Removed catching thread.

Ok, please discuss it here if need be WITHOUT making accusations about other members and naming them.

I had a request to remove the thread because it called into question the integrity of another member which isn't acceptable IMO.

I know I'm gonna take some flack for it but I think I was correct to do so.

 

Out of interest PoshTiger, who does your DAC and EPP hosting?

 

Lol, I do - I have my own script.

 

So you don't use anyone else's DAC/EPP operation/hosting/script other than your own?

 

So yet another thread closed I'm not sure why we can't have an adult discussion here why not just remove the offending post.

@invincible

In answer to your question there I'm on Denys domaincatch system. He was fully open when I signed up that it doesn't use the same script he does personally.
So like others on here don't get a sniff at the real great names that have dropped recently.

 

Nope, all my own work. I was a little dissappointed I wasn't named and shamed tbh as I take quite a lot of public bookings.

 

Also there was a lot of useful information that I posted in that thread which wasn't accusing any particular member of anything. Now you've deprived the readership of that material.

Also, have you or anyone else, ever caught a domain name in tandem with anyone elses DAC/EPP allowances and split the sale price with them as a result?

 

Tony Wight also uses my system yes, but it's a totally separate isolated system. It has to be. You OK with me now? Any more questions?

 

I'm not sure you'll get those kind of answers David, and I'm not surprised, no one would give away guarded secrets on how they have success.

Would like to see the original thread though, didn't get time to read it all or any responses to my questions.

 

People only complain about these kind of threads when they have something to hide in my opinion. There was plenty of information in the the thread that many catchers might not want published and unfortunately the moderator who removed it cannot hide the fact that he has a self interest in drop catching.

I don't drop catch, however I am happy to email Nominet with data provided and they will investigate accusations of members working in concert. That should put an end to complaints. Should I start by asking them to look at sp***g.co.uk (my asterisks), since that domain was highlighted previously? Any others?

 

What about my second?

 

No posts in that thread were accusatory at all and I don't agree with it being removed.

 

I'm pretty sure most catchers called nominet when catcher *1 dominated and were told what I was told. Don't come here and complain just because someone else's script is better than yours.

We've been through all this before btw, nothing's changed apart from the players.

 

If course not, it would require both members to be complicit in breaking the rules and like most others, I've far too much to lose than gain.

 

You're not Nominet so you cannot possibly know who is and who isn't utilising multiple allowances. If you're not doing so, you shouldn't have anything to worry about and I cannot think why you'd not be in favour of Nominet forensically looking into things. If they did and caught people who were, you'd be better off (assuming you weren't doing so yourself).

 

My main post from the previous thread:

 

I don't see what the big fuss is all about. If these practices aren't illegal then it's all fair game surely?

The catchers might operate in the grey, but find me a successful business that doesn't (or hasn't in the past).

Saying it's 'not fair' or down to greed is laughable. I liken it to website owners moaning about the sites ranking above them.

 

People are mistakingly assuming greed is always bad. Of course greed is involved in this aspect of the industry.

In respect of utilising multiple DAC and EPP allowances in concert, it is counter to the Nominet anti avoidance rules (or whatever they're called nowadays). It isn't illegal in law though.

 

Correct

 

But where is the proof that has led to all these accusations? If you have none, then these pointed questions are a little unethical; if you do have proof, then submit to Nominet to ensure fairness is once again the order of the day. Those with nothing to hide would then in theory reap the rewards.