click the link below now to start today:
            http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784205].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GlenH
            Originally Posted by GlenH View Post

            Or will it be the case that when a vendor ‘bumps’ a thread, that thread will be assessed for ‘income claims’ and if the thread violates the new rule, then the ‘bump’ won’t be allowed until the thread is changed.
            Originally Posted by danieljb View Post


            This will be rolled out to existing offers in the coming days and weeks. No new offers that contravene any rules will be approved henceforth.
            Daniel, can you elaborate on how you'll be assessing existing WSO offers re the incomes claim rule.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784551].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author RichBeck
            Originally Posted by PatriciaS View Post

            Personally, I see no reason why that can't work here--- "I made X amount of dollars over y period of time with this method" is no guarantee of anything, especially if the claim (and the forum) provides an explicit earnings disclaimer.

            I especially think this is important since to my way of thinking, WSOs without any indication of how much can be made -- under the best of circumstances, perhaps -- would be pretty meaningless. I mean, would anyone want to buy a product outlining a method for which even the cleverest marketers with large and responsive mailing lists only make a few bucks a week or even less?? That's the best we can expect if ALL mentions of income potential are banned.

            Just a thought.

            I disagree with this line of thinking....

            Any income statements create a myriad of problems......

            Then, it comes down to who can "stretch the truth"... the farthest to make more sales... I been around here long enough to see people who could stretch a piece of gum from Boston to LA. :-)

            Instead of buying the product based on the Sales Page with a clear description, people are buying based on what the seller says he made.....

            We can add flashing lights to read "results not typical" or "not guaranteed".... But, the income statements are still there....

            If they are really "not typical" or "not guaranteed," why bother with income statements at all?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785791].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

              As someone who has seen a LOT of WSO sales copy I quickly listed:

              1. income claims - more than one
              2. doesn't say what it IS except a "recurring cash system"
              3. seller is brand new to the forum so no history and no credibility as yet
              4. Sales copy is written in a way that is commonly seen with English second language from Asian countries...but sellers list a US state as residence.

              Point is - this WSO apparently passed through the new lookie-loo system and was approved. That tells me the new rules aren't that tough.
              Signature

              Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.
              I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.


              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785944].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author GlenH
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

                As someone who has seen a LOT of WSO sales copy I quickly listed:

                1. income claims - more than one
                2. doesn't say what it IS except a "recurring cash system"
                3. seller is brand new to the forum so no history and no credibility as yet
                4. Sales copy is written in a way that is commonly seen with English second language from Asian countries...but sellers list a US state as residence.

                Point is - this WSO apparently passed through the new lookie-loo system and was approved. That tells me the new rules aren't that tough.
                I also noted this WSO

                Alaister and Daniel, if you set the 'income claims' policy, then you need to make sure your approval staff police the policy.

                No wimping out already guys.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785961].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.
                That WSO is the epitome of what the new rules are supposed to eliminate.

                Maybe the mods aren't fully up to speed on the new rules yet....?
                Signature
                If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786099].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author GlenH
              Originally Posted by RichBeck View Post

              I disagree with this line of thinking....

              Any income statements create a myriad of problems......

              Then, it comes down to who can "stretch the truth"... the farthest to make more sales... I been around here long enough to see people who could stretch a piece of gum from Boston to LA. :-)

              Instead of buying the product based on the Sales Page with a clear description, people are buying based on what the seller says he made.....

              We can add flashing lights to read "results not typical" or "not guaranteed".... But, the income statements are still there....

              If they are really "not typical" or "not guaranteed," why bother with income statements at all?

              Many of the last dozen or so posts have long arguments and comments as to what should, and what should not be allowed in as an income claim by ‘admin’

              To me that highlights that disallowing income claims altogether will save a whole lot of disagreements between admin and vendors who will inevitably have different interpretations of the rule.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785953].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          That would be against the TOS of many payment processors. If I were a mod, I wouldn't want anyone's login info anyway. If something bad happened in that time frame the mod would be the first one blamed.

          And besides, it wouldn't necessarily prove the income was from the method/system being sold in the WSO.




          It is a statement, but it's a statement that makes a claim. Adding "YOU CAN TOO" makes it an income guarantee. Without the guarantee it's just a claim. You're claiming you earned X amount.
          Yes it is a statement that makes a claim but all statements make a claim. It's hot outside is both a statement and a claim. I wear orange underwear is both a statement and a claim. Will you think it's hot outside? I don't know you may be a cold blooded. Will you go out and buy orange underwear? I don't know. You may very well do so because I am a pretty cool guy and you want to be like me.

          Anyhow, in no way does someone saying they made $1000 doing XYZ legally imply you will too unless it is so stated. If it's not stated that you or everyone can do the same than you are assuming you can do it on your own.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784217].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Antonios
            Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

            Yes it is a statement that makes a claim but all statements make a claim. It's hot outside is both a statement and a claim. I wear orange underwear is both a statement and a claim. Will you think it's hot outside? I don't know you may be a cold blooded. Will you go out and buy orange underwear? I don't know. You may very well do so because I am a pretty cool guy and you want to be like me.

            Anyhow, in no way does someone saying they made $1000 doing XYZ legally imply you will too unless it is so stated. If it's not stated that you or everyone can do the same than you are assuming you can do it on your own.



            Those "YOU CAN TOO" claims are very misleading!

            A college or high school dropout, a waiter, drunkman, pizza boy, father of three living in a van, or husband living with his inlaws can do things in desperation that most typical guys and gals won't have the mental, emotional, dedication, staying power to do it.

            Education or no education is not indication of how a person or individual will perform.

            There are people with doctoral degrees in business administration (PhD or DBA) that are complete failures as business owners. They were trained to be employees, not employers, And there are school dropouts that head huge international corporations.

            Many of them got their college degrees after being a CEO of their corporations. It doesn't seem right to have a school dropout managing other people with master's and PhD's degrees.

            So: it is not correct to claim that just because you were a strong drug user that reached bottom, and you climbed the success ladder, that others can do it, too!

            Most people, typical, normal people, won't be able to do it!

            Sincerely,

            Antonios
            Signature
            Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
            Click the link below now to start today:
            http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784258].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
              Originally Posted by Antonios View Post

              Those "YOU CAN TOO" claims are very misleading!

              A college or high school dropout, a waiter, drunkman, pizza boy, father of three living in a van, or husband living with his inlaws can do things in desperation that most typical guys and gals won't have the mental, emotional, dedication, staying power to do it.

              Education or no education is not indication of how a person or individual will perform.

              There are people with doctoral degrees in business administration (PhD or DBA) that are complete failures as business owners. They were trained to be employees, not employers, And there are school dropouts that head huge international corporations.

              Many of them got their college degrees after being a CEO of their corporations. It doesn't seem right to have a school dropout managing other people with master's and PhD's degrees.

              So: it is not correct to claim that just because you were a strong drug user that reached bottom, and you climbed the success ladder, that others can do it, too!

              Most people, typical, normal people, won't be able to do it!

              Sincerely,

              Antonios
              Really don't know what your point. My point is it's NOT illegal to make claims period. What the Warrior Forum does is OK with me. It's their forum. NO Biggie. But don't confuse the route they take as what I was saying.

              Claims can be made legally, PERIOD. Not here with the new rules but it's not illegal and anyone trying to associate the two are sadly, sadly mistaken.

              Under FTC guidelines if sellers make any claims about how much money you might make, they have to provide a disclosure document.

              And if the seller makes a claim about how much money you can make... Than under the rule, they have to provide a separate document called a EARNINGS CLAIM STATEMENT REQUIRED BY LAW. (yup that has to be the title. Every word) Which must include;

              - the name of the person making the claim and the date;
              - the specifics of the claim;
              - the start and end date those earnings were achieved;
              - the number and percentage of people who got those results or better;
              - any information about those people that may differ from you – for example, the part of the country where they live;
              - and a statement that you can get written proof of the seller's earning claims if you ask for it

              Again, the FTC does NOT prohibit you from making claims. Just when you do make a claim that claims others will make money or have the same success - then you are required to provide all possible info to prove the claim and not that you're just b.s. ing.

              But don't take my word for it and no one should. Just visit ftc.gov for an explanation of what you can or can not do.

              Don't assume what the Warrior forum does is what the FTC requires. It's the Warrior Forums right to tell YOU what they want and expect.

              But trying to insinuate to people that making claims are illegal is a false claim in itself. You jus can't do it here even if you abide by the FTC laws. Simple as that.

              Now on to banning the rest of the claims. Because it's not just the outrageous income claims here... there's the far out SEO claims... Youtube, offline and yadda yadda marketing claims. The Plugins that never work... the video software that takes longer than 2 minutes to create a video.... etc. etc. etc.

              What? too close to home for some.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784427].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Antonios
                Originally Posted by iMassMarket View Post

                Really don't know what your point. My point is it's NOT illegal to make claims period. What the Warrior Forum does is OK with me. It's their forum. NO Biggie. But don't confuse the route they take as what I was saying.

                Claims can be made legally, PERIOD. Not here with the new rules but it's not illegal and anyone trying to associate the two are sadly, sadly mistaken.

                Under FTC guidelines if sellers make any claims about how much money you might make, they have to provide a disclosure document.

                And if the seller makes a claim about how much money you can make... Than under the rule, they have to provide a separate document called a EARNINGS CLAIM STATEMENT REQUIRED BY LAW. (yup that has to be the title. Every word) Which must include;

                - the name of the person making the claim and the date;
                - the specifics of the claim;
                - the start and end date those earnings were achieved;
                - the number and percentage of people who got those results or better;
                - any information about those people that may differ from you – for example, the part of the country where they live;
                - and a statement that you can get written proof of the seller's earning claims if you ask for it

                Again, the FTC does NOT prohibit you from making claims. Just when you do make a claim that claims others will make money or have the same success - then you are required to provide all possible info to prove the claim and not that you're just b.s. ing.

                But don't take my word for it and no one should. Just visit ftc.gov for an explanation of what you can or can not do.

                Don't assume what the Warrior forum does is what the FTC requires. It's the Warrior Forums right to tell YOU what they want and expect.

                But trying to insinuate to people that making claims are illegal is a false claim in itself. You jus can't do it here even if you abide by the FTC laws. Simple as that.

                Now on to banning the rest of the claims. Because it's not just the outrageous income claims here... there's the far out SEO claims... Youtube, offline and yadda yadda marketing claims. The Plugins that never work... the video software that takes longer than 2 minutes to create a video.... etc. etc. etc.

                What? too close to home for some.






                I wasn't necessarily referring to illegal activities in claims, but claims that necessarily don't apply to most people.

                In reality, very few people make real money online. Most will fail, not because they don't have the potential, but because they don't have the staying power or capacity.

                Anybody can build a business online in two minutes.

                The problem is generating income, and more precisely, generating profits.

                What I mean is just because somebody, of any type of background, has had success online it doesn't mean that everybody else will, too, following whatever s/he did.

                Typical, normal, everyday people will never make a profit online. They don't have the dedication to gain it.

                And, I understand, that the FTC, in additional to what you mention, they require that when incomes are claim that a list of earnings by income levels in the specific program be stated.

                That is: how much do the great earners get, the average earner, most program participants, and amount of people that don't make a cent. And this in time frames: one month, six months, a year.

                Requiring proof of income claims is a very sticky issue. There are many variables in this equation.

                Let's say that I proof that my claims are real, will this guarantee that another person will reach that income, too?

                Of course not, like other WF posts have stated, I could have a huge list, an army of affiliates, many jv's, a huge advertising budget, a very sophisticated seo, traffic generating system, great outsourcing, etc,, etc. Things that most online marketers, or wannabees, don't have and don't even know exists.

                Like the disclaimer, that is included at the bottom of a sales page in small letters and blurred:

                ... that income claims or results are not typical. And that you will probably not make as much, or that you could make more. And that there is no guarantee that you will make any money.

                And these disclaimers are included after the salesletter is trying to imply all the contrary: that anybody can make money with whatever system is being promoted. Isn't this contradictory? Having contradictions in the salesletter with the disclaimer is OK?

                Most people don't read those things. They don't even read TOS, and start complaining that they couldn't get a refund, when the TOS clearly indicates that there are NO REFUNDS.

                Probably, the best for protection of the newbie buyer is no income claims.

                If everybody is following this rule, then there is no advantage or disadvantage.

                Sincerely,

                Antonios
                Signature
                Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
                Click the link below now to start today:
                http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784860].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
                  Originally Posted by Antonios View Post

                  Let's say that I proof that my claims are real, will this guarantee that another person will reach that income, too?
                  I understand your point. I do not disagree.

                  Now can the average person get to number one on Google? No. Can Joe blow buy the latest video software and create a quality video in two minutes? Hardly. Can someone with little online experience buy a photoshop course and have it mastered in 24 hours? Uh...no. Can Bill from Ohio buy some super-duper offline course and sell like a rabid rabbit? Certainly not. Can a shy college student buy the latest mobile software and create a mobile site, then turn around and sell it to a local business tomorrow for $497? Chances are slim to none. Or can a single mom with no experience but an idea buy a WSO wordpress theme and build a traffic sucking online store in 30 minutes? Absolutely not.

                  My point is not just the MMO claims.

                  It was all B.S. claims.

                  In reality I was making a point that if I said I made 1 million dollars last year doing XYZ and could prove it... doesn't mean you will or can if I haven't stated so.

                  Which brought me to correcting those individuals who chimed in otherwise that the FTC does NOT restrict claims. They restrict how you use them. Some members even incorrectly stated this is why the Warrior forum made the change. No. From all the posts and rule change. it was the only solution they found to solve their problem was to end ALL income claims because they haven't the time or resources to check who is truthful and who is faking it. Not that the law said so...

                  Then on top of checking claims... they didn't want the added chore of ensuring that everyone was following the law. Which is fine by me. Now let's work on all the other B.S. claims as I mentioned above. Eliminate ALL of them. One is just as bad as the other especially in the eyes of the law.

                  And my other point is if you are going to make a income claim somewhere other than this forum, follow the law. It has nothing to do with whether this forum or other forums put in place their own rules. I was pointing out issues to those who were incorrectly telling others what you can and can not do. Simple as that.

                  Originally Posted by Antonios View Post

                  Of course not, like other WF posts have stated, I could have a huge list, an army of affiliates, many jv's, a huge advertising budget, a very sophisticated seo, traffic generating system, great outsourcing, etc,, etc. Things that most online marketers, or wannabees, don't have and don't even know exists.
                  This is why the FTC requires you to disclaim this if that is the case. Even down to the part of the country you live as it too can have an effect. So follow the law when making such claims.

                  Originally Posted by Antonios View Post

                  Like the disclaimer, that is included at the bottom of a sales page in small letters and blurred:

                  ... that income claims or results are not typical. And that you will probably not make as much, or that you could make more. And that there is no guarantee that you will make any money.

