Cowboys.com goes Gay

[RaiderGirl]

I posted about this on DNF in the DomainGang thread but the owner felt it necessary to have the last word and close the thread as he's done countless times in the past...

From that thread it came to my attention the owners/investors of Cowboys.com have developed it into a Gay dating site, and that some domainers may think it was a brilliant idea as a way of influencing the Dallas Cowboys organization into buying it, needless to say I do NOT share that same thought..

But I'm wondering how many of you do?

I think it goes to ethics, Yes it was unethical for the Dallas Cowboys to back out of the deal, but it is also unethical for it's new owners to use degradation of a famous brand as a means of persuading the owner of that corporation into buying it...

The owners will of course say this was not their intent, but when you look at the history behind this purchase, and consider the Dallas Cowboys have the most interest in the name as well as very deep pockets, and considering that 5 years has passed and no sale, I think the intent is clear.

Your thoughts

 

[m-i-k-e]

If I hear someone talk about cowboys, I don't picture a football player from Dallas.

As for their current 'development'... it's their domain name, they can do with it what they want.

There isn't anything degrading about a dating site.

 

[DnEbook]

Call me crazy but i do not think of either when i hear the term cowboys

 

[VisionEdger]

what else do people expect nowadays when EVERYTHING is gayed up?

so instead of fighting it I regged last year

CowboysS.com

LOL

For Sale btw!

 

[serverfm]

I think this is too generic to assume that it is related to them.

i mean everyone knows what cowboys are, it's a natural brand.

It's only unethical if they are doing it intentionally.

 

[-Adam-]

If they aren't doing anything illegal and they are the rightful owners of the domain then whether it's moral or unethical is a moot point as those opinions are based on personal viewpoints.

 

[enlytend]

It's their domain to do with as they please. Maybe they were seeing a lot of that type of query in their log files and decided to run with it?

There isn't anything degrading about a dating site.

Agreed. And I think it's a great brandable name for a gay dating site.

 

[mjnels]

If they aren't doing anything illegal and they are the rightful owners of the domain then whether it's moral or unethical is a moot point as those opinions are based on personal viewpoints.

It's their domain to do with as they please.

you both have said absolutely nothing here - its like stating the sky is blue. these answers are hilarious. moot point for what? shes just asking opinions. we're not creating a new law after this thread is done.

ever talk about the weather? whats the point? you cant control it anyway.

 

[-Adam-]

Mjnels, She asked for our thoughts. Not once but twice. If you don't like my response that's fine. My thought is it's their domain to do as they wish.

Was that clear enough for you?

 

[mjnels]

Mjnels, She asked for our thoughts. Not once but twice. If you don't like my response that's fine. My thought is it's their domain to do as they wish.

Was that clear enough for you?

i did like the response - it was hilarious.

anyway, just making an observation. i see this all the time in forums where people chime in on a thread specifically to say in some way, shape, or form that "the answer to your question doesnt matter"

perfectly valid "opinion" though.

 

[-Adam-]

Ah, for a second I thought when someone asked for an opinion mine might of still mattered. But you nailed me. Good on you. These forums could certainly use more people like you. Making sure only those opinions you deem "valid" be accepted.

 

[mjnels]

Person #1: hey nice day outside today, except for the bit of rain huh?

Person #2: RAIN IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF WEATHER AND IS NOT ILLEGAL - THEREFORE MY VIEW ON THIS SUBJECT IS THAT IT IS A PERSONAL OPINION.

Person #1: so its your personal opinion, that its a personal opinion?

Person #2: yes!

Person #1: glad we had this talk.

 

[Makis.TV]

@RaiderGirl even though US has a great portion of the internet users pie that doesn't mean you r alone out there.
For everyone not raised in the US Cowboys is just Cowboys...

 

[Name Trader]

I don't see anything immoral or unethical about the existing owners of Cowboys.com developing it as a gay dating site, intentionally or unintentionally to pressurize the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[iowadawg]

Think Brokeback Mountain.

Only two ways to use that domain:
1. All about cowboys found around the country. Yes, there are cowboys in Iowa, California and other states. Not just in Texas.

2. The way the owners are doing it. About gays.

Personally, and I think someone will get bent out of shape on this opinion of mine, but the cowboys brand for Dallas is like down to where most people have no idea about there being a team in Dallas called the Cowboys. Instead they think of cowboys, cow punchers, the guys riding the range.

 

[alien51]

Ethics issues are dime a dozen in the world of Domaining. The situation could lead to the pot calling the kettle black.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black"]The pot calling the kettle black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Raising the price tag of a domain to apply pressure, when the buyer is still undecided and seems to be at the seller's mercy, may be unethical just the same to the point of terrorism. But domainers use that tactic all the time, and their conscience is clear.

