44 replies
There are so many WSO's which make unsubstantiated income claims and fail to follow the FTC guidelines. So how is it when I ask WSO sellers to either make their WSO's meet the FTC guidelines it is me who gets banned ? I was recently banned for just that, the WSO seller actually told me that posting proof of his income claim made no difference to his conversions. So when I question the vadility of his claim I get banned for harassing a WSO seller even though the guy was clearly lying about his income.
#ftc #wso
  • Profile picture of the author blueclcl
    If you was harrasing him in the WSO post, then this was probably seen as damaging his thread.

    If you have any probems or questions on this matter, then you should probably send him a PM..

    Not saying you are wrong by the way.
    Signature
    Do You Want Professional Web Content From a Jon Morrow Certified Content Marketer? Learn More And View My Writing Samples by Clicking Here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245381].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

    There are so many WSO's which make unsubstantiated income claims and fail to follow the FTC guidelines. So how is it when I ask WSO sellers to either make their WSO's meet the FTC guidelines it is me who gets banned ? I was recently banned for just that, the WSO seller actually told me that posting proof of his income claim made no difference to his conversions. So when I question the vadility of his claim I get banned for harassing a WSO seller even though the guy was clearly lying about his income.
    If you take a moment to read what you posted and think about
    it you may come to see how silly it is.

    1. You want WSO sellers to comply with FTC regs yet you
    demand that this seller violate FTC regs by posting something
    that verifies his income claim.

    2. What could any seller possibly post that would actually verify
    that his/her incomes claims are true? You've heard of Photoshop,
    right?

    3. The fact that a seller refuses to comply with your demand isn't
    proof that they are "clearly lying."

    4. If the product offered is something you... as a sound thinking
    business person... believes would enhance your current business
    why would you care how much someone else has earned using that
    product?
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245390].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Advanpro
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      If you take a moment to read what you posted and think about
      it you may come to see how silly it is.

      1. You want WSO sellers to comply with FTC regs yet you
      demand that this seller violate FTC regs by posting something
      that verifies his income claim.

      2. What could any seller possibly post that would actually verify
      that his/her incomes claims are true? You've heard of Photoshop,
      right?

      3. The fact that a seller refuses to comply with your demand isn't
      proof that they are "clearly lying."

      4. If the product offered is something you... as a sound thinking
      business person... believes would enhance your current business
      why would you care how much someone else has earned using that
      product?
      FTC law states that income claims must be backed up by documents. My post is not silly. We all know that income proof can be faked but that is not my point my point is too many WSO's are not FTC compliant.

      You have missed the point, it is not about me making business decisions it's about the law.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246742].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

        FTC law states that income claims must be backed up by documents. My post is not silly. We all know that income proof can be faked but that is not my point my point is too many WSO's are not FTC compliant.

        You have missed the point, it is not about me making business decisions it's about the law.
        Dude... be serious... I haven't missed a point since before you were born.

        So... you're practicing law... giving legal opinions... great! Please tell us your
        bar association number and the states where you are admitted to practice.

        Until then... your legal opinions mean nothing. And... yes... your post is silly.
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247758].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Dude... be serious... I haven't missed a point since before you were born.........Until then... your legal opinions mean nothing. And... yes... your post is silly.
          Wow. That was civil.(and not credible on the never having missed a point part)

          I am not aware that anyone has seen the post he made. perhaps he was over the top there but his point in this thread is anything but silly. Really comes down to what he meant by "questioning". I suspect he might not have let it go and perhaps accused more than questioned to the end but I don't now.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247791].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Advanpro
          Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

          Dude... be serious... I haven't missed a point since before you were born.

          So... you're practicing law... giving legal opinions... great! Please tell us your
          bar association number and the states where you are admitted to practice.