                  And these disclaimers are included after the salesletter is trying to imply all the contrary: that anybody can make money with whatever system is being promoted. Isn't this contradictory? Having contradictions in the salesletter with the disclaimer is OK?
                  Again, follow the law because the above is NOT AT ALL. The FTC requires minimum text sizes, and WHERE you to post a claim there must be a disclaimer near the claim that is visible and * not typical results is NOT IN ANY WAY acceptable. Please visit ftc.gov for a more in depth explanation of what is and what isn't acceptable. You just gave a great example of what is not acceptable.


                  Originally Posted by Antonios View Post

                  Most people don't read those things. They don't even read TOS, and start complaining that they couldn't get a refund, when the TOS clearly indicates that there are NO REFUNDS.

                  Probably, the best for protection of the newbie buyer is no income claims.
                  No argument there. Most people don't read ANYTHING and the Government needs to protect them for their own safety at your expense. But that has nothing to do with my point.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author highper
    I love that people now need to provide proof for their claims. So many people are full of BS its not even funny.
    Signature
    Get FREE Landing Pages: LPPack.com | Need CUSTOM Design Work? Visit Hyper6.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783857].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author abrandt
      Howdy, Alaister & danieljb:

      I have been a WF Member since 2003. I have issued few WSO returns in the last 10+ years.

      However I purchased a WSO yesterday from a well known WSO author (who I trusted)... which has proven to be quite DECEPTIVE... (with more than enough evidence available posted by Member inquiries - RE: the subject matter of the WSO.) In fact, I did not even download the report after I clearly understood the WSO subject matter.

      After clearly documenting my case directly to this WSO author
      ... he did REFUND me this evening... however he has left such a bad taste due to his email comments... that I would like to pursue this issue with Warrior Forum... for the purpose of helping the NEW WSO RULES become meaningful for 2015 and forward.

      HOW and WHERE would you ask WF Members file a well-documented complaint?

      Thank you in advance for a prompt response.

      ~ Alan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783888].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author abrandt
        FYI #2: Would appreciate a response to my post #92 made: Jan. 2, 2015.


        Originally Posted by abrandt View Post


        Posted: 2nd Jan 2015, 05:48 PM

        Howdy, Alaister & danieljb:

        I have been a WF Member since 2003. I have issued few WSO returns in the last 10+ years.

        However I purchased a WSO yesterday from a well known WSO author (who I trusted)... which has proven to be quite DECEPTIVE... (with more than enough evidence available posted by Member inquiries - RE: the subject matter of the WSO.) In fact, I did not even download the report after I clearly understood the WSO subject matter.

        After clearly documenting my case directly to this WSO author
        ... he did REFUND me this evening... however he has left such a bad taste due to his email comments... that I would like to pursue this issue with Warrior Forum... for the purpose of helping the NEW WSO RULES become meaningful for 2015 and forward.

        HOW and WHERE would you ask WF Members file a well-documented complaint?

        Thank you in advance for a prompt response.

        ~ Alan
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ajaxmike
    This has been an interesting read with many valid point made on all sides. As a newbie I bought many products that failed to deliver on the results claimed - not good for me or WF. I eventually learned that there was likely some catch to get the required results, like having huge responsive list, an army of eager affiliates lined up, an enormous advertising budget, significant human resources, or a whole bunch of knowledge that was not included in the WSO. Consequently, I bought fewer WSOs as I increasingly distrusted them. As I associated with more experienced marketer I learned that most WSOs target gullible newbies who are incapable of evaluating the claims.

    However, if income claims are not made, it makes it very difficult for me decide if the WSO is worth it. I want to know if the product works, what results I can expect, and what I have to have/do to get the predicted results. I don't just want the gross income claim, I want the expenses side too. I think it would be difficult to sell WSOs if income claims were banned completely and WF might find that revenue decreases. Perhaps there is a way to force the seller to reveal expenses and resources used to generate the income.
    Signature
    Michael
    If I helped you, please thank me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784284].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PaidAllDay
      Originally Posted by ajaxmike View Post

      This has been an interesting read with many valid point made on all sides. As a newbie I bought many products that failed to deliver on the results claimed - not good for me or WF. I eventually learned that there was likely some catch to get the required results, like having huge responsive list, an army of eager affiliates lined up, an enormous advertising budget, significant human resources, or a whole bunch of knowledge that was not included in the WSO. Consequently, I bought fewer WSOs as I increasingly distrusted them. As I associated with more experienced marketer I learned that most WSOs target gullible newbies who are incapable of evaluating the claims.

      However, if income claims are not made, it makes it very difficult for me decide if the WSO is worth it. I want to know if the product works, what results I can expect, and what I have to have/do to get the predicted results. I don't just want the gross income claim, I want the expenses side too. I think it would be difficult to sell WSOs if income claims were banned completely and WF might find that revenue decreases. Perhaps there is a way to force the seller to reveal expenses and resources used to generate the income.
      I don't think having accurate income claims will solve your problem. It sounds like you already know what they are using against you. But everyone joins the food chain somewhere so put your toe in the ring and get started.

      Having a "no income claims" rule could be a great new advantage for someone just starting out (fair play).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bayo
    I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

    I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

    Well done!

    BAYO
    Signature
    Courses That Change Lives - Online Courses
    Professional Development for Busy People
    Instant Offline Guru Academy
    My personal journey and experience with offline consulting success
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784352].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GlenH
      Originally Posted by Bayo View Post

      I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

      I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

      Well done!

      BAYO
      I would also hope that many of those members who abandoned the WSO section because of the ‘loose rules’ and the questionable quality of many of products that seemed to take over the WSO listings of late, will gradually come back and at least look to see if real change has been implemented.

      That can only be good for the forum as a whole.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784524].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Antonios
      Originally Posted by Bayo View Post

      I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

      I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

      Well done!

      BAYO


      I understand that the opposite will happen with the "fake claims" WSO creators. They will abandon the WF and go somewhere else where they can keep those fake claims.

      This is what happened with ClickBank when they established more strick rules for vendors.

      I understand that fake vendors left CB and went to other less restrictive processors, like ClickSure and JvZoo, and others.

      You can't stop them, is like drug raids, they move to other communities.

      The important thing is that the WF regains its reliability.

      When I first started in WF I thought that WSO's were genuine since they were sold through the WF. What a great surprise to have bought products and services that were "WORST" then those found elsewhere.

      I learn that in the WF one had to be more careful when buying products and services then when buying elsewhere, because crap sellers took advantage of the newbie belief that WSO's where genuine because it was sold through the WF, and the WF was promoted as the place to be for online marketers that wanted real online success.

      What a disgrace!

      I think that this thread will make the WF a more reliable place to buy things.

      One thing that can be taken into account is the refund rate of a WSO, to evaluate it and ask the seller explanations and corrections or even suspending the WSO altogether.

      I know that WSO sellers have had their accounts banned, but they create another one with different personal information. A different profile.

      This is, and will continue to be, a continuous project: maintaining the WF reliability.

      Sincerely,

      Antonios
      Signature
      Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
      Click the link below now to start today:
      http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784906].message }}
      • I think the new rules are a good move that will eventually improve the integrity of the WSO forum.

        BUT here is what's really annoying..

        As I write this response there are approx 50 WSO's on the first page of the WSO forum.

        About 23 of these are making income claims.

        About 4 of them are Free WSO's

        Many of the 23 making income claims are WSO's that have been around for a long time with literally thousands of views.

        So it's obvious that the sellers of these are continually bumping their threads to get them back on the first page. ( I presume before they get removed )

        So if anyone wants to post a WSO today that abides by the new rules they are just going to get lost amongst all of these.

        Not to mention the fact that their 'new rule abiding' WSO's are going to drop off the first page almost immediately because of this constant ' bumping' of the old ones.

        Unless of course the creators who abide by the new rules are willing to spend alot of money bumping their own WSO's to try and keep up with the competition.

        So I suppose my questions are ..

        Why does it seem that you are not applying these rules to existing WSO's also?

        Is it because this Thread Bumping Mania is earning you alot of money in extra fees at the moment?

        When are you going to make the 'OLD' WSO creators remove their income claims to make it fairer for the new WSO creators?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784965].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Antonios
      Originally Posted by Bayo View Post

      I believe some of these moves will prevent the forum from further slippage and increase the quality of the products offered. For far too long things have been constantly in decline.

      I foresee 2015 being the year that many people that have abandoned making special offers continue again without worrying about having to compete with ridiculous claims from people who are just out to make a fast buck or getting lumped in with them.

      Well done!

      BAYO




      That's a real great advantage for legitimate WSO Creators!

      One of the most difficult, and sometimes, impossible competion to beat are those of illegal, dishonest, over hyped and ridiculous offers.

      Because those crap offers are presentated with all the psychological selling power, legal and mostly illegal, unethical, immoral ways that a product or service can be presented.

      They go through and block all reasoning of a human being and head straight to the greed, fears, wanting, and needs of an individual. Emotions are stirred and empower the mind and brain of the reader, viewer and/or listener of the presentation. And when emotions, and not reason, dominates a person, there is no going back.

      Emotions by instinct and nature dominate reason. That's why wars, crimes, corruption, abuse, maltreatment to children, animals, women, old age, Nature exists!

      It's almost impossible for a legitimate, honest online marketer to succeed online when a professional crap seller is competing with him/her.

      Specially, newbies, and even long time online seekers are entramped with the "shiny object", "one click to riches", "magical button", "do nothing to millions", etc., syndrome.

      If your ethical, honest, legitimate, buyer protective, it is almost impossible to compete with all the crap sellers outthere. Most people won't believe you when you tell them the truth.

      Most people want the "snake oil" cure all instant treatment.

      The WF can become a safe place for legitimate and honest online marketers and protective of buyers.

      Buyers have to be protected, most of them don't know better, even after going through several bad, and horrible experiences. Most will even blame the whole online system.

      They don't even realize that the same thing happen in the brick and mortar business world.

      Sincerely,

      Antonios
      Signature
      Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
      Click the link below now to start today:
      http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784969].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Further to the "no income claims" discussion, will that apply to subsequent posts the seller makes in the thread?

    For example, when someone asks the seller how much he's made using his system, is he allowed to answer with specific dollar amounts? If so, then you might as well allow income claims because every shyster that sells here will either have a shill ask it for him or he'll ask it of himself with a second account.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784360].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Antonios
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Further to the "no income claims" discussion, will that apply to subsequent posts the seller makes in the thread?

      For example, when someone asks the seller how much he's made using his system, is he allowed to answer with specific dollar amounts? If so, then you might as well allow income claims because every shyster that sells here will either have a shill ask it for him or he'll ask it of himself with a second account.



      Excellent point.

      If we continue with all the issues that a claimer or non-claimer brings up, we will end up with a legal presentation of various pages, like those term of service (tos) that some sophisticated companies have trying to cover every possibility that could present itself.

      The human being is a very complicated being. It establishes so many rules for everything that it sophocates: how to seat, eat, dress, greet, etc., correctly.

      Most of this thread has consumed a lot of posts on the "claims" issue only.

      Wow!

      And this is for real in every aspect of the human being.

      Stablishing rules that will apply to everybody and that is just, honest, and unharming to the innocent is almost impossible.

      This claims issue is trying to protect the buyer, but the seller needs protection, too.

      Having it protective for both sides is not reality real.

      The administration is trying to do the right thing, and I bet that they didn't had the minimum idea that this "right thing" would bring such a long lasting thread.

      It's impossible to satisfy everybody, that's human nature.

      The easiest thing for administration is try the non-claims rule, and see what happens.

      Sincerely,

      Antonios
      Signature
      Want to build your list...but have no money, website or technical skills? Learn to build your list with ease and virtually at zero cost! Free report.
      Click the link below now to start today:
      http://cash4yes.com/build-your-list-with-ease/
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784881].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writingwonder
    Thank you, this will increase the quality of the WSOs immensely!

    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

    Hi everyone,

    We have decided to completely rewrite the rules for our Warrior Special Offer marketplace. We are focusing on building a high quality marketplace with special deals for our community that can not be found elsewhere.

    Please make sure you read all of the new rules before posting your WSO. All new offers will be moderated based on these new rules.

    Some notable changes include:

    Rule #3: Free Offers

    If your product is free, then this is to be posted in the Warrior Forum Classified Ads sub-forum.

    Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

    To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

    This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.

    Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

    Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

    Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

    Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

    Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
    Signature
    Wasted enough $$ on bad SEO writers?

    Premium Content Specialists starting as low as $0.79 per 100 words ! - Start your online marketing now!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784568].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Dini
    Glad to see these positive changes, especially the new "income claim" rules.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785199].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cliff Carrigan
    I'm a software developer so the new rule about automation bots pretty much puts me out of the game here on WF. I'm ok with that of course. I can live with it.

    I just wanted to chime in on the "income claim" topic. I just read 3 pages of posts almost entirely about that one little thing.

    As a proficient ad copy writer, you do not need to "say it", all you need to do is paint the picture in the readers mind.

    Example1: How I made $1000 selling chicken lips! [WF say no, you can't use that]

    Example2 : Can You Really Make $1000 Selling Chick Lips? [Oops! Will WF accept or reject? It clearly isn't an income claim, yet it clearly paints the picture in your mind that you might be able to make $1000 selling those chicken lips!]

    Exmaple3: I'm Not Going To Claim I Made $1000 Selling Chicken Lips - Not When I Can Show You How I Built A List Of 41,000 Chicken Lip Buyers ![Another WF head scratcher. You made no income claim while you painted the income picture in the readers mind]

    So good patrons of WF, stop worrying about the little "income claims" rule. A litte ad copy goes a long way.

    -That's just my 2-cents, and you were probably grossly over charged.-
    Signature

    ---
    Interim Income Model - Backdoor Access Into A $297 Course.
    http://InterimIncomeModel.com
    [Get Interim Income Model]

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785966].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iMassMarket
      Originally Posted by Cliff Carrigan View Post

      I'm a software developer so the new rule about automation bots pretty much puts me out of the game here on WF. I'm ok with that of course. I can live with it.

      I just wanted to chime in on the "income claim" topic. I just read 3 pages of posts almost entirely about that one little thing.

      As a proficient ad copy writer, you do not need to "say it", all you need to do is paint the picture in the readers mind.

      Example1: How I made $1000 selling chicken lips! [WF say no, you can't use that]

      Example2 : Can You Really Make $1000 Selling Chick Lips? [Oops! Will WF accept or reject? It clearly isn't an income claim, yet it clearly paints the picture in your mind that you might be able to make $1000 selling those chicken lips!]

      Exmaple3: I'm Not Going To Claim I Made $1000 Selling Chicken Lips - Not When I Can Show You How I Built A List Of 41,000 Chicken Lip Buyers ![Another WF head scratcher. You made no income claim while you painted the income picture in the readers mind]

      So good patrons of WF, stop worrying about the little "income claims" rule. A litte ad copy goes a long way.

      -That's just my 2-cents, and you were probably grossly over charged.-
      Exactly.

      And showing how you built a list of 41,000 is not saying the buyer can too. Just as if making the claim I will show you how "I" made $1000 -- but can't use that claim here.

