[Alaister]

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.

New Warrior Special Offer (WSO) 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.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Alaister

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.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Alaister

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.

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by Kurt

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

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".

[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

[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

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[sbucciarel]

Some very positive changes. Thanks.

[Mark Singletary]

Originally Posted by Alaister

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

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

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.

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by Mark Singletary

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.

[barbling]

Can one use the acronym WSO in one's product title?

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by barbling

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.

[barbling]

Originally Posted by Alaister

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?

[Alaister]

Originally Posted by barbling

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.

[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

[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.

[Paul Myers]

A standard classified ad is $20. It's $100 if you want it "pinned" at the top for a while.

[jkennedy]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

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.

[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

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Alaister

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....

[Dennis Gaskill]

Originally Posted by Alaister

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.

[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.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by danieljb

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.

[danieljb]

Originally Posted by Kurt

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.

[Dennis Gaskill]

Originally Posted by danieljb

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?

[JNAssociates]

You saved the forums. Literally. These changes needed to be made. Bravo.

[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

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".

[Rus Sells]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

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

[sbucciarel]

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.

[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.

[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

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.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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...

[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.

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

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

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.

[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

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by 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

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. :-)

[NetSensei]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

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

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by NetSensei

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

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

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.

[NetSensei]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

...

Rich, you got opinions... got milk?

[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.

[prakhargupta2113]

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

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.

[RichBeck]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[danieljb]

Originally Posted by prakhargupta2113

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.

[PaidAllDay]

Originally Posted by RichBeck

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.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by danieljb

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 .

[PaidAllDay]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

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.

[Cali16]

Originally Posted by PaidAllDay

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

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.

[danieljb]

Originally Posted by Cali16

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.