          Until then... your legal opinions mean nothing. And... yes... your post is silly.
          Clearly you have missed the point. Never less educate yourself here

          https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/article...-opportunities

          No need to be a lawyer, just the ability to read will suffice...dude !!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248820].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author chickenfillet
            Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

            Clearly you have missed the point. Never less educate yourself here

            https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/article...-opportunities

            No need to be a lawyer, just the ability to read will suffice...dude !!
            Clearly what you are saying is true, so I suggest you don't listen to the majority of people here on the WarriorForum. You were banned without a reason, enough said. If you haven't realized yet, even reading a few words of text on the FTC website, and posting the link here on WF, will make people jump off their chair and say that you are "giving legal advice". I learned to read at age 3, so surely they can understand what the FTC website is saying.

            I'm beginning to get sick and tired of these WSO's where the creators claim they have made thousands and are living a life of luxury, and yet they have no income proof (computer screenshots are not a valid form of income proof), and they still want to make a few dollars from WSO's. It's pathetic.

            Even the banner advertisements here on WF are full of blatant fallacies. Here is what one banner on this page said: 'Make 10K Per Month ASAP & "I will Guarantee your 1st sale in less than 14 days!" '. Really?
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9249235].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

    the guy was clearly lying about his income.

    Are you basing this statement on actual proof or simple supposition?

    My understanding of the FTC rules is that I can tell you that "I earned X amount using the process advertised," but I cannot promise that "you will make X amount using the same process, unless I document that the average customer has seen those kinds of results."

    I don't know which category the WSO seller fell under, but as TSnyder stated, "proof of earnings" have been photoshopped before, and those sellers when caught were banned from the WF.

    If you have proof that the seller was lying, you should Report the post and let the mods handle it.

    If you have no proof, you are best to just say "no" to buying the product and keep your suspicions to yourself.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245409].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Matt Lee
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      Are you basing this statement on actual proof or simple supposition?

      My understanding of the FTC rules is that I can tell you that "I earned X amount using the process advertised," but I cannot promise that "you will make X amount using the same process, unless I document that the average customer has seen those kinds of results."

      I don't know which category the WSO seller fell under, but as TSnyder stated, "proof of earnings" have been photoshopped before, and those sellers when caught were banned from the WF.

      If you have proof that the seller was lying, you should Report the post and let the mods handle it.

      If you have no proof, you are best to just say "no" to buying the product and keep your suspicions to yourself.
      Well said. I couldn't agree more.
      Signature
      "One of the Most Successful Offline WSO's Ever!
      Get More High $$$ Clients with this Small Business Marketing PLR Magazine
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246697].message }}
  • Not every Warrior is an American some have the freedom to say what they want, FTC is only freedom restricting to American not everyone!
    Signature
    soon people... Relax...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245411].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by HelpingYouBeAnExpert View Post

      Not every Warrior is an American some have the freedom to say what they want, FTC is only freedom restricting to American not everyone!

      And everyone who uses American services to conduct their businesses, such as web hosting, and payment processing (PayPal).
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245422].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
      Originally Posted by HelpingYouBeAnExpert View Post

      Not every Warrior is an American some have the freedom to say what they want, FTC is only freedom restricting to American not everyone!
      It IS restricting on everyone especially when the offer is posted on Amazon (an American company) and payments are processed through PayPal (an American company). Either of those companies would comply with an FTC shutdown order faster than you can say dadgummit.

      Mark
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245427].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246766].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

          I think a better argument might be is simply that if you're selling to customers physically located in the US, then yes, FTC compliance is required, regardless of the country of origin.

          When I have heard about recent California laws governing the Internet, this is how California phrased its laws to ensure that it would withstand challenges...

          "Anyone selling products/services to residents of California...."

          So, your point is well taken.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248128].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

    TSo how is it when I ask WSO sellers to either make their WSO's meet the FTC guidelines it is me who gets banned ?
    Might it have been because you broke the forum's rules by making a negative comment in a WSO thread when you hand't yourself bought the WSO? I'm just asking.

    I have some sympathy with you, because I despair of non-FTC-compliant sales posts, myself. But, like you, I can't do much about them. I do occasionally report them, if it's really gross and I can show confidently that something's actually illegal. And one or two I've reported have been removed, and their sellers with them.