      Now, just get the point across that your 41,000 list is worth something to the buyer and not just a bunch of names racking up autoresponder fees lol
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9785990].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GlenH
      Originally Posted by Cliff Carrigan View Post

      I'm a software developer so the new rule about automation bots pretty much puts me out of the game here on WF. I'm ok with that of course. I can live with it.
      .-
      Alaister,

      I also develop software applications and I think the term ‘automation bot’ (and I hate that word’ bot’) needs to be clarified.

      I only ever heard of the term ‘bot’ to be associated with ‘spammy’ type tools.

      Legitimate software is developed to automate a particular process.

      It could be any perfectly legitimate process that is being automated with a piece of software.

      When I read your list on Rule #5 it seems you are excluding vendors with any legitimate software application to sell as WSO.

      In fact, as I see it, under the current exclusions listed in Rule #5, a widely used, and highly credible software application like ‘Camtasia Studio’ (which automates the process of producing videos) would not be approved as WSO

      I hope this rule can be further refined to allow those WF vendors who offer perfectly legitimate software applications to be approved.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author midasmarketing
    Is this gonna apply to the spammy ads still showing at the top of the page?

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786069].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ron Killian
    Absolutely LOVE the new rules! Maybe the junk can finally be eliminated?

    And a good idea to get things under control before some one else steps in with a hammer.

    Thank you WF team!
    Signature
    PLR Affiliate Program Has Launched! Easily Promote Over 5,000 PLR and MRR Products.

    Largest Selection of PLR Articles on the Planet! PLR Ebooks, PLR Video, PLR Websites and more with Private Label Rights
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9786606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author drewx
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787707].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alaister
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Further to the "no income claims" discussion, will that apply to subsequent posts the seller makes in the thread?

      For example, when someone asks the seller how much he's made using his system, is he allowed to answer with specific dollar amounts? If so, then you might as well allow income claims because every shyster that sells here will either have a shill ask it for him or he'll ask it of himself with a second account.
      This is a great point Dennis and I agree with you in regards to the income claims in replies. These won't be allowed either.

      Originally Posted by Debbie Kennedy-Crook View Post


      So I suppose my questions are ..

      Why does it seem that you are not applying these rules to existing WSO's also?

      Is it because this Thread Bumping Mania is earning you alot of money in extra fees at the moment?

      When are you going to make the 'OLD' WSO creators remove their income claims to make it fairer for the new WSO creators?
      Thanks for your thoughts Debbie.
      The new rules apply to all WSOs, existing and new ones. We are making sure all new WSOs that are submitted comply with the rules. Over the next few weeks are also going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs in the section. This is a process that will take some time.

      We've developed these rules with the community and the WSO marketplace in mind. Our highest priority is to offer a great place for buyers to browse and purchase legitimate Internet marketing products and a place for sellers to be able to distribute their products.

      We are currently in the process of going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs.

      Originally Posted by diogoim View Post

      Hi Daniel,

      What is the position of warrior forum regarding the new VAT policy changes in the EU? Will you adapt your payment platform to reflect these new events?

      With Regards

      Diogo de Castro
      Yeh we are looking into these VAT changes and how we can incorporate them in Warrior Payments.

      Originally Posted by midasmarketing View Post

      Is this gonna apply to the spammy ads still showing at the top of the page?
      These new rules apply only to the WSO section. We will also be creating a set of guidelines and rules for the advertising on the site. These advertising rules will also not allow income claims.

      Originally Posted by GlenH View Post

      Alaister,

      I also develop software applications and I think the term ‘automation bot’ (and I hate that word’ bot’) needs to be clarified.

      I only ever heard of the term ‘bot’ to be associated with ‘spammy’ type tools.

      Legitimate software is developed to automate a particular process.

      It could be any perfectly legitimate process that is being automated with a piece of software.

      When I read your list on Rule #5 it seems you are excluding vendors with any legitimate software application to sell as WSO.

      In fact, as I see it, under the current exclusions listed in Rule #5, a widely used, and highly credible software application like ‘Camtasia Studio’ (which automates the process of producing videos) would not be approved as WSO

      I hope this rule can be further refined to allow those WF vendors who offer perfectly legitimate software applications to be approved.
      Hi Glen, this is a good point. The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from selling tools that break the terms and conditions of other sites or services. I understand where you and a some other people are coming from in regards to offering legitimate automation tools. I'll be amending this rule.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787971].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GlenH
        Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

        This is a great point Dennis and I agree with you in regards to the income claims in replies. These won't be allowed either.



        Thanks for your thoughts Debbie.
        The new rules apply to all WSOs, existing and new ones. We are making sure all new WSOs that are submitted comply with the rules. Over the next few weeks are also going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs in the section. This is a process that will take some time.

        We've developed these rules with the community and the WSO marketplace in mind. Our highest priority is to offer a great place for buyers to browse and purchase legitimate Internet marketing products and a place for sellers to be able to distribute their products.

        We are currently in the process of going through and cleaning up the existing WSOs.



        Yeh we are looking into these VAT changes and how we can incorporate them in Warrior Payments.



        These new rules apply only to the WSO section. We will also be creating a set of guidelines and rules for the advertising on the site. These advertising rules will also not allow income claims.



        Hi Glen, this is a good point. The purpose of this rule is to prevent people from selling tools that break the terms and conditions of other sites or services. I understand where you and a some other people are coming from in regards to offering legitimate automation tools. I'll be amending this rule.
        Thanks Alaister..

        That is very good news for those of us who develop 'legitimate' software products.

        Personally, I'll be returning to doing WSO's again for my software products.

        I gave that up long ago when I saw the WSO section getting out of control.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788214].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Coach Comeback
    Some of the new rules are great and they make sense.

    However, some are just downright silly!

    Rule #12: Off-Site Reviews

    Sellers must not link to off-site reviews or review videos from within a WSO thread.
    Not really even sure I understand the value of not allowing review videos or testimonials in the sales thread? Using review videos in copy has been around for ages? Just really curious as to who benefits from removing videos? How does this protect the buyers?

    If It is a misinterpretation of the rule then I will take that. The way it reads is not clear to me. Pardon my ignorance. Is it just saying you cannot "LINK" to videos or you cannot emebed them in the threads either?

    Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

    Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

    Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
    It's not like it is "amazon" or "Kindle" or "ipod" or "facebook" I understand not using the logo... Or even the full "WARRIOR FORUM" connected

    but....

    You can't trademark a real word. There is no patent or trademark violation on the word "warrior". In copy, it is used to call out your audience. So they know who you are talking to so that you can further relate the product to them.

    It is not used to pretend there is an association or sponsored by the website. All of the facebook marketing products that came out and people had "Facebook" in their title... I don't think many buyers purchased the product because they thought it was products and sponsored by Facebook directly.

    But I am not here to dispute the rules. Bottom line, you guys can do what you want and your numbers will tell you if it is a positive change or a negative change.

    The groovy thing about building your own business is,... platforms change all the time. When you control your own assets you can pick up and move somewhere else and adjust and business is moderately effected. So I wish you guys all the best with your updates and if I wish to use the platform in the future, I will simply adjust accordingly.

    Good luck to you all and happy new year
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9787964].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jubilee
    My apologies for the LONG post to all reading the following...

    I DO have a question in this long post and it is concerning the following rule:

    "Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

    To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

    This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads."


    In the past I have used WarriorPlus and JVZoo to offer my WSOs. 99% of the time I leaned towards WarriorPlus as the payment system to use the Buy button from not only because it allowed me to control the buyer's experience with regards to enhancing the purchase with an OTO or Upsell, automated the adding of my buyers to a segmented list plus allowed me to direct my buying traffic through the funnels I set up but more importantly because a lot of my products were Video Tutorials which could total 500 megs, 1 gig or more so I was able, through WarriorPlus, to send them to a link which WarriorPlus masked and protected for me. I also was able to get valuable stats through WarriorPlus including stats to combat Refund Bandits because in my case there were a few rare occasions where I had to prove to Paypal that the buyer had downloaded the product when they stated they hadn't or were attempting to share it. Paypal would accept screen captures, in my case, from the WarriorPlus system as "evidence" that someone had downloaded the product or tried to share the download based on the IP tracking and you would see various IP addresses had downloaded the product either in a short time frame or from different geographic regions after checking them.

    Now we pride ourselves on excellent support even providing our personal phone numbers to customers to insure they could get a question answered or if they needed support in any way. Never really had problems there either because we provided so much value in the product and did over deliver on what we sold that our phones hardly ever rang and I mean hardly ever. We take care of our reputation here (my husband and I).

    So with all that said which Payment Processors other than Warrior Payments can we use since we are now no longer allowed to send our buyers to our own Landing Pages, and Order Form or Opt In page after purchases are made? Am I confused or incorrect here?

    Is there an approved list for "carts" you are allowing or recommend??

    I know I can set up something like DAP or InstaMember for the delivery of my products but much preferred using the WarriorPlus system because of all it included with not only the security, sales and tracking data but additional promotion through other affiliates via their own network which JVZoo was also good for plus it didn't hurt to get the blessing of having Mike Lantz on board and he mailed for you. That would certainly give one a huge boost in sales.

    So in summary regaridng my question... I can no longer offer a WSO which would allow me to enhance the purchase with an OTO, Upsell or Downsell based on the new rule of not allowing the Buy Button to forward buyers to my own sites or order forms or am I not understanding this correctly?

    Thanks for your time,
    Jubilee
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788169].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author danieljb
    Thanks all for your continued interest.

    In regards to the points raised:

    I just looked at a WSO posted YESTERDAY - with what looked to me like income claims.

    As someone who has seen a LOT of WSO sales copy I quickly listed:

    1. income claims - more than one
    2. doesn't say what it IS except a "recurring cash system"
    3. seller is brand new to the forum so no history and no credibility as yet
    4. Sales copy is written in a way that is commonly seen with English second language from Asian countries...but sellers list a US state as residence.

    Point is - this WSO apparently passed through the new lookie-loo system and was approved. That tells me the new rules aren't that tough.
    I also noted this WSO

    Alaister and Daniel, if you set the 'income claims' policy, then you need to make sure your approval staff police the policy.

    No wimping out already guys.
    Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We found that the seller changed the offer post approval. Appropriate action has been taken.

    It could be any perfectly legitimate process that is being automated with a piece of software.
    Just to add to Alaister's point, each software and its function will be addressed on a case by case basis. We're ultimately looking at the intent of the software.

    Not really even sure I understand the value of not allowing review videos or testimonials in the sales thread? Using review videos in copy has been around for ages? Just really curious as to who benefits from removing videos? How does this protect the buyers?
    This has always been a rule. Embedding a video is fine, but not to link to external sites for a review. This is similar to Rule 16.

    It is not used to pretend there is an association or sponsored by the website. All of the facebook marketing products that came out and people had "Facebook" in their title... I don't think many buyers purchased the product because they thought it was products and sponsored by Facebook directly.
    We are yet to see a purpose for using the term except to imply association. Each offer will be assessed on its own merit.

    So in summary regaridng my question... I can no longer offer a WSO which would allow me to enhance the purchase with an OTO, Upsell or Downsell based on the new rule of not allowing the Buy Button to forward buyers to my own sites or order forms or am I not understanding this correctly?
    A buy button needs to be on the sales page. When the user presses it, it should take the user to a checkout page. You can offer OTOs as long as it adheres to this, which most platforms do, including Warrior Payments.

    The overarching intent of the rule is to prevent sellers from using the WSO marketplace as a means to drive traffic to their website, rather than having a special offer for sale.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Coach,
    Just really curious as to who benefits from removing videos?
    The sellers and legit affiliates. Posting reviews that are embedded in the thread was okay under the old rules (and probably still is under the new ones). The problem was people linking to offsite reviews and setting a cookie or linking back to the thread with an affiliate link, thus effectively hijacking sales from the sellers or the affiliates who originally directed people to the product.
    There is no patent or trademark violation on the word "warrior".
    They didn't say you can't use it elsewhere. Just not here. And if they want to forbid paragraphs that start with vowels, they can. It's certainly not out of line for them to forbid things that might suggest a link to or endorsement by the forum ON the forum.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788329].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Coach Comeback
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      The problem was people linking to offsite reviews and setting a cookie or linking back to the thread with an affiliate link, thus effectively hijacking sales from the sellers or the affiliates who originally directed people to the product.
      WOW! Excuse my naivety lol. I had never even heard of such things. But I reckon stuff like this is done all the time.

      Just had a student ask me how to use proxies the other day. I had no freaking clue. Not a techy guy at all.

      I create information products that help people get from where they are to where they want to be. That is all. Anything else is beyond me.
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      They didn't say you can't use it (the word warrior) elsewhere. Just not here. And if they want to forbid paragraphs that start with vowels, they can. It's certainly not out of line for them to forbid things that might suggest a link to or endorsement by the forum ON the forum.


      Paul
      This I 100% agree. that is why I said I am not here to debate the new rules. Just ask for clarity. Ultimately it is their site and they have the right to impose any rules they deem necessary. I respect that and what you guys are trying to do wholeheartedly!

      Up to us to comply or go somewhere else. Simple enough. Rules always change. Those who sit and complain and bicker stay stuck. Those who adjust, adapt, look for solutions and keep moving forward continue to strive.

      This is going to be an interesting year for us all
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788349].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        James,
        I had never even heard of such things. But I reckon stuff like this is done all the time.
        Yep. It was being taught in some "coaching" systems for a while, and had become very common. That's why we put the rule in place originally.

        There are some real sleazy types out there who'll do pretty much anything to grab what someone else has earned...

        Looks from the posts above like Freelancer interprets the rule the same way we did previously.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author colofisherman
    interesting that the first thing I see when reading the special rules is this ad for Do You Want to make your first 3,000 online this month. See attached jpg from the forum. I would like to see these kind of spammy junk ads banned too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788570].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
      Originally Posted by colofisherman View Post

      interesting that the first thing I see when reading the special rules is this ad for Do You Want to make your first 3,000 online this month. See attached jpg from the forum. I would like to see these kind of spammy junk ads banned too.
      The admins have said that they will be implementing rules for those banner ads in the coming weeks. Now the focus is on cleaning up the WSO section and then they will tackle other areas that need improvements.

      Mark
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9788579].message }}
      • Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

        Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

        Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
        I agree that that people who manage the forum and take responsibilityfor its quality have the right to make some tough decisions, and that some of those may not be popular.

        But it seems a bit unfair that honest sellers may have to wonder how to create a program about making money online without claiming they made money online - because of a few con artists.

        We were duped once, too, bought a WSO and OTO that was promising long term coaching and support, after a couple of initial emails the lady disappeared. A couple of pages of "WTF" and increasingly concerned comments from other conned Warrior finally convinced us that we lost the money, and that's that.

        But that didn't change my faith in the Warrior Forum, and my fellow Warriors. There are quite a few of us here, from all walks of life, and it's a great tribe we belong to.

        Warrior Forum is a very special place, there's nothing else like it. A few dishonest people won't change how I feel about being a Warrior. And I resent the fact that I'm not allowed to proudly call my new course or system a Warrior's something or other in case I was driven by some base, despicable motives when I all I want is to make profit and help other people

        You could say, what the heck, just call it a ninja or pirate or musketeer or something. But that's not a point. What worries me is this part

        Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
        Maybe we won't be allowed to call ourselves Warriors anymore. I'm a Warrior and I have no right to use this word, well that sucks.
        Signature
        Quick and effective life and business coaching was never that much fun.
        Get the sparkle back into your life!
        I write articles, press releases, PLRs and sales letters that have a sparkle, too
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9789275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    I asked about this rule but perhaps it got missed?

    Rule #18: Forced email opt ins

    Sellers are not to force email opt ins from customers to gain access to their product. While you are allowed to request the customer to subscribe to your mailing list, this should not be the only way the customer may gain access to your product or service.

    Some special offers are delivered via a membership site which requires buyers to register at the site to gain access to the materials.

    Is this deemed a forced opt in, and if not can we amend that rule to clearly differentiate please?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9789508].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
      Yes it needs clearing up and yes there are situations where an email before the product is available must be entered.

      However, I read somewhere where some were saying they would start putting everything behind a membership script in order to "force" the email capture and get around the new rules - even for those things that don't need it and where they aren't doing it today.

      Mark

      Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

      I asked about this rule but perhaps it got missed?

      Rule #18: Forced email opt ins

      Sellers are not to force email opt ins from customers to gain access to their product. While you are allowed to request the customer to subscribe to your mailing list, this should not be the only way the customer may gain access to your product or service.

      Some special offers are delivered via a membership site which requires buyers to register at the site to gain access to the materials.

      Is this deemed a forced opt in, and if not can we amend that rule to clearly differentiate please?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9789663].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        Current membership site software like Wishlist, etc doesn't play well with Paypal because the script is build as a plugin for WordPress so you can't automatically
        pass on the data from Paypal and automatically create their membership.

        Those who said they are putting everything behind a membership script in order to get around the rules are just ignorant.

        It's quite EASY to automatically add paying customers to any auto responder list without the cusomter having to enter any data at all!

        I believe sellers are entitled to their buyers emails at a minimum and I believe Paypal for example does as well, hence the option to pass the data on to the product delivery page.

        Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

        Yes it needs clearing up and yes there are situations where an email before the product is available must be entered.

        However, I read somewhere where some were saying they would start putting everything behind a membership script in order to "force" the email capture and get around the new rules - even for those things that don't need it and where they aren't doing it today.

        Mark
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9789717].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ewillis
          Hello,

          I've just created this account but I'm a long-time lurker (at least 10 years). I don't like to ask questions without doing my own homework, but I'm having a hard time finding the data.

          To create a WSO, do you need to upgrade to the "War Room" membership? And what are the payment methods? I typically avoid paypal. Can you pay by credit card, debit card, etc?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790798].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Ewillis View Post

            Hello,

            I've just created this account but I'm a long-time lurker (at least 10 years). I don't like to ask questions without doing my own homework, but I'm having a hard time finding the data.

            To create a WSO, do you need to upgrade to the "War Room" membership? And what are the payment methods? I typically avoid paypal. Can you pay by credit card, debit card, etc?
            War Room membership is no longer required. You can use Warrior Payments or if you use this link http://www.warriorforum.com/newthrea...newthread&f=17 you can use Warrior Plus or JV Zoo or whatever payment processor allows a buy button on Warrior Forum
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790809].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ewillis
              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

              War Room membership is no longer required. You can use Warrior Payments or if you use this link http://www.warriorforum.com/newthrea...newthread&f=17 you can use Warrior Plus or JV Zoo or whatever payment processor allows a buy button on Warrior Forum
              Thanks for the quick response. That link above for the new thread helps...because the other link https://payments.warriorforum.com/post-wso was confusing me a bit.


              So it's just $20 to create a WSO now (no need for War Room membership) and then $20 every time you "bump" it?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790871].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Ewillis View Post

                So it's just $20 to create a WSO now (no need for War Room membership) and then $20 every time you "bump" it?
                Correct... $20 to post and $19.95 to bump.

                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9791039].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ewillis
                  Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                  Correct... $20 to post and $19.95 to bump.

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  Thanks again.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9792127].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author luckyman2k
                    Hello

                    Few Serious Issues.

                    1. To, Create a New Offer (WSO)

                    - We must have Paypal account. Correct?

                    - Any one from the above country can't open a WSO. Here are some lists of countries not supported by PayPal.
                    Juan de Nova Island, Paraguay, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Europa Island, Korea North, Puerto Rico, Bouvet Island, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Lebanon, Serbia and Montenegro, Central African Republic, Glorioso Islands, Macedonia, Syria, Christmas Island, Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, Timor-Leste, Clipperton Island, Guernsey, Moldova, Tokelau, Haiti, Monaco, Tromelin Island, Akrotiri, Coral Sea Islands, Dhekelia, Jan Mayen, Pakistan, West Bank, Bangladesh, Egypt, Jersey, Paracel Islands, Western Sahara, British Indian Ocean Territory, Gaza Strip, Liberia, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Burma, Afghanistan, Antarctica, Cuba, Isle of Man, Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Georgia, Libya, Spratly Islands, Cameroon, Ghana, Macau, Sudan, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Navassa Island, Uzbekistan, American Samoa, Cote d’Ivoire, Iran, Nigeria, Virgin Islands, Bassas da India, Equatorial Guinea.

                    - Paypal Can Close any account, without reason. I m sure, lot of members will Agree with me. Google it ... paypal warriorforum.com.

                    My point is. Don't make Paypal Account compulsory. Its not a good High End solution. Specially, for Asians.

                    2. Lastly. New Warrior Special Offer (WSO) Rules. Two Issues.

                    Rule #4: Service Offers

                    If you are offering a service, then this is to be posted in Warriors for Hire. This includes SEO, design, web development and writing services.

                    And

                    Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present

                    To sell a WSO in the WSO Section of the forum, your offer must have a Buy Button that takes the user to a checkout. This link cannot take the user to your website, an order form or an opt-in page.

                    This rule does not apply to other sections, such as Warriors for Hire or Classified Ads.

                    3. There are Lot of Service Offers Threads. My question is, Are U planning to close all of them? If yes, then it will be injustice to Service providers, who are doing there job since last few years.

                    4. Lastly. "Rule #16: Buy Buttons Must Be Present"
                    Its Not possible to use with, 2checkout, Blue Snap.
                    I check with them. There risk Department did not give Permission to use buy not button else where.

                    5. Lastly, Warrior Payments is a good option, but its Limited to Paypal only.
                    "warriorforum a freelancer Company" why, not apply every thing of freelancer, Including payment gateways?

                    Thanks In Advance. I m sure, WF will come solution for Services Providers and for Non paypal users
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9794465].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Zoe_21
                      Rule #3: Free Offers
                      If your offer is free, then this is to be posted in the Warrior Forum Classified Ads sub-forum.
                      Err...

                      Can someone show me the direct link for posting on the sub forum please?

                      Thank you
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9794507].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
                        Err...

                        Its right on the Warrior Forum home page as a menu link under WSO Special offers, click the appropriate sub forum and then in the top left corner click "New Thread"


                        Originally Posted by Zoe_21 View Post

                        Err...

                        Can someone show me the direct link for posting on the sub forum please?

                        Thank you
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9794617].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Zoe_21 View Post

                        Err...

                        Can someone show me the direct link for posting on the sub forum please?

                        Thank you
                        Rus Sells told it like it is but here is the link anyway:

                        Warrior Forum Classified Ads

                        Cheers

                        -don
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9795129].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Zoe_21
                          Thanks ForumGuru!

                          Thanks Rus Sells!
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9796988].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author pensfan6636
                            I still can't understand this. You say that we cant have income claims unless it shows in warrior payments...

                            So if I create a product showing how I made $100 per day with affiliate marketing to my email list by promoting products from Jvzoo and W+, how is it fair that I can't use this income claim? If I have the paypal proof, and prrof from W+ and JVzoo, why can't I just use that? The only income claims that Warrior Payments can show is product sales. Am I just not understanding this correctly or what?

                            I see that you guys are just trying to keep everything in house, but honestly... saying only payments through warrior payments can be used for income claims?

                            Please explain if I am misunderstanding this... and if I am, all i can see is headaches trying to get a product in the WSO section now. These new changes hurts the people who actually used legit income claims.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797407].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by pensfan6636 View Post

                              So if I create a product showing how I made $100 per day with affiliate marketing to my email list by promoting products from Jvzoo and W+, how is it fair that I can't use this income claim? If I have the paypal proof, and proof from W+ and JVzoo, why can't I just use that?
                              Because you don't have Paypal proof to provide. All you will be providing is screenshots/copies and screenshots on the internet mean nada. They are faked every day. If the other payment processors/services would provide that info direct to warrior forum then you would have a point but none of them will because its illegal.

                              Theres nothing unfair about it. Its just a bare fact that the only income Warrior forum can verify was made is through an instrument they have direct access to and thats Warrior payments. All the conspiracy theories and claims by people of unfairness are just missing the simple fact that they have no direct access to any other payment system but their own.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin
    It's really good to see these changes being made and implemented. It's actions like this that will bring back old faces and help members prosper in the longer term.
    Signature

    Work with the web or get swallowed by it!
    1000's of smart marketers use arpReach for their contact management and email marketing

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9789792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GlenH
      Originally Posted by Kevin View Post

      It's really good to see these changes being made and implemented. It's actions like this that will bring back old faces and help members prosper in the longer term.
      Exactly right Kevin.

      Let's hope that happens
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790458].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alaister
        Thank you for the ongoing discussion. It's great to hear your thoughts around the rules in order to help us refine and improve them. I think we're getting close to a solid set of rules that will help with improving the WSO section.

        Originally Posted by Grazina Ajana Szewczyk View Post

        Warrior Forum is a very special place, there's nothing else like it. A few dishonest people won't change how I feel about being a Warrior. And I resent the fact that I'm not allowed to proudly call my new course or system a Warrior's something or other in case I was driven by some base, despicable motives when I all I want is to make profit and help other people

        You could say, what the heck, just call it a ninja or pirate or musketeer or something. But that's not a point. What worries me is this part

        Maybe we won't be allowed to call ourselves Warriors anymore. I'm a Warrior and I have no right to use this word, well that sucks.
        Hi Grazina,

        This rule is to prevent sellers from misrepresenting their product and trying to mislead people into thinking that their product is endorsed or in partnership with Warrior Forum. You are still a Warrior and nothing will change that.

        Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

        I asked about this rule but perhaps it got missed?

        Rule #18: Forced email opt ins

        Sellers are not to force email opt ins from customers to gain access to their product. While you are allowed to request the customer to subscribe to your mailing list, this should not be the only way the customer may gain access to your product or service.

        Some special offers are delivered via a membership site which requires buyers to register at the site to gain access to the materials.

        Is this deemed a forced opt in, and if not can we amend that rule to clearly differentiate please?
        Hi Russ,

        Sorry we missed this. Mark summarized it well in the below reply. The point of this rule is to improve the overall buyer experience. There may be times when membership sites are necessary and registration in order to gain access after purchasing is required. The aim of this goal is to stop people from selling an eBook or another downloadable product and forcing people to enter their email in order to gain access.

        As for membership sites, Warrior Payments does allow IPN notification which can be configured to provide buyers with their membership site access credentials after they have purchased. This provides an elegant purchase flow and experience for customers.

        Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

        Yes it needs clearing up and yes there are situations where an email before the product is available must be entered.

        However, I read somewhere where some were saying they would start putting everything behind a membership script in order to "force" the email capture and get around the new rules - even for those things that don't need it and where they aren't doing it today.

        Mark
        Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

        Those who said they are putting everything behind a membership script in order to get around the rules are just ignorant.

        It's quite EASY to automatically add paying customers to any auto responder list without the cusomter having to enter any data at all!

        I believe sellers are entitled to their buyers emails at a minimum and I believe Paypal for example does as well, hence the option to pass the data on to the product delivery page.
        That's exactly right. The point of this rule is not to prevent sellers from getting the details of their buyers, but rather to provide buyers with a great experience.

        Originally Posted by abrandt View Post


        Howdy, Alaister & danieljb:

        I have been a WF Member since 2003. I have issued few WSO returns in the last 10+ years.

        However I purchased a WSO yesterday from a well known WSO author (who I trusted)... which has proven to be quite DECEPTIVE... (with more than enough evidence available posted by Member inquiries - RE: the subject matter of the WSO.) In fact, I did not even download the report after I clearly understood the WSO subject matter.

        After clearly documenting my case directly to this WSO author... he did REFUND me this evening... however he has left such a bad taste due to his email comments... that I would like to pursue this issue with Warrior Forum... for the purpose of helping the NEW WSO RULES become meaningful for 2015 and forward.

        HOW and WHERE would you ask WF Members file a well-documented complaint?

        Thank you in advance for a prompt response.

        ~ Alan
        Hi Alan,

        The best way to file a report or complaint is to send a support ticket via our support desk. You can do that at the link below or send an email to support@warriorforum.com

        https://support.freelancer.com/index...Tickets/Submit

        Thank you
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9790507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Please explain if I am misunderstanding this...
    As I understand it, you're understanding it correctly.

    The reason they're considering allowing WP stats is they can verify those. Whether you consider that to be fair or not is a personal judgement.

    It strikes me that, until WP is widely used outside of the forum, the only thing you could use those stats for would be offers teaching "How I sold $X worth of products on the Warrior Forum."

    As far as offers being harder to post... Nah. The extra effort comes in when you're writing the sales copy.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9797598].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Alaister,

    A couple other ideas for you:

    1. Limit false scarcity. There are old WSOs that claim they will end on a certain date but you can still go buy today. For example this one from November 2013 http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...s-minutes.html

    2. Have sellers remove buy buttons but not sales copy when an offer closes. In case of a dispute, the buyer can point back to the sales copy but if it has been deleted they don't have this option.

    3. Clarify how a WSO can be changed after approval by the mods.

    4. Consider have the approving mod, take a screenshot or other similar record of the approved sales copy. With the right software, it would be almost instantaneous.

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798335].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
    Theres this one with false scarcity too:
    [OFFER ENDS TODAY] OwlHQ -9 Bad-ASS Tools That EVERY Website Owner Needs! ($549 Per Month value) <<

    Its been 'ending today' since 23 November
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anthony La Rocca
    Quick question for Alaister or Daniel

    I just got an email from WarriorForum in regards to Rule #17

    Rule 17 states that income claims and income guarantees are now prohibited from the WSO Marketplace. This means that any statements, questions, images or videos that claim to prove income must be removed from the WSO Marketplace.
    Additionally, statements that promise or imply income results are not permitted in the WSO Marketplace.

    Examples of statements that are not permitted:
    - Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
    - I made $100 by selling eBooks.
    - Earn $100 every time you press this button.
    - I made $100 selling a domain.
    - Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
    - Make $5+ in 30 days.
    - Make ,XXX per month by clicking here.
    - Make passive income with this offer.