    (I've even been asked by moderators to check out details of alleged ClickBank screenshots - because I'm pretty familiar with ClickBank stuff - to see whether they're provably "doctored". People do care about these things.)

    My own rule of thumb is never to buy a WSO that makes any income claims, whether they're legal or not. I think it's good advice for anyone, actually. But in this forum, if you adopt that policy, you also can't make snarky comments about them in their threads. As Bill says, if you have evidence that they're lying, click the red button and report it, and something will happen over it if you're right, but don't post about it. That's easy enough?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245505].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JWImarketing
    IMO I think income claims done correctly are great. If you do it case study style especially. I have shown real proof in my threads and I back it up with screen shots from many different angles on a an undeniable platform.

    That being said, there are a lot of scammers out there. I called one guy on his BS the other day saying he made $20,000 in two days. This kids proof in the video was that....." I am sooooo tired from the webinar I just did, I made sooooo money. I must go to bed now and stop this video, I am soooo exhausted."

    I was like gimme an F'in break kiddo. Not one shred of (even faked) proof.

    I for one am glad they protect the threads. A stated above, there are other ways to handle it. Sure can be frustrating though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245754].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEOJerry
    I would not harass another member, no need to be a cop, just move on if you dont believe them. There are better things to do than to try to bust someone.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9245947].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      We have too many members right now trying to be forum police. If you think something is against the law or against the WF rules, use the triangle and REPORT IT - then let the mods look at it and decide if action is needed.

      If nothing happens - it means moderators decided the WSO was acceptable. Move on.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      Sometimes the fear won't go away, so you'll have to do it afraid.
      That's just the way it is.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246000].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WillR
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        We have too many members right now trying to be forum police.
        Thank god some people care about the forum...

        I'm all for those who want to clean up this place.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246116].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Advanpro
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        We have too many members right now trying to be forum police. If you think something is against the law or against the WF rules, use the triangle and REPORT IT - then let the mods look at it and decide if action is needed.

        If nothing happens - it means moderators decided the WSO was acceptable. Move on.
        So let's say I report a WSO for not being FTC compliant and the mods do nothing about it . Am I to assume they don't care if people are scamming?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246692].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Advanpro
      Originally Posted by SEOJerry View Post

      I would not harass another member, no need to be a cop, just move on if you dont believe them. There are better things to do than to try to bust someone.
      And let the less educated get scammed ? Some people need to make a noise some people have principles . Some people have been duped in the past and would attempt to stop that happening to others.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246694].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

        And let the less educated get scammed ?
        You keep trying to make point after point after point, here, to justify your perspective (with which many of us agree, to some extent), yet you steadfastly ignore the point that Big Mike and I have been making to you, which is that you were banned for breaking the forum's rules by posting negatively in a WSO thread when you hadn't bought the WSO.

        Are you actually acknowledging that, at all? Or are you just trying to ignore it completely, hoping that nobody will realise that you were at fault?

        You've started off a thread to complain about being banned, yet at no point have you acknowledged the reason you were banned.

        You might get a lot more sympathy and agreement with some of your perspective, on this issue, if you had the decency to acknowledge that you yourself were also at fault, here.

        "Just saying".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246950].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author asiaa
      Originally Posted by SEOJerry View Post

      I would not harass another member, no need to be a cop, just move on if you dont believe them. There are better things to do than to try to bust someone.
      If questioning the vadility of his claim is classed as "harrassing" then something is wrong.
      The WSO section needs a big clean up. The FTC would have a field day if they were to read through just a handful of threads on any given day. Far too any nonsense income claims.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247336].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Thank god some people care about the forum...

        I'm all for those who want to clean up this place.
        Dozens (or more) of members use the triangle to report spam, WSOs and pure stupidity here day after day. They care as much as you do - but don't need the attention of making public accusations.