    Any statement that states or implies a member will earn income by purchasing your WSO is against the WSO Marketplace rules. Income claims will be policed heavily. If your offer uses income claims or guarantees, you are required to remove these by January 12, 2015.
    Now as of now, Rule #17 states
    Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

    Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

    This is applicable to the WSO Marketplace and all sub-forums.

    If we have made income that is verified with WarriorPayments -- are we then allowed to claim that earning in our thread title, headline, or copy?

    I felt that we would be able to do so based on how that rule is explained, but based on PM's from the mod's today..not so much and once again after several revisions and approvals, my thread was removed off the forum AGAIN.

    So my question is...when one of us gets verified income from WarriorPayments and is then teaching others how to get that income in the form of a WSO -- what are the rules for that? I am just basically confused why it says we can claim income if its verified by WarriorPayments...and now being told can't put any income claims at all.

    This will definitely help me for future WSO's being posted and would appreciate the insight

    For example lets say I build 10 websites and flip them for $97 a pop and I setup a page for one to buy those websites off me using WarriorPayments. Can I not then bundle up a WSO teaching people how I made $XX flipping sites since the payments would then be verified?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798762].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
      Originally Posted by Anthony La Rocca View Post

      ? I am just basically confused....
      You're not the only one.

      Here is the reason why:

      They came up with almost all of these rules "on the fly", didn't think them out properly, did not make them very specific, did not think of the various implications, did not figure out how to properly implement + enforce the rules, clearly didn't get their legal team to look at some of the rules (now changed or removed) before posting them and also clearly didn't train their team properly on what the rules are and how to enforce them (probably because the rules aren't clear in the first place).

      The implementation of this whole "new rules" thing has been a gong show from the moment it started.

      Some of the rules make logical sense, others make no sense at all. It has become clear that the new owners have little to no idea what makes/made this community work so well for so many years and for so many thousands of people. Shoot first, figure it out later. That is their style of managing this forum, or at least it has been from almost day one.

      So far they've depreciated the asset they've purchased instead of making it more profitable. The traffic stats, the ad availability, the fewer and fewer wso offers being put up/launched, etc... they all point to missteps in managing and changes being prematurely implemented on the forum.

      Hopefully this trend changes, but it isn't looking pretty.

      Sidenote: funny thing is, I'm not even a seller on this forum, but it has been hurting my soul watching this place be run into the ground by the new owners.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798863].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author diffie11
        James Campbell, I agree with what you are saying and it is a shame this forum is no longer what it used to be. Sadly, I may have to move on.
        Signature

        Despite what some people say, the light at the end of the tunnel ISN'T really an oncoming train.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9805892].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author XXXXXXXX
      So I just got an email from warrior and I read this.....I love the warrior forum so .. I hope my opinion doesn't get me banned... sorry to get on the soap box but its time for some tough love here..... so here we go...







      New WSO Marketplace Rules


      On December 30th, 2014 we introduced new WSO Marketplace rules. These rules affect ALL WSO sellers with threads in the WSO Marketplace. We require all sellers to update their existing offers to align with the new rules. This must be done by January 12, 2015. Sellers that do not update their offers to align with the new rules will find their offers are removed from sale.
      Click here to view the new WSO Marketplace rules.
      Click here to read the discussion about the new rules, including many questions from sellers seeking clarification.





      Remove income claims from your WSO - Rule 17


      Rule 17 states that income claims and income guarantees are now prohibited from the WSO Marketplace. This means that any statements, questions, images or videos that claim to prove income must be removed from the WSO Marketplace. Additionally, statements that promise or imply income results are not permitted in the WSO Marketplace.
      Examples of statements that are not permitted:
      - Make $100 per day in 7 minutes.
      - I made $100 by selling eBooks.
      - Earn $100 every time you press this button.
      - I made $100 selling a domain.
      - Make $100-$15000 per month by buying a website from me.
      - Make $5+ in 30 days.
      - Make $XX,XXX per month by clicking here.
      - Make passive income with this offer.

      Any statement that states or implies a member will earn income by purchasing your WSO is against the WSO Marketplace rules. Income claims will be policed heavily. If your offer uses income claims or guarantees, you are required to remove these by January 12, 2015.


      So I am not a product creator or wso seller... but i have to say... ARE YOU GUYS CRAZY??

      This looks to me like one of those things where I think that people got together .. .read some bad wso feedback.. and thought this would be a good way to help clean up some of the crap wso's that are produced but... as usual... this is probably not going to have the effect you think.

      First of all... i have been buying wso's since i joined 4 years ago. I have bought hundreds....probably thousands at this point. In fact if it wasn't for warrior...i wouldn't be where i am today. (thanks warrior for that) From a buyers perspective... frankly... i WANT to know what they claim they make. I want to see the screen shots and I want to know what potential the method has to make for me. So what... I get to guess?? What is going to motive me to pull the trigger to purchase... if i don't see someone making some decent scratch....guess what ...i am going to be way less likely to buy that wso. So i guess thanks is in order here. Thanks warrior for saving me thousand and thousands of dollars buying wso's cause without any type of income claims... i will be much less motivated to purchase. Thanks warrior for keeping my money in my pocket where it belongs.


      I mean really?? Its marketing...marketing is the heart of what people do here... and what you just rip the heart out?


      What your doing here is like...for example... selling a weight loss product... and then saying ...oh buy they way.... you cant talk about weight loss anymore on your weight loss product sales page. Or better yet...take the photos of the hot skinny girls out of my garcinia cambogia sales pages and lets put fat ugly guys (like me) in there place. If you don't tell me i can loose weight.. and i want to buy a weight loss product ....why would i buy it if doesn't tell me how much weight i can loose?? If you don't show me photos of how good I could look after i eat your diet pill....why would I buy it?? People come here to buy wso's cause THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY AT INTERNET MARKETING....now your saying product creators cant tell people how much they can make?? Are you guys nutz? Why don't you put a stop to all "call to action" statements while you are at it?? No more... "buy now" or "click here" or any other statements.


      I can tell you that I have a ton of "alerts" through warrior plus.... In the last 4 years ...i have seen those alerts go way down. I also see way less wso's being offered on a daily basis. Now maybe i am wrong ...since i don't have any number to support it.. but i would say there are far less wso's being offered on warrior now as compared to several years ago...all i know is that i get fewer alerts ... and now you wont allow income claims? If i was a product creator ... i would run with heals burning away from Warrior. Does the warrior forum make money off of WSO's? If that is the case why would warrior do something that would cause product creators to leave and...on top of it... cause people interested in buying ...to buy less? Since warrior is now owned by freelancer...maybe profit is no longer a concern. I don't know.


      Look at it another way... its like the other night.. i was in one of the large box stores late at night.....there were about 60 people waiting to check out... they had 2 cashiers working..and there were problems in both lines so neither were moving... people got tired of waiting in line...started putting down the stuff they wanted to buy and walk out... i told one of the managers they needed to get more cashiers... i was told they only have so much budget to work with so they are only allowed 2 cashiers that late at night... out of the 60 people waiting ... i would say 30 people left without buying cause they were sick of standing in line...moral of the story ... make it easy to pay!!! Warrior...make it easy for product creators to sell!! Make it easy for customers to WANT to buy!! Income shots and statements make buyers want to buy.


      Frankly not allowing product creators to post income wording / photos or shots.. is not smart. I think you will see product creator going to other platforms.



      How bout the affiliates? Traffic is so hard to get now compared to 4 years ago. You really think affiliates are going to promote warrior products if warrior takes income claims out of wso's? Its hard enough to get people to buy..now you are going to make it harder for people to want to buy?? You think an affiliate is going to want to promote warrior forum wso's? No!! Why not?? Because they will make less money.


      Here is another way to look at it... one of the offers i have been promoting for a long time recently changed there pay out. They reduced the pay out by about 35%. So...I stopped promoting the product and went to other networks to find other products i could promote in that niche that paid me more...about 2 weeks went by and i get a call my affiliate manager. He wanted to know why i didn't have any sales for that product. I told him ..well because they reduced they pay out.. he said "but you have been promoting that for years and they didn't reduce it that much" "you can still make a lot of money with it" I told him they shouldn't have reduced it at all...and i found other products that converted just as well for a higher payout. Then i heard him... "i don't understand why everyone is dropping this offer? It converts really well." So I said.. so I am not the only one who has stopped promoting it. And he said "almost everybody has" its sales are down almost 80%. So i said.. well what does that tell you?


      Traffic is at a premium right now. I have to work really really hard for the traffic I get. As a result ... I want to make as much money as possible because lets face making money in IM is a LOT harder that it use to be!! To be honest I have never promoted wso's..however.. If i was to promote a wso type of product I would certainly choose products that make people want to buy them. As an affiliate.. a wso with no income claims ...would be of no use to me and it would not be something I promote.


      Ok so i hope you get the idea. I am not trying to bash anyone here..and i meant this as constructive criticism. I love the WF. I can understand all the reasons why ... as a business you guys may have decided to do this.

      I just think its a mistake for warrior in general. Take care of your product creators and affiliates.. they are your bread and butter.


      That's my 2 cents.


      X
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798940].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
        Originally Posted by XXXXXXXX View Post


        How bout the affiliates? Traffic is so hard to get now compared to 4 years ago.
        Want to know why me and many other affilates don't promote WSOs anymore AT ALL?

        Try coming to any part of this forum without being signed in. You'll get a pop-up "encouraging" you to sign up or sign in.

        This kills conversions on the offer and kills all decent mobile traffic to the offer. Just another genius move.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798971].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author David Mcalorum
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801349].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Net66
            Originally Posted by David Mcalorum View Post

            Someone please address THESE issues. Havent heard anything so far....And I know you (the mods or owners) have read them. Are you going to do something? If not, kiss your 2 million goodbye. Seriously. As the good old saying goes... "if it aint broke, don't fix it"
            They've already broke it quite a bit. That's why more and more sellers aren't listing as WSOs now. Sad really.

            Andy
            Signature
            What I do - And How I do it. My Personal Blog...
            http://AndyBrocklehurst.com
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802013].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AlexanderBeloev
        Here are my points against some of the rules and especially against rule #17:

        -=> You cannot make a community better by making the life of "the blood of this forum - the sellers" harder! (and by saying harder, I mean harder for no logical reason!)

        -=> This is a results driven business! People buy because they want results, we sell because we want results! We should be able to show them what we have achieved, so they can see what they can achieve! If someone can, others can too!

        -=> Quick example showing you how illogical rule #17 is! Why it will be allowed to sell SEO services and providing ranking proof? Isn't it the same? Or the ranking proofs cannot be faked? Think of that!

        -=> You can't just prohibit income proofs from other major payment systems, simply because you cannot handle a verification process. If you want to implement this rule, then write your homework first!!! Create a verification software with WarriorPlus and JVZoo. It's not hard to be implemented, it won't be expensive. And it can be permission based!

        -=> And lastly I think that the whole point of rule #17 is to FORCE sellers to use Warrior Payments system instead of JVZoo or WarriorPlus.



        IMPORTANT!!! - For future rule updates! Warrior Forum is so big because of the sellers here! Next time you update the rules, firstly discuss them with the top Warriors, those who sell for long time, those who sell the most! You should work for the community! Pay them the flight tickets to your office and discuss together! They know exactly what this community wants, because they have the experience!

        AN IDEA!!! - Why not postponing the updates until you have a clear view of what actually these rules should look like? In the past few days I read them three times and every time they have been changed... Not really professional. I don't change my sales letters that often... (If you think that postponing the new rules is impossible go and talk with ThemeForest management. They have had the exact same problem, but have adjusted the rules to the needs of the sellers! So you can too!)

        EDIT - WHY - You said you want to make the community better, why then you are allowing top ads with income promises? This rule seems to be like the Bulgarian law, it's for everyone except for mr. X, mr. Y and mr. Z.... Sad but true...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799025].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Valdor Kiebach
          Originally Posted by AlexanderBeloev View Post

          IMPORTANT!!! - For future rule updates! Warrior Forum is so big because of the sellers here! Next time you update the rules, firstly discuss them with the top Warriors, those who sell for long time, those who sell the most! You should work for the community! Pay them the flight tickets to your office and discuss together! They know exactly what this community wants, because they have the experience!
          What data do you have to show that this forum is so big because of the sellers?

          What criteria denotes a 'top warrior' is it amount of cash made selling on the forum or is it the amount of posts they have made to contribute to threads?

          This is a forum with many sections, WSO is just 1 section, it is not the be all and end all of the forum, it is not the main section of the forum, it may be the main reason some members use the forum but they are just here to make money not to contribute to the community, they may be 'top warriors' to you but to me they are just milking the 'WSO cash cow'.

          I find the war room far more beneficial to me than WSO's.

          I hope never again to see things in WSO sales copy along the lines of:
          'now just imagine if you could sell 20 of these a day at $47 thats $940 a day so you will be making $6580 per week !'

          or

          'You will have people phoning you up at midnight begging you to take their money !'

          Now if only they would ban WSO's on how to make a WSO.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799741].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Mcalorum
    ^^^ THIS. You know, for example, "Internet Marketing" is VERY closely intertwined with "Make Money Online" ... Look at that last one... The very root name of this niche is technically a "income claim" by the new rules. Like, isn't all of advertising promoting SOME KIND of result? Thats what advertising is! Either that result be, emotional, physical or as it relates to the "Make Money Online" or "Internet Marketing Niche" the desired result is a majority of the time, financial.

    After some time, the sellers will lose incentive selling anything here, if we can't promise any financial results, because again, this niche by its very root definition is "Make Money Online" or "Internet Marketing" which are basically two interchangable terms. IM is the mechanics and processes of MMO.

    The audience here, wants to LEARN how to make money online. So they want to believe that they
    too can do it if you can. So, income claims in this niche are quite frankly necessary. Seriously, ask any copywriter and he will tell you so. And this means directly stated or implied, or via social proof. People are BUYING a experience, via a emotional reaction that if they follow through, will lead to a result.

    What I am trying to say, is that people want to believe that they can make money too. So if they see no social proof, no outragious or even perfectly attainable claims, then what the hell are they here to learn.
    It seems, unfortunately that the new owners don't yet understand their audience. Not the sellers, and not the buyers.

    Maybe a simple solution to all of this is to jack up the price of WSO bumps to say $50 or $60, revert back to the old rules, and then see who sticks around. This will accomplish a number of things. It will:

    1- Show you who can actually affort to bump things, i.e, sellers with legit courses that can afford to promote them instead of people who have fake claims and cant afford the new prices.

    2- Remove most trolls as most sellers will most likely raise their prices to recover the bump money. Further resulting in...

    3- A higher quality buyer, less moderation, and more profit for the forum,

    I just hope they don't scare both buyer AND seller away, cause punishing one, will effect the
    other, and vise versa. I guess the next few months will truly determine this forums fate, and
    I personally don't want it to die, but as James said above (and I agree) its not looking good.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author atlanta2008
    Alaister,
    I have VERY important question regarding new rules that are about to be implemented.
    Everybody on WF knows how important traffic is.

    Please advice how you are going to go about this part:
    For free and service offers, we will move these offers to the appropriate subsections without any further action required by sellers.


    Many sale threads offering services (free or paid ) are aged and their URL on Warrior Forum are not only indexed and RANKED TOP10 in all SE but also bookmarked, have citations from websites,social platforms,emails etc., and receiving steady organic traffic from potential buyers.
    Are you going to 301 moved offers/URLs to help us preserve those leads?

    Please note, that each visit to such offer is also benefiting WF with potential new members, who browse other members offers and WSO's and so it would be VERY wise to keep the old URLs redirecting properly to the new locations otherwise this Great Forum is going to loose lots of traffic and faith we, the hard working Members still have. Please do not ignore this.
    We have worked too hard promoting WF to just have it wiped out overnight via URL change.
    Thanks
    Anyone else concerned at all about MoneyMaking Offers moved to a new URL location?

    Sorry about the red , but since everybody seems to be mostly concerned about
    income statements, I think my point needs to addressed too.
    Signature
    Click Here For: Alexa Rank Improvement Service, Cheap Global Alexa Rank,
    100K only $29/mo*** , 100% US RANK , 100% Positive Reviews, 100% Money Back Guaranteed Results!
    *** Only $29/mo when you purchase 3 months of service in advance.Regular WF price is $33/mo. Bulk orders available
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798963].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    Let me reiterate the obvious flaw in the income verification scenario that's been set up so far.

    From my understanding if you've made money and done it via selling something through warrior payments then you can refer to those earnings as an income claim. Correct? I think that's how I understand it.

    OK so if my understanding is correct lets look at a scenario.

    Lets pretend for a moment that I figure out a new way to set up a sales funnel to get new local clients to pay me to $X for a type of service, and the funnel converts like crazy, new clients are paying me hand over fist!

    I decide that I want to share my new sales funnel as a WSO but according to the current guidelines for making income claims I would have had to set up my "original" sales funnel and payment processing through warrior payments for my new local clients just so the income claims can be verified.

    Well quite frankly this is total FAIL!

    So what this requirement has really done, as I've pointed out COUNTLESS times before and it's been totally IGNORED is that...

    THE ONLY PRODUCT YOU CAN CREATE AND SELL THAT WOULD HAVE A VALID/VERIFIABLE INCOME CLAIM ( ACCORDING TO THE NEW RULES) IS A PRODUCT ON HOW TO DO A WSO using WP as the processing platform!

    Excuse the caps but I think it's warranted. lol

    I don't understand for the life of me why this isn't clearly obvious and the only reason I can think of why no one from the WF staff will own up to is is because they want to create a situation where it FORCES sellers to use the WP system.

    Additionally I'm 1000% against any WSO about how to do a WSO, I think allowing offers like these insult those who've paid their dues as established and credible sellers and it just creates more wasted space in the listings. It's even a FURTHER insult to buyers on the forum as well.

    If I have to explain why it's wrong and an insult that I'd probably get banned.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799229].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

      THE ONLY PRODUCT YOU CAN CREATE AND SELL THAT WOULD HAVE A VALID/VERIFIABLE INCOME CLAIM ( ACCORDING TO THE NEW RULES) IS A PRODUCT ON HOW TO DO A WSO using WP as the processing platform!

      Excuse the caps but I think it's warranted. lol

      I don't understand for the life of me why this isn't clearly obvious and the only reason I can think of why no one from the WF staff will own up to is is because they want to create a situation where it FORCES sellers to use the WP system.

      Additionally I'm 1000% against any WSO about how to do a WSO, I think allowing offers like these insult those who've paid their dues as established and credible sellers and it just creates more wasted space in the listings. It's even a FURTHER insult to buyers on the forum as well.

      If I have to explain why it's wrong and an insult that I'd probably get banned.
      Many of the changes thus far, rather than being for the overall health and intelligent growth of the Warrior Forum has been to advance the false hope that the big players in the IM scene are going to come here with their million dollar product launches, using War Pay of course. Ain't going to happen, but the forum is suffering/failing as a result of this and in a big way.

      Personally, I don't like income claims, particularly if the only proof is an easy to fake screenshot, but I knew how unpopular with both sellers and buyers this rule would be. Sellers are responding to a very active market demand. The buyers want income claims. They flock to it like a crack addict does to a crack pipe. Never mind that they most likely won't make even a fraction of what is being claimed. They go on to the next one and the next one and the next one. One thing you have to give them credit for ... they don't lose hope easily. lol. I think they may actually run out of money before they run out of hope.

      The verified income thing via War Pay is completely flawed for very obvious reasons. The majority of these income claim offers are "method" offers ... not running a WSO offers, so the proof, if it is real, would be available through other venues. Example: site flipping course could be provable through Flippa. CPA course could be provable via a CPA Network. Affiliate marketing course via affiliate stats, whether those are Warrior Plus, JVZoo, Clickbank, WarPay, etc. You get the picture. There is a very limited opportunity to use WarPay as an income claim for the methods that are taught.

      Which makes all of this look like just coercion to use WarPay and little else. Like holding a carrot out .... you can use income claims if you use WarPay. Gotcha. Right.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799336].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tonester
        Sorry if this has been posted here before, but I haven't had time right now to read the entire thread and I wanted to chime is as well.

        Here's my issue about income claims.
        First, I think it's a good thing to clean up the WF and the rule has good intentions. However, implementation will be extremely difficult without restricting people so much that the WSO section becomes a ghost town.

        Specifically, this statement: "Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO" bothers me.

        I understand about specific income claims, 10K in 2 weeks for instance, but the wording: "imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO"means that in a make money forum, you can't even IMPLY that you can make money at all."

        This goes against any and all common sense. That's the purpose of every single WSO - to make money! Really! Is this for real? Possibly the wording needs to be changed if I'm reading this right..

        Plus,as an advertiser, I'm now questioning the value of posting here.

        I've read and heard that the WSO section is not what it used to be. It used to be posting a WSO would mean a lot of sales just from WF traffic alone. Now, that's not the case. Most sales come from other sources such as affiliates.

        So, the bumping rules, meaning an extra $20.00 fee to get back on the first page. If you're off page 1 in 1-2 days, this means $20.00 ever 1-2 days. How many sales can be made in 1-2 days on page 1? I don't know. But as an advertiser, this is not a good value and discourages me from using the WF for posting my offers at all. I'm not saying I won't, but I am thinking more about it and my return will be looked at closely. Right now I have my doubts.

        Yes, $20.00 for an ad seems cheap, but it's not really $20.00 if you want good exposure. It'll end up being much more if you pay for bumps. How many people look at page 2 or further down? I don't know.

        So, these are my takes on the whole thing.

        Believe me, I'm all for cleaning up internet marketing offers, but it's a difficult thing to implement. I personally, have common sense when buying WSO's but I guess most people have to be protected from themselves.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799420].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

      I don't understand for the life of me why this isn't clearly obvious and the only reason I can think of why no one from the WF staff will own up to is is because they want to create a situation where it FORCES sellers to use the WP system.
      Rus can you explain it to me. I can't for the life of me figure out why people cannot get that Warrior payments which they own and run is the only payment processor they CAN verify. its so incredibly simple. and please tell me how anyone selling a pdf is going to FORCED into using WP.

      THEY STILL CAN'T because the PDF method is not whats verified only the running of a WSO. LOl you really think this is their gambit to force people to use WP?? when in fact most still can't?? so um they only want WSOs on how to do a WSO?

      Additionally I'm 1000% against any WSO about how to do a WSO, I think allowing offers like these insult those who've paid their dues as established and credible sellers and it just creates more wasted space in the listings. It's even a FURTHER insult to buyers on the forum as well.
      Meh too many of them are a waste but it really doesn't make any sense to claim that you can't do a WSO on how to use an advertising system. Are you insulted when product creation training tells you how to launch your products on other systems?

      Respect you bro but seriously (not rhetoric) not understanding the logic. to me it looks like sour grapes

      A) that income claims are bye bye and we relied on them
      B) That WF is owned by the alleged evil money grubbing corporate overlords.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799590].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        Mike,

        If the PDF I'm offering is about my super duper new local sales funnel that I used to get new paying clients and boosted my income by 10K per month, the only way I can make that income claim is to have SOLD those new clients through the Warrior Payments platform!

        Because as it stands now the forum wants to verify income claims through their processing of payment through WP, which in this case would only be the actual sales of my PDF not the sales I made thought the actual method the PDF teaches about.

        Do you think I'm going to get local clients to pay me for anything for a product I've set up on here? LOL Not a chance in HELL!

        The rules currently state:

        Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

        Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO.
        So yeah how can I prove my income claim any other way then having sold my new local clients my service by having it as a product that processed via warrior payments. See? Now, unless my reading comprehension is totally off base, I read the above as income made through the processing of sales through WP's. No?

        P.S. No sour grapes bro.


        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Rus can you explain it to me. I can't for the life of me figure out why people cannot get that Warrior payments which they own and run is the only payment processor they CAN verify. its so incredibly simple. and please tell me how anyone selling a pdf is going to FORCED into using WP.

        THEY STILL CAN'T because the PDF method is not whats verified only the running of a WSO. LOl you really think this is their gambit to force people to use WP?? when in fact most still can't?? so um they only want WSOs on how to do a WSO?



        Meh too many of them are a waste but it really doesn't make any sense to claim that you can't do a WSO on how to use an advertising system. Are you insulted when product creation training tells you how to launch your products on other systems?

        Respect you bro but seriously (not rhetoric) not understanding the logic.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799617].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          THE ONLY PRODUCT YOU CAN CREATE AND SELL THAT WOULD HAVE A VALID/VERIFIABLE INCOME CLAIM ( ACCORDING TO THE NEW RULES) IS A PRODUCT ON HOW TO DO A WSO using WP as the processing platform!
          I think I mentioned this a couple pages ago. It will help promote the new Warrior Payment system but does seem a bit "weighted". It's a fairly new system.

          If it were the ONLY payment system allowed and after several months this policy was implemented - it might make more sense.

          To me this is similar to the "WSO of the day" - a payment system choosing only from their pool of sellers. It was deceptive and repeatedly it was clear members believed the "Of the day" designation was a stamp of approval from the Warrior Forum itself.

          Will you allow "verification" that occurred prior to the new rule? Will there be a disclaimer that "only sites using WarriorPay may use income claims"?

          Just how much "verification" will be done? Could a seller run a $5 WSO through Warriorpay - buy 100 copies himself or through a friend....and then run an updated, higher priced WSO with a $500/day income claim? Trust me - someone will try it!

          I think some sellers weren't too concerned until they realized those long running WSOs are also expected to conform to the new rules. If WSOs were time limited as they used to be - the transition to new rules would be easier. Now they run for years so have to be retrofitted to fit the new rules.

          What sellers have to realize is if they take their products and go elsewhere, it's likely no one will notice due to the volume of offers in the WSO section. Honestly, it's been a bit of a free for all for some time now and changing it has to start somewhere.

          kay
          Signature

          Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.
          I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799732].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Rus Sells View Post

          Mike,

          Because as it stands now the forum wants to verify income claims through their processing of payment through WP, which in this case would only be the actual sales of my PDF not the sales I made thought the actual method the PDF teaches about.
          Rus You are telling yourself the bolded word. the actual wording is HAS NO OTHER MEANS....But through their processing of payments

          Do you think I'm going to get local clients to pay me for anything for a product I've set up on here? LOL Not a chance in HELL!
          So?? How does what you can or cannot do/sell affect WF's inability to verify anything but their own payment system?? Its an AMAZINGLY simple question

          So yeah how can I prove my income claim any other way then having sold my new local clients my service by having it as a product that processed via warrior payments. See?
          I could see all along...whose insulting intelligence now?? So can just about everyone at FL because they are not dolts like you are implying we both are...its Captain obvious... you can't prove it. Your assumption is that its supposed to be designed so that you can but again they cannot verify income outside of a system that they have access to.

          I still have zero explanation how a few of you cannot see that - which was the question. Instead its focusing on wants or the implication that they are attempting to FORCE when they are only making available what they can make available.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799747].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
            Now that me and the dog have had some breakfast, tell me, what do you think about these income and result claims?






            I just checked Warrior Payments and do you know how many offers have made at least $63,000?

            Zero.

            Nothing is remotely close.

            Am I wrong that this?

            - Does not comply with the forum's own rules?
            - Is a fraudulent screen shot with fabricated income and fabricated product results?
            - Even if made up for illustration (which is not disclosed), misrepresents typical results?

            What about the forum's use of this testimonial referring to money being made?



            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799770].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              Now that me and the dog have had some breakfast, tell me, what do you think about these income and result claims?






              I just checked Warrior Payments and do you know how many offers have made at least $63,000?

              Zero.

              Nothing is remotely close.

              Am I wrong that this?

              - Does not comply with the forum's own rules?
              - Is a fraudulent screen shot with fabricated income and fabricated product results?
              - Even if made up for illustration (which is not disclosed), misrepresents typical results?

              What about the forum's use of this testimonial referring to money being made?



              .

              Tried to look at the graphics and it says forbidden
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799945].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author XXXXXXXX
                This debate reminds me of back in the late 70's early 80's when Porsche decided they wanted a "new direction" for the company. They decided they would stop advertising the 911 as a "fast car" but as a "status or prestige or luxury car" with "superior engineering". So they re-marketed there advertising to "show" the porches interior / features / long push-pull shots, quality construction etc etc... but nothing showing the Porschegoing fast, no speedo or tach shots, or it handling on some curvy road in Germany. They stopped all that.

                Some people said it was obviously stupid...but Porsche said.. the car is more than just about going fast. They said there is more to a Porsche than that. And that they didnt want the Porsche to been known "only" as a performance vehicle.

                Many people in the company agreed that it was time for a new direction and for Porsche to expand its customer base beyond the performance market.

                So what happened?? Sales tanked. Sales were so bad that they almost couldn't get new advertising written fast enough to keep the company from going bankrupt.

                What happened at Porsche was a basic fundamental mistake by management. They forgot what product they were trying to sell.....and......who there customers were.




                Sometimes things in life baffle me. This is one of them. As people...we way over complicate things.

                People come here to learn how to make money.

                People create wso's to fulfill that need.

                Take away the ability to make income claims.... sales will tank. Either sellers will leave or buyers wont buy.

                Its simple.

                X
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799956].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                Tried to look at the graphics and it says forbidden
                It is the home page of Warrior Payments:

                https://payments.warriorforum.com/

                It's ironic. The forum enticing sellers to create WSOs by making what appears to be a fabricated income claim based on a fabricated results claim for a list building product - all in the context of an overstated claim of forum reach and with a testimonial implying 7 figures have been made.

                It starts at the top. If the forum does not want sellers making certain claims then perhaps it should not be promoting those same types of claims.

                Otherwise, sellers are just following the example of what the forum is showing them to do so that they can also make $63,000 by selling a WSO.