        The FTC would have a field day if they were to read through just a handful of threads on any given day.
        You've been here 2 weeks, are in the UK, and are concerned with FTC rules?

        So let's say I report a WSO for not being FTC compliant and the mods do nothing about it . Am I to assume they don't care if people are scamming?
        You are to assume mods looked into it and decided it DOES meet the forum rules. It means you were not right or something is there you don't know about. This forum provides public access - but it's privately owned. The mods are "the police" here - we just help out where we can.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        Sometimes the fear won't go away, so you'll have to do it afraid.
        That's just the way it is.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247446].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by asiaa View Post

        If questioning the vadility of his claim is classed as "harrassing" then something is wrong.
        It's not about "questioning the validity of his claim". It's about the forum's rule prohibiting people who haven't bought the WSO from name-calling and making accusations in the WSO thread, when there's an established and more appropriate way to do that. What part of that is hard to understand?

        And by the way, "questioning the validity" of something is different from calling someone a liar. I suspect you know that, really, don't you?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247456].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          When you ignore procedures to appoint yourself judge of people/products you don't know on a platform you don't own....there's nothing to gain.

          Some of the posts I've seen in the past week make me wonder if some are coming to the WF to prod the new owners for some reason.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          Sometimes the fear won't go away, so you'll have to do it afraid.
          That's just the way it is.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247536].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by asiaa View Post

        If questioning the vadility of his claim is classed as "harrassing" then something is wrong.
        The WSO section needs a big clean up. The FTC would have a field day if they were to read through just a handful of threads on any given day. Far too any nonsense income claims.

        The claim that the FTC would have a field day going through the WSO-section is a claim that has been made for years. While the FTC has taken down individual members of the WF a few times, it has never -- to my knowledge -- challenged the advertising channels used by such offers. In case you are confused, the Warrior Forum is simply an advertising platform, similar to the New York Times, About.com, NBC-TV, and thousands of other advertising platforms.

        As far as concerns about individual offers go, there is a prescribed method within the forum for addressing those concerns with the forum moderators. If you see a problem with an individual offer, use the Report button and make your case to the forum moderators. The forum moderators will then take a look at the offer to see if it violates forum rules.

        If the forum moderators agree with your assessment of the offer, the Buy buttons will be removed from the offer and the thread will be locked, so that the vendor cannot put his Buy buttons back into the offer or redirect the traffic.

        If the forum moderators disagree with your assessment, they reserve the right to give you a short vacation to think about the benefits of making false claims against a vendor.

        Posting negative comments in the sales thread, which if you are confused is outside the scope of the prescribed method for raising concerns about an offer could get your posts deleted, and it could also result in a short vacation to think about whether you want to follow forum rules in the future.

        While your concerns may be valid, the forum rules require a moderator to be involved to moderate between two parties -- the person with concerns and the vendor who paid for the advertising.

        Simply posting your concerns to the sales thread not only violates the forum rules, but it also will go unnoticed by the forum moderator -- whose job it is to moderate disagreements -- unless the vendor or another forum user brings your post to the attention of the moderators, via the Report button .

        Going outside the prescribed channel of contacting a moderator could be harassment, because lesser people than you may post invalid arguments against a particular product for no other reason than:
        • They dislike the vendor;
        • They are in competition with the vendor;
        • They dislike the product, because it makes their product look like rubbish;
        • They believe something in the product is bad, because all they have seen was the sales copy and not the actual product.

        As you may have noted, all four items in this list are reasons why someone might post bad comments about a particular offer, and none of the items in the list are valid reasons to damage a sales offer.

        This is the reason why the rules are drawn as they are...

        If you have valid concerns, take them up with a moderator, who is in the position to look at both sides of the issue and make an appropriate determination as to the validity of the complaint.

        If you are posting your concerns on the sales thread, those concerns may damage the offer -- rightly or wrongly, but whether justified or not, your concerns will become other people's concerns, whether your concerns are justified or not.

        If you are willing to put yourself in the shoes of the vendor whose offer is being attacked -- rightly or wrongly, then you will be able to understand why the rules have been drawn as they are.

        You certainly wouldn't want someone posting in your sales thread, creating doubt in the mind of the consumer, whether you are an honest or dishonest vendor.

        If you bring the moderators to a sales thread, and your concerns are justified, the moderator may very well close the offer.

        But if the vendor is honest and the product is solid, the damage done by one guy with a chip on his shoulder and a keyboard could be enough to destroy that vendors reputation online, now and forever.

        You are claiming the high moral ground -- protecting consumers from their own ignorances and a shady vendor. But I am not so sure that I can give you the credit for owning the high moral ground, if you are unwilling to utilize the mechanisms already put into place to kill dishonest offers -- the Report button .
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248256].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author admin
    Administrator
    We will be cleaning up the WSO rules shortly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246005].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by admin View Post

      We will be cleaning up the WSO rules shortly.
      Muy Magnifico. Enough with defending the status quo.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9247802].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Advanpro
    My point is quiet simple- I know income proof can be faked. But FTC laws state the income claims must be backed up by a document so why are so many WSO's not ? It is not about becoming the forum police. Glad to see admin are finally cleaning up WSO rules. Can I ask are you going to insist WSO's are FTC compliant ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9246679].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kencalhn
    My understanding of the recently updated FTC regulations are that any specific income or performance claims are illegal, unless substantiated by representative-customer research findings.

    If I ran the WF I'd certainly hire at least 2 FTC-familiar expert compliance attornies to

    a) review this site including WSOs

    b) make recommendations for rules/compliance for WSO and other areas of the site

    c) update all rules and enforce them strictly


    Compliance is a big deal, and it's critically important to be fully FTC compliant.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248079].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      If I ran the WF the top priority would be protecting the owner's backsides. Not FTC compliance.

      (If someone misconstrues that to mean I am saying ignore FTC rules read it again. What is the top priority)

      While one could argue thorough, attorney-reviewed compliance of WSOs with FTC regs is a good way to protect your wallet, consider these two hypotheticals:

      1. WF reviews and approves all WSOs for legal compliance and as a result of its participating in the advertising becomes responsible, effectively as a surety, for legal compliance and promised results for all offers.

      2. WF does not review WSOs for legal compliance (except for nuking obviously illegal offers, such as how to make money with child porn, or make $70k in 3 hours) and as a result is not responsible as a media provider for the offers themselves.

      The result of #1 is, as you could imagine, would be lawsuits and government action due to bogus product offers.

      The result of #2 is nothing.


      Example: assume Ford posts an ad in Truck Times which includes a claim that Ford trucks last an average of 150,000 miles.

      It is one thing for Truck Times to require Ford to state all claims in its ads are true and to indemnify Truck Times if the claims are not true.

      It is quite another for Truck Times to demand proof from Ford before running the ad, and to make its own evaluation of the proof. Then, if the claim is not true someone could argue Truck Times is also liable for fraud and was negligent in failing to uncover that Ford's 'proof' was inaccurate.


      Assume Ford's ad claims its trucks last an average of 150,000,000 miles. There is a high probability this claim is false on its face, and Truck Times could have a liability issue for running the ad.

      If there is an issue for the forum it would be approving ads promising to make a certain amount of money within a certain period of time, and the claim on its face has a high probability of being false and is not readily addressed in the sales copy.


      You protect your backside by understanding the legal risks for taking certain actions, or not taking actions, then acting accordingly.

      This is hardly a new issue. The WSO section has been around for years. Since day one someone has grumped about this or that and claimed some product is fraudulent.

      If you don't think the FTC has been aware of the WSO section I have a news flash for you. If you can't figure out why the FTC hasn't taken action despite umpteen thousand WSO products being sold, or PayPal hasn't closed the forum's account - reread this post.

      On the other hand, the forum has changed with new owners. There might be a reason why prior ownership didn't use the forum to send emails pimping IM products.