                .
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799983].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

                  It is the home page of Warrior Payments:

                  https://payments.warriorforum.com/

                  It's ironic. The forum enticing sellers to create WSOs by making what appears to be a fabricated income claim based on a fabricated results claim for a list building product - all in the context of an overstated claim of forum reach and with a testimonial implying 7 figures have been made.

                  It starts at the top. If the forum does not want sellers making certain claims then perhaps it should not be promoting those same types of claims.

                  Otherwise, sellers are just following the example of what the forum is showing them to do so that they can also make $63,000 by selling a WSO.

                  .

                  Ironic indeed. I searched for the WSO with the title of that screenshot and nothing comes up in either Google or WarPay Marketplace. It appears to be a completely made up screenshot.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800002].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Coach Comeback
              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              Now that me and the dog have had some breakfast, tell me, what do you think about these income and result claims?






              I just checked Warrior Payments and do you know how many offers have made at least $63,000?

              Zero.

              Nothing is remotely close.

              Am I wrong that this?

              - Does not comply with the forum's own rules?
              - Is a fraudulent screen shot with fabricated income and fabricated product results?
              - Even if made up for illustration (which is not disclosed), misrepresents typical results?

              What about the forum's use of this testimonial referring to money being made?



              .
              Ok this is just too funny to ignore. Anyone ever going to address this. Valid point me thinks.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802262].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author David Mcalorum
              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              Now that me and the dog have had some breakfast, tell me, what do you think about these income and result claims?






              I just checked Warrior Payments and do you know how many offers have made at least $63,000?

              Zero.

              Nothing is remotely close.

              Am I wrong that this?

              - Does not comply with the forum's own rules?
              - Is a fraudulent screen shot with fabricated income and fabricated product results?
              - Even if made up for illustration (which is not disclosed), misrepresents typical results?

              What about the forum's use of this testimonial referring to money being made?



              .
              WOW talk about a plot twist. Are you kidding me??
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802562].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author JensSteyaert
                Originally Posted by David Mcalorum View Post

                WOW talk about a plot twist. Are you kidding me??
                Is any moderator going to address this? Will these fake screenshots be removed by january 12? My Wso was pulled down today because i sent a ticket and i asked how i could make it compliant, so why is this still up now?

                Any consistency in policy would be great.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9802700].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I think the Warrior Forum needs to make a decision to either allow income claims or not allow them, and have no middle ground.

    If you are going to allow income claims, there should be no verification through WP. That means you can only claim income based on the sales of a WSO, which is just plain dumb. No verification period. Obviously, faked screenshots and that sort of thing should not be allowed. Other than that though, no restrictions.

    If you are going to put restrictions on them (which I am in favor of), just completely disallow them. If they are all disallowed, it is an even playing field for all of the sellers. Sellers might have to actually come up with offers that teach marketers something worthwhile, which would be a welcome change.

    One little caveat to that, if a buyer wants to mention something about how much they made using the information in the offer, that should be allowed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799419].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      If you are going to allow income claims, there should be no verification through WP. That means you can only claim income based on the sales of a WSO, which is just plain dumb.
      Theres nothing dumb about it. Just because an exclusion does not apply to many people or situations doesn't make it dumb. The idea that many people have that they are some geniuses and FL are a bunch of dolts is false (at times almost comical). Of course they know it doesn't apply to many situations . Like I have said before and some people just won't get (some because it feeds into the evil dumb corporation took over WF narrative)

      It IS the only income that they CAN verify.

      SImple as that...Not OMG they are trying to push Warrior Payments (again doesn't apply to many sellers) Or OMG they are so dumb and we are so smart.

      They CAN verify income claims where Warrior Payments were used. they can't the rest. SO hey since they can verify that small segment (and there are people who have been offering WSOs along those lines - how to do WSOs) then thats the one small exclusion.

      People need to think and/or look up the word "dumb".
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799544].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

    Hi everyone,

    We have decided to completely rewrite the rules for our Warrior Special Offer marketplace. We are focusing on building a high quality marketplace with special deals for our community that can not be found elsewhere.

    Please make sure you read all of the new rules before posting your WSO. All new offers will be moderated based on these new rules.

    Some notable changes include:

    Rule #23: Warrior Forum trademark

    Sellers are not to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.

    Examples include using the Warrior Forum logo in sales copy or including the word "Warrior" in the product title.
    Yikes, am I violating the rule?

    Almost all of my products and services are based on my domain name WarriorHelp.com and I have a current WSO, since August 2014, selling my WordPress theme: WarriorTheme.com.

    Never have I implied that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way. In years past when I was a beta tester for Allen's EA I never implied that my services for EA were affiliated with the WF, except to point WF members to specific threads that answered questions about EA, but never an affirmation that I was affiliated with WF.

    Jeffery 100% :-)
    Signature
    WarriorHelp.com
    Webmaster to the Stars
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799596].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Any statement that ... implies a member will earn income by purchasing your WSO is against the WSO Marketplace rules.
      Holy cow, just shut down the WSO section and forum.

      (Although I have never seen a WSO make a promise that money is made by purchasing a product. Rather, the pitch is if you follow the methods in the WSO then money can be made.)

      I can understand a policy against making income claim promises. Example: that you will make $343.98 tomorrow using the strategies in a product.

      Those claims have always been a problem.

      But have there been many WSOs that did not imply money would be made? I don't care if the WSO is about traffic, conversions, copywriting, Kindle, video, etc., the goal is to make more money.

      The Warrior Forum, as stated on the home page, has always been about making money.

      Where the Warriors talk about making money on the Internet.
      Why do you buy a WSO to improve your copywriting skills? To make more money. Why do you buy a WSO to get more traffic? To make more money.

      Making money is implied in the WSO marketplace.

      When Dan Kennedy writes a book about the Ultimate Marketing Plan, or Brand Building, or Direct Response, you know what he is more than implying: buy my book and you will make more money.


      You can make income claims if the income is from Warrior Payments.

      The only exception to this rule is if the income you are claiming to have made can be verified through Warrior Forum's payment platform, Warrior Payments.
      WTF? Folks. Put your thinking caps on.

      Is the problem with income claims the fact no one actually makes that money and deception is being addressed, or because the Warrior Forum was not making a buck off the product?

      With Warrior Payments if a WSO sells 100 copies at $10 each the forum has its own verified proof the WSO made $1000.


      Thus, you can sell a WSO with an income claim that your product made $1000.

      Hello pyramid scheme.

      You can say: I made $1000 selling this and you can too.

      It is the only way the income claim makes sense.

      What other legitimate claim can you make by referring to the $1000? You can't sell a "method" for promoting a WSO that will make $1000 because every product is different. You can't sell a copywriting course on how to make $1000 because every product is different. That would be false advertising. But I guess that's fine under the new policy because the forum made money off the sales.

      It only makes sense if you sell resell rights, saying I sold this product and made $1000 and you can too. And that is what the buyer then sells to others. The forum allows that.

      Is anyone thinking these things through?

      Maybe I had better go eat some breakfast and then revisit these issues, as I'm a bit grumpy. What is Allen doing these days?

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799691].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
        This is EXACTLY what I'm trying to say! I don't get it why others aren't seeing it either!

        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        Holy cow, just shut down the WSO section and forum.

        (Although I have never seen a WSO make a promise that money is made by purchasing a product. Rather, the pitch is if you follow the methods in the WSO then money can be made.)

        I can understand a policy against making income claim promises. Example: that you will make $343.98 tomorrow using the strategies in a product.

        Those claims have always been a problem.

        But have there been many WSOs that did not imply money would be made? I don't care if the WSO is about traffic, conversions, copywriting, Kindle, video, etc., the goal is to make more money.

        The Warrior Forum, as stated on the home page, has always been about making money.

        Why do you buy a WSO to improve your copywriting skills? To make more money. Why do you buy a WSO to get more traffic? To make more money.

        Making money is implied in the WSO marketplace.

        When Dan Kennedy writes a book about the Ultimate Marketing Plan, or Brand Building, or Direct Response, you know what he is more than implying: buy my book and you will make more money.


        You can make income claims if the income is from Warrior Payments.

        WTF? Folks. Put your thinking caps on.

        Is the problem with income claims the fact no one actually makes that money and deception is being addressed, or because the Warrior Forum was not making a buck off the product?

        With Warrior Payments if a WSO sells 100 copies at $10 each the forum has its own verified proof the WSO made $1000.


        Thus, you can sell a WSO with an income claim that your product made $1000.

        Hello pyramid scheme.

        You can say: I made $1000 selling this and you can too.

        It is the only way the income claim makes sense.

        What other legitimate claim can you make by referring to the $1000? You can't sell a "method" for promoting a WSO that will make $1000 because every product is different. You can't sell a copywriting course on how to make $1000 because every product is different. That would be false advertising. But I guess that's fine under the new policy because the forum made money off the sales.

        It only makes sense if you sell resell rights, saying I sold this product and made $1000 and you can too. And that is what the buyer then sells to others. The forum allows that.

        Is anyone thinking these things through?

        Maybe I had better go eat some breakfast and then revisit these issues, as I'm a bit grumpy. What is Allen doing these days?

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799736].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post


        WTF? Folks. Put your thinking caps on.

        Is the problem with income claims the fact no one actually makes that money and deception is being addressed, or because the Warrior Forum was not making a buck off the product?

        With Warrior Payments if a WSO sells 100 copies at $10 each the forum has its own verified proof the WSO made $1000.......

        Hello pyramid scheme.
        ROFL

        Like new management invented the WSO about WSOs. Please Kindvater. that "hello" happened long ago. The whole conspiracy theory the same group is slowly trying to claim (after initially stating that removing income claims was a good move) is terribly weak

        Who really believes that FL wants to have a bunch of WSO about WSOs filling the WSO section? As a group you have collectively gone from good move FL to conspiracy theories about why they have finally done what old management wouldn't.

        Apparently because they think they will make ton loads of cash off of the whole forum going to WSOs about WSOs.

        You are reading in your own hangups about New management into your reasonings. its not difficult at all, nothing nefarious, no conspiracy - that thinking cap is broken. WP came up because its the only system they have access to actually verify.

        Of course they should have known given the narrative since they took over that any mention of their own system would be met with emotional reasoning rather than logic but people!!

        its just basic common sense...they can only verify income through their own system

        so they said hey this is the one scenario (no matter how limited) where we can do it.

        Now as to the wording of 17 and implying an income?? With you on that. I took issue with it about a week ago in this thread. too general. Alaister gave us an example and based on the examples they are thinking specific income claims but then that should be then how the rule is worded.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799825].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
          Mike, I was not focusing on WSOs to make WSOs. Apparently my post went over your head, or I did not articulate it well enough.

          There is nothing of value verified via Warrior Payments except the gross revenue a product sold. And the value of that is next to nothing, unless you get into pyramid issues with resell rights.

          The reason for not allowing income claims, which I have suggested for years, has less to do with whether the seller made that income or not, and more with buyers being unrealistically made to believe that is how much money they will make.

          By disallowing income claims, unless the income is generated via Warrior Payments, is thus not a rule designed to protect buyers, reduce fraud, and have better products. It is a rule designed to entice more products to be sold via Warrior Payments instead of JVZoo and W+.

          That's the rub. You can make an income claim related to a product so long as the Warrior Forum made money from your sales. Otherwise no.

          Which means issues I and others like Paul Myers have discussed for years, and FTC compliance concerns, go out the window, only because the forum made money from each transaction.

          What you did not address, and I attempted, is what is the value of having a "verified" gross revenue number from a product sale?

          Example: Dan Kennedy sells a marketing plan and it grosses $1 million.

          Can DK then advertise because he made $1m that you will make $1m by using his marketing plan? I say no. The forum, though, would allow that income claim because that is a number connected with Warrior Payments. It does not make sense.

          Arguably, the fraud concern about income claims is exacerbated by new new rule, and sellers can point to "verified" and approved income numbers to tout their products.

          Undoubtedly, a number of sellers will be buying their own products in record amounts to boost a useless and now fake "verified" income number they can use to sell more products.

          My suggestion is if income claims are disallowed then disallow all income claims. The exception for Warrior Payments is a red herring used to increase forum revenue, not protect buyers. There should not be an exception.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799898].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
            I'm in hope that FL will recognize the recent mentioned points and bring their own claims in line with the integrity of the newly imposed rules which will, in turn eliminate the seeming impression of a bias.

            In addition to that, with accurate figures in mind and in the interest of paying advertisers, it would be good to see viewing stats on the index page brought into real time (or close to) so that buyers of ads can judge exposure more accurately.

            I hope when all is said and done and the knots are untangled, it proves to be a change for the better.



            Daniel
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799923].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

            Mike, I was not focusing on WSOs to make WSOs. Apparently my post went over your head, or I did not articulate it well enough.
            No you articulated it fine. It was just lacking in ANY logical content when it got to insinuating there were ulterior motives to cleaning up the WSO section. However you have one small point - It may well have went over my head since I routinely duck when I see total nonsense.

            Let me be very clear. I have no issue with you disagreeing with the policy. What I think its pretty outrageous and disgraceful is you and a few others implying the changes to income claims were a money grab to lock in WP. Its both outrageous and silly. However it does speak to what I have said before (and wonder when Fl will figure it out) They can't win for trying with a certain group. they do clean up but make one little exception about WP and bam!! - ulterior motive accusations of why they cleaned up come flowing in

            I don't know your upbringing but where I come from if you are going to stand on someones property and claim to know their motivations you better be down right sure there are no other explanations. I have cited three times today a perfectly legit explanation for why they came up with that exception simply because it was the only income they could verify (an d it is). Apparently you will have none of it because you want to claim its all about promoting WP and that feeds into th e evil corporation narrative

            But Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Cut out a chunk load of income from present offers just to make a few pennies on WSOs about WSO. ROFL.... such a silly accusation.

            Again not the argument against the income claim rules itself but the ever increasing slander/insinuation that it was just for forcing WP.

            For shame.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800131].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Now with the main issue highlighted to your other points

              By disallowing income claims, unless the income is generated via Warrior Payments, is thus not a rule designed to protect buyers, reduce fraud, and have better products. It is a rule designed to entice more products to be sold via Warrior Payments instead of JVZoo and W+.
              You assertion stated as evidence does not meet the quality of any known criteria for evidence. You of all people should know that and its sad if you don't. It is a fact - stated and actually never rebutted by any of you claiming ulterior motives - that WP is the only logical way that they can verify income because it belongs to them. It is an exception to the rule because the basis of the rule is that income claims cannot be verified BUT this one can be. You have no clue that it was designed to do what you claim. You are just making empty accusations.

              Fact or not? If someone is selling how to do WSOs does the income made from selling WSOs confirm they know how to do so? Yes it does no matter how you complain - so your claim it does nothing is total nonsense. it shows they can do WSOs. How can that be verified by WF with JVzoo and W+?? (I hear crickets). Well again no matter how you complain it can't be because they do not have access BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OWN OR OPERATE those external third party systems.