      Do you want to be a media provider accepting advertising, or do you want to interject yourself into the advertising and face liability for the advertising claims? There is a cost-benefit analysis to be made.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248289].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Humbee360
    very interesting thread, with all the sand flying, Im ducking as soon as I post this, but I think that the Warrior Forum is or will now be based in Australia? (saw something on that) so if that is the case they probably and very likely have a different set of obligations, regardless, admin made it clear it is going to be handled and if it is not subject to US laws, then the OP is upset over not much at all.

    (I do get it, get rich dream merchants, I am sick of them too, but no matter how much you warn people)

    There are always going to be those that want to get that Million dollar house in 10 days or less, )
    Signature
    "Everything goes where attention flows..."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

    So how is it when I ask WSO sellers to... make their WSO's meet the FTC guidelines it is me who gets banned ? I was recently banned for just that...
    And yet you are here, making your case.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9248313].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Advanpro View Post

      So let's say I report a WSO for not being FTC compliant and the mods do nothing about it . Am I to assume they don't care if people are scamming?
      As long as you asked . . . you can assume anything you want. The problem with assumptions though, is that it means you're willing to believe something without proof. Not really the smartest way to go about business or life.
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9250014].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom B
        Banned
        Man, there is a lot of drama going on in here. You see a rule broken, you report it and let the people running the show handle it. You move on with life and make some money.

        Normally, the people who take this to the next level are wasting their time when it could be spent on building their businesses.

        Take a look at what you want to accomplish and decide if the time spent dealing with wso sellers and making posts complaining about wso sellers really helps you achieve those goals.

        I would hope to high heaven they do not.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9250033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author l0gic
    I think what worries me the most about a lot of the negative replies here are how many people are afraid of shuffling up the status quo. If you're offside with the FTC, and this even goes for people who claim the FTC rules don't affect them, you probably don't have an honest business. Plain and simple.

    Anyone who can back up their income claims wouldn't be in this thread trying to argue against the OP.

    Somebody's gotta say it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9249368].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    You people are completely missing the point.

    The OP asked why he got banned. Simple enough, he broke forum rules.

    If there is a FTC problem with a specific offer, it needs to be taken up with the forum moderators, not the seller on the sales thread.

    End of story.

    We are not arguing against the OP to protect our hides or to maintain the status quo.

    The only status quo at issue any way is whether the OP follows forum rules, or runs all over the forum rules as if they don't apply to him.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9249409].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      We are not arguing against the OP to protect our hides or to maintain the status quo.
      Then why are you arguing in this thread. The thread has been allowed and the admin of this board has even posted in it that the rules are going to be fine tuned giving at least some legitimacy to the thread's existence. Why protest against the OP beyond where even our admin has?

      New sherrifs are in town. let them do the shouting down if they wish to (which they haven't). I was the one who mentioned Status quo and heres an example of why I said it

      Simply posting your concerns to the sales thread not only violates the forum rules,
      really? simply posting any of our concerns to a sales thread? That goes beyond kindsvater's legitimate point about liability resulting from policing. That would be creating an overly protective shield for the seller that I would think opens up some liability itself if you are actively removing concerns a legitimate potential customer posts on a forum (I am NOT taking about derailing threads or arguing in a WSO as the OP might have done).

      By the way where is that rule? lol....... if true you might have saved me from a banning if I ever went WSO shopping again
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9251047].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tom B
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        really? simply posting any of our concerns to a sales thread? That goes beyond kindsvater's legitimate point about liability resulting from policing. That would be creating an overly protective shield for the seller that I would think opens up some liability itself if you are actively removing concerns a legitimate potential customer posts on a forum (I am NOT taking about derailing threads or arguing in a WSO as the OP might have done).
        Typically, when someone mentions saving others from getting scammed, they don't just stop at voicing their concerns but takes it to a whole new level. Asking for proof isn't a bad thing and if proof isn't provided you either accept it as is or leave thread.

        Unfortunately, some think they are entitled to more and won't leave without sabotaging the thread.

        This is when people get banned and then come back to accuse the forum of shielding the sellers.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9251350].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        I was the one who mentioned Status quo and heres an example of why I said it

        Technically Mike, I was not responding to your "status quo" comment.

        I was responding to the following "status quo" comment:


        Originally Posted by l0gic View Post

        I think what worries me the most about a lot of the negative replies here are how many people are afraid of shuffling up the status quo. If you're offside with the FTC, and this even goes for people who claim the FTC rules don't affect them, you probably don't have an honest business. Plain and simple.

        Anyone who can back up their income claims wouldn't be in this thread trying to argue against the OP.

        Somebody's gotta say it.


        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Simply posting your concerns to the sales thread not only violates the forum rules,
        really? simply posting any of our concerns to a sales thread? That goes beyond kindsvater's legitimate point about liability resulting from policing. That would be creating an overly protective shield for the seller that I would think opens up some liability itself if you are actively removing concerns a legitimate potential customer posts on a forum (I am NOT taking about derailing threads or arguing in a WSO as the OP might have done).

        By the way where is that rule? lol....... if true you might have saved me from a banning if I ever went WSO shopping again

        It has been said a number of times that we cannot comment on a sales thread, making statements about the legitimacy of an offer, unless we have first purchased that product.

        If we have doubts, we should forward our concerns to the forum moderators.

        If you really need access to the written rules concerning the WSO section, you will find them here.

        The pertinent section of the WSO rules is:

        Clarification: You may review the product if you've purchased. You may not debate about the sales process. If you feel something is deceptive, use the little red triangle to report it to the moderators. Include details of what you believe is misrepresented, and why. Be specific, and remember that "I don't like this" is not the same thing as "This is unethical."
        Also...

        The seller decides their own sales process. You decide if you wish to buy what's offered.

        Vote with your wallet, not with endless arguments.

        Please keep your reviews objective and remember there is a full spectrum of experience by our worldwide membership.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9252061].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    I've come to the conclusion the FTC has rules in place to protect individuals from unscrupulous individuals making false claims, but they are also meant to help prevent stupid people who can't think for themselves, and who believe everything they read.

    I once made a set of videos on how to make screen savers for fun and profit (when there was still a use for screen savers) It was so bad I couldn't find anything good to say about it for a sales page.

    So I thought it would be funny to sell it without a sales letter since the copywriting guru's say a picture alone can't sell products. They were wrong. I made a graphic and put a buy now button under it. It sold like crazy.

    If people don't have enough information, they may imagine great things that may be inside the product that don't exist.

    Just my two cents, and it's only on loan.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9249414].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brent Stangel
    Can you leave feedback (good or bad) on say, Ebay if you haven't purchased the product?

    Of course not!

    I do quite a bit of buying online and I don't know anywhere you can comment without purchase. The idea is ludicrous.

    They all offer a way to "report this" and "contact us with questions."
    Signature
    Get Off The Warrior Forum Now & Don't Come Back If You Want To Succeed!
    All The Real Marketers Are Gone. There's Nothing Left But Weak, Sniveling Wanna-Bees!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9252352].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Bill,

      The part of the rules concerning comments on the sales process is about OTOs, pricing, and the like. It has nothing to do with the issue of proof.

      I don't know why the OP was banned, but I did warn him privately once about the phrasing of some of his comments. I also told him "We don't delete requests for proof of income unless they include something that is against the rules. The requests themselves are not." I've had huge arguments from sellers because I refused to delete politely phrased requests for proof.

      I believe the OP (and a lot of Other People) needs to learn the difference between a question and an accusation. Or the distinction between responsible speech and libel.


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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9252653].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        I believe the OP (and a lot of Other People) needs to learn the difference between a question and an accusation. Or the distinction between responsible speech and libel.


        Paul

        Thanks for the clarifications Paul.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9252734].message }}

Trending Topics