              The silly self serving amnesia thing about it is that when the rules first came out there was nothing about WP. When people complained they would not be able to verify using screenshots they then came to WP wording. So they are getting accused in part because they listened to the community saying verification with screen shots wouldn't work.

              rguably, the fraud concern about income claims is exacerbated by new new rule, and sellers can point to "verified" and approved income numbers to tout their products
              As the rules are presently written and the present usage of WP dictates it allows for the claim to be made only in relationship to the single product it verifies not their products plural. However it will be nice to know that if I buy a WSO about doing WSOs it will actually be something I know the person knows about. Heres a novel thought. Why don't you wait to see what gets approved. That way when you make your sweeping accusations it will have an actual fact to back it up?

              Still the idea that the management that actually is cleaning up income claims is exacerbating it is kind of funny especially when you reference the years you advocated it and nothing was done before them.

              they should get credit but nah......they only did it to get those pennies from WP related to WSOs. they are going to be rich
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800204].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
              Mike, I can think of numerous ways income claims can be proven. That's not the point. If income claims are to be banned to clean things up - great. But ban them all.

              Let me add - the proper reference should be "results" claims, not just income claims.

              Don't make an "exception" for products sold via Warrior Payments because the gross sales amount is irrelevant.

              I've given examples and analysis, all of which you ignore in a zeal to make a personal attack.

              The issue really is what is wrong with income claims? Is it because what seller made cannot be verified? Or is it because even if the seller did make that amount it does not represent what the typical buyer will make from using the product?

              As for discussing the issue and trying to explain why the policy is misplaced and should be changed, that is what forums are for. That is why an email was sent this morning linking to this thread so there could be feedback and discussion.

              Freelancer are big boys and don't need you making absurd threats about coming into someone's home and slandering them. You're out of line.

              If you want to discuss why income claims are good/bad, and whether the new rule promotes good policy, that is fine.

              Let me suggest this to keep this in the proper place.

              Assume Product #1 sells for $10 and makes 100 sales via Warrior Payments or $1000.

              Assume Product #2 sells for $6 and makes 100 sales via Acme Payments or $600.

              What is the relevance to the amount of gross revenue for either product when it comes to selling Product #3 via a WSO?

              I am saying there is none. Neither income claim should be allowed because either improperly suggests how much money a buyer will make from using the product.


              You ask, has the forum at least moved in the right direction by at least banning an income claim related to Product #2?

              Maybe. Maybe not.

              The reason why not is because a seller can now point to the $1000 income claim and advertise this is a "verified" income claim expressly approved by the Warrior Forum.

              So not only is the seller making the income claim, implicitly the forum is too.


              Consider this scenario:

              Black Hat Seller uses Warrior Payments as the payment processor for a product on their own web page. The product is not even publicly available to be sold. Seller pays himself $1500 buying his own product. Warrior Payments shows gross revenue of $1500.

              (Remember, Warrior Payments can be used for more than just WSOs. Payment buttons can be used offsite.)

              Black Hat Seller is now in a position to sell his product as a WSO making a $1500 income claim solely because he used Warrior Payments. Buyers are duped because this is a "verified" income claim authorized by the forum.


              My thought about the new policy has several components:

              1. The problem with income claims is not that the seller cannot verify their income, but the buyer is induced to buy thinking that is how much they will make, and that doesn't happen. That is why the FTC wants "typical" results for buyers - not a verification of what the seller made. If the seller did not make that money that is a different fraud issue.

              2. Gross revenue numbers are irrelevant.

              3. If anything, buyers are at a worse risk of buying scammy products because, effectively, there is what some could say a "Warrior Forum Seal of Approval" for irrelevant and potentially fraudulent income claims.

              .
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800249].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Kindsvater if you want to make statements about what Freelancer 's motivation is like you can read minds then you'll just have to live with people calling you out on your evidence (or lack thereof) for your accusations. You won't be telling me (especially not me)what the issues I can talk about are and are not after that doozy. You can go start your own forum for that.Just stick to the point and skip the mind reading and slanderous accusations against Warrior Forums and we would not be on the issue at all.

                and public request. Stop making up lies....I at no point made any threat. I used an analogy. If you don't know the difference thats even sadder.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800297].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
                  Mike,

                  I hope you can take your own advice and lay off the constant mind reading you have going on regarding those of us that have anything negative or critical (constructive or otherwise) to say about the forum. You bring up over and over that we are anti-FL, or have a case of the sour grapes, or we are upset that the forum has new owners, or are part of a good old boys type club.

                  Yet you don't know anyone's motivation and so please don't pretend that you do.
                  I don't know of anyone that is anti-FL but I know a lot of people don't like some of the changes that have been made (or not made). It's not the same thing.

                  Many of the people making suggestions and comments and complaints have also thanked FL for the good things they are doing. And most of the main ones discussing these issues also were involved in complaints and criticism before under the previous administration.

                  Mark

                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Kindsvater if you want to make statements about what Freelancer 's motivation is like you can read minds then you'll just have to live with people calling you out on your evidence (or lack thereof) for your accusations. You won't be telling me (especially not me)what the issues are I can talk about and are not after that doozy. You can go start your own forum for that.Just stick to the point and skip the mind reading and slanderous accusations and we would not be on the issue at all.

                  and public request. Stop making up lies....I at no point made any threat. I used an analogy. If you don't know the difference thats even sadder.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800320].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

                    Mike,

                    I hope you can take your own advice and lay off the constant mind reading you have going on regarding those of us that have anything negative or critical
                    I'm not doing any mind reading Mark. I'm responding to exactly what has been accused in this thread. Along those lines I had forgotten this was already here - post 4. it pretty much crushes the claims/insinuations claiming income claims was a move for WP

                    Originally Posted by Alaister View Post

                    In regards to this we'll be judging the quality of the offers and focusing on presenting value to the community. If there is a great product and offer where the seller does provide income claims we'll ask them for some sort of proof in order to verify it and protect buyers as much as possible.

                    At times income claims when backed up with proof is important when trying to sell certain products.

                    In terms of the actual proof, the onus is on the seller to provide sufficient evidence for the offer to be approved. As you mentioned screenshots can be faked so we'll definitely be looking at them closely. When we do decide to approve an offer with an income claim, we'll clearly state the sort of proof that was provided by the seller and it's still up to the buyer whether they want to proceed to purchase or not.
                    So when this started other income claims were going to be allowed and it was no move to push WP. the community said that wouldn't work so they said well then the only thing we can do is verify what we can actually verify

                    Now as to whether Anti - FL or bigfoot or the island of Barbados actually exists we can have that discussion another place. Suffice to say I don't think that requires mindreading at all given the amount of posts and statements that have been made. reading and hearing speech is not mind reading. I follow my own advice just fine - to make such accusations of management DIRECTLY indicates there is a distrust of them. You can pretend as you like but it does not meet the definition of mind reading. Sorry.

                    If you think that its constructive to make up these accusations then we have different definitions of constructive. I'm saying that to you because you seem to have defined yourself in a "we" I never defined and wouldn't define as anyone who had criticisms since ummm ...I've had my own. Its also fair to say I am saying it to you because well you read through all the accusations and had nothing you thought worthy to respond to until you came to my objections to the accusations.

                    Timing sometimes is everything.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800338].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                      I'm not doing any mind reading Mark blah blah blah.....
                      All you've managed to prove to anyone with your arguments is that you believe or have implied you believe that those who have posted logically and factually valid arguments against the rules are somehow engaging in some sort of anti-FL conspiracy. You are literally just making up a theory as the basis for your argument.

                      Your responses zealously ignore valid points and arguments while taking other portions of posts out of context in order to fit your own made up theories about the posts and/or opinion of others.

                      Meh... I don't know why I'm even bothering to point out the obvious to you. It will just got over your head and you'll continue one with more inane BS that doesn't make any sense.

                      Carry on, your genius is amusing me.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800410].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        I think the best solution is to clean them up and make all sellers play by the same rules.
                        That's what an admin told me would be done - and I assume that's the purpose of the email that went out.

                        It's a big job mainly because WSO's now run forever. If they had an expiration date, it would be easier to make the change but if they stick with it - eventually all WSOs will be in compliance.

                        I see good reasons for the new rules - I see problems that might arise. Anyone here should be able to express their opinion without another member (not a mod, not an admin) making snide personal remarks.

                        Everyone working on this WF has been polite and professional in their responses. If you want to support them, you might try the same level of professionalism.

                        kay
                        Signature

                        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.
                        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.


                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800424].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                          Banned
                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                          That's what an admin told me would be done - and I assume that's the purpose of the email that went out.
                          That's been common knowledge among many of us forum regulars since the admins have been posting exactly that for a few weeks now.

                          It's a big job mainly because WSO's now run forever. If they had an expiration date, it would be easier to make the change but if they stick with it - eventually all WSOs will be in compliance.
                          Sending an email to tell the vendors to clean them up should do a lot of it. If the vendors don't comply then remove the WSO or block it until they do. I am sure they realize it's a big job, but with the help of our reports it should be able to be accomplished.

                          Anyone here should be able to express their opinion without another member (not a mod, not an admin) making snide personal remarks.

                          Everyone working on this WF has been polite and professional in their responses. If you want to support them, you might try the same level of professionalism.
                          Snide personal remarks and professionalism? I hope you were not directing that at me, I have been nothing but on-topic and professional on these subjects. On top of that I have been thanked by several mods and admins for doing my part in helping clean up the forum.

                          It appears as if you may be trying to get a bit snide and/or personal, Kay.

                          Cheers

                          -don
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800501].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

                        you'll continue one with more inane BS that doesn't make any sense.
                        I can't see how I could improve on your last post which was the quintessential demonstration .

                        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                        . Anyone here should be able to express their opinion without another member (not a mod, not an admin) making snide personal remarks.
                        here here like what went over anyone's head.

                        f you want to support them, you might try the same level of professionalism.
                        and if you don't you might want to try some level of courtesy in not making false accusations against them

                        P.S. why it needs explanation I have no idea but I am quite accustomed now to getting flamed for disagreeing with false accusations against FL. The flame retardant suit works so well its like the AC is on with Bermuda shorts. Still additional testing never hurts so by all means
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800438].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    I think I'm completely confused now so I'm going to finish up some other work now. lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pensfan6636
    I am very very happy to finally see people speak out about all the nonsense this rule has caused. I agree with everything above for the most part, except a couple people. There is no need to repeat what has already been said for the most part. One of my favorite things so far is the fact that we can no longer show proof how much money we (or our buyers) have made from a making money strategy in the make money online niche (LMFAO). Also, for the people saying that the only income claim that we can really show through WP is sales of products, so in turn can really only make a product about how I made product sales (using WP)... I completely agree with this and have been arguing that point as well. Lastly, I agree this will kill the forum, at least the WSO section, which only hurts FL. Now they finally get to see how much they are ticking off the engine of their revenue... the sellers... and I am happy to see that even buyers are upset as well... because I myself like to see income proof before I buy a product. I wouldnt say its a deal breaker in all situations, depending on the product, but if I see the vender making $X amount of their buyers making $X amount, that helps my overall decision. But now, thats gone and there goes a TON of sales that would have been made on the WF. I can only see things going down hill from here if this sticks around.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9799913].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michelle Stevens
    Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

    Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.


    I must admit I'm a bit bemused by this.

    Warrior payments has only been about for 5 minutes, so established Warriors really aren't going to be able to provide proof using this.

    I personally have a ton of income proof from JVZoo, Warrior+ and Paypal screenshots but I'm not allowed to use any of it.

    So I can't actually prove to anyone that I've ever even earned a single dollar online, when I've actually been around earning for several years!

    I'm all for keeping the forum clean but this is a bit nuts
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800078].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Mcalorum
      Originally Posted by Michelle Stevens View Post

      Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

      Sellers that make income claims may be asked to provide proof of income prior to their offer being approved. Sellers are strictly prohibited from offering income guarantees. This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.


      I must admit I'm a bit bemused by this.

      Warrior payments has only been about for 5 minutes, so established Warriors really aren't going to be able to provide proof using this.

      I personally have a ton of income proof from JVZoo, Warrior+ and Paypal screenshots but I'm not allowed to use any of it.

      So I can't actually prove to anyone that I've ever even earned a single dollar online, when I've actually been around earning for several years!

      I'm all for keeping the forum clean but this is a bit nuts
      E x a c t l y Michelle!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9801344].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author atlanta2008
    Mike Anthony, can you please comment on the issue regarding moving offers to sub-forums .
    Se my post: http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9798963
    thanks
    Frank
    Signature
    Click Here For: Alexa Rank Improvement Service, Cheap Global Alexa Rank,
    100K only $29/mo*** , 100% US RANK , 100% Positive Reviews, 100% Money Back Guaranteed Results!
    *** Only $29/mo when you purchase 3 months of service in advance.Regular WF price is $33/mo. Bulk orders available
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800306].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by atlanta2008 View Post

      Mike Anthony, can you please comment on the issue regarding moving offers to sub-forums .
      Se my post: http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ml#post9798963
      thanks
      Frank
      If you insist sure. I didn' t notice it before. You do have a point. I think the solution is to leave those where they are and not allow them to be bumped. No one will be seeing them on the forum except for direct traffic and then the seller can open a new thread where he can bump and leave a link to it from the old space.

      I'll bet Freelancer will be open to it given its a lot less work than moving them.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author atlanta2008
        Sounds like a fair resolution, thanks for your comment.

        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        If you insist sure. I didn' t notice it before. You do have a point. I think the solution is to leave those where they are and not allow them to be bumped. No one will be seeing them on the forum except for direct traffic and then the seller can open a new thread where he can bump and leave a link to it from the old space.

        I'll bet Freelancer will be open to it given its a lot less work than moving them.
        Signature
        Click Here For: Alexa Rank Improvement Service, Cheap Global Alexa Rank,
        100K only $29/mo*** , 100% US RANK , 100% Positive Reviews, 100% Money Back Guaranteed Results!
        *** Only $29/mo when you purchase 3 months of service in advance.Regular WF price is $33/mo. Bulk orders available
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800404].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        I think the solution is to leave those where they are and not allow them to be bumped. No one will be seeing them on the forum except for direct traffic and then the seller can open a new thread where he can bump and leave a link to it from the old space.

        I'll bet Freelancer will be open to it given its a lot less work than moving them.
        The forum's search function (and google search etc. etc.) brings up those threads. I think the best solution is to clean them up and make all sellers play by the same rules.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9800406].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          The forum's search function (and google search etc. etc.) also brings up those threads. I think the best solution is to make all sellers play by the same rules.

          Cheers

          -don
          Hey Don,

          He's talking about SEO and outside direct traffic through links to those pages . Once you move the ads under new forum headings the links will be broken and they also will not rank in google searches the same. The forum itself will lose that traffic as it will result in a 404 error so there is a bit of self interest for WF to preserve them (they would have to assess what the traffic lost based on their own stats)

          All sellers being moved could have that and all sellers are not affected by the same rules - only some kin d of offers are due to be moved.