So all these ethics thing is moot, because domainers engage in various practices that seem to be fine to them, but unethical to others... especially End-Users who wanted to build websites for the benefit of others and yet they had to pay ransom money to a domainer who is not adding anything valuable to the domain other than the argument that he got it first.

The only valid argument in this Cowboys case, is whether turning Cowboys.com into a gay site, is legal and fair. After all, i'm not sure whether the Cowboys.com owner has publicly admitted that he is intimidating the Dallas Cowboys for boatloads of money in exchange for the domain. If he did, that would be outright blackmail. But if you can't prove it, then that's the inherent risk of losing the domain, which is why The Pope regged Vatican.XXX in the first place, to thwart legal possession of the domain by undesirables.

 

[DnEbook]

To think cowboys.com only applies to the dallas cowboys comes across as a bit small minded in my view

it could easily just be a online frontier fashion store

 

[alien51]

To think cowboys.com only applies to the dallas cowboys comes across as a bit small minded in my view

it could easily just be a online frontier fashion store

That's exactly the reason why legit brand owners, try to do DEFENSIVE regs of domains in various extensions or word combinations.

It just so happens that in this case, it's a gay site, so people presume that there is an evil motive behind it. But the core logic is the same as other non-gay (or non-porn) defensive regs.

If you don't do defensive regs, other legit entities can use the domain for whatever legit/legal purpose they want.

 

[mjnels]

the irony here is i didnt even state an opinion myself after making fun of a few of you guys... anyway, most likely this was done on purpose with the intent of either antagonizing the dallas cowboys into eventually buying it or maybe even just having a good laugh about turning it into a gay dating site after a major sports team expressed *some* interest. if i had a "truth ray" and had to place a bet on that being the real reason i'd say the odds are pretty good and most everyone else knows this too.

i can openly speculate on things like this because im not involved. if someone that participated in buying the domain even hinted at this it could be used in UDRP. i'd also imagine most domainers do not believe that the dallas cowboys really thought the bid was for only $275 and that is part of the reason it was turned into a porn site - to make them realize messing around with a unique domain name you only get one chance.

in short, yes it was probably done to teach them a lesson but in this case i would speculate the team of domain holders WOULD sell it eventually - probably for a higher amount than the original auction bid. whether this will actually happen who knows..

 

[DnEbook]

I'm sticking with the online store partner's .................hats, chaps etc........no not that kind of chaps !

 

[johname]

Old news, I believe the cowboys football team balked at auction that the current owner purchased the name. Zero proof that this is what there doing. They dont feel like selling cowboy hats. There doing what people in this forum do all the time with their names. Try to pigeon toe a dating site out of a name. Wouldnt surprise me if there making good coin by now. (forgive me if i dont look at it)

 

[JB Lions]

I think cowgirls.com should converted to a lesbian dating site.

 

[RaiderGirl]

It's only unethical if they are doing it intentionally.

Exactly

the irony here is i didnt even state an opinion myself after making fun of a few of you guys... anyway, most likely this was done on purpose with the intent of either antagonizing the dallas cowboys into eventually buying it or maybe even just having a good laugh about turning it into a porn site after a major sports team expressed *some* interest. if i had a "truth ray" and had to place a bet on that being the real reason i'd say the odds are pretty good and most everyone else knows this too.

i can openly speculate on things like this because im not involved. if someone that participated in buying the domain even hinted at this it could be used in UDRP. i'd also imagine most domainers do not believe that the dallas cowboys really thought the bid was for only $275 and that is part of the reason it was turned into a porn site - to make them realize messing around with a unique domain name you only get one chance.

in short, yes it was probably done to teach them a lesson but in this case i would speculate the team of domain holders WOULD sell it eventually - probably for a higher amount than the original auction bid. whether this will actually happen who knows..

It's refreshing to see some intellectual honesty in this thread... Thank you MJ.

The core issue here is "intent" as serverfm points out, not whether it's a Gay site or they have the right to do what they want, naturally we all have the right to develop any of our domains as we see fit..

Without a doubt I think it was intentional to influence a sale, in my opinion it's dirty tactics like these that give domainers like us a bad rap..

Imagine for a moment how many Dallas Cowboy fans visit Cowboys.com, and leave the site disgusted, and for those who know the story behind the domain, think of how many more people have a negative view of domainers.

@RaiderGirl even though US has a great portion of the internet users pie that doesn't mean you r alone out there.
For everyone not raised in the US Cowboys is just Cowboys...

I agree 100%... But were talking about a known brand in the US and a domain owned by US buyers who know full well that the most potential buyer for this domain is Jerry Jones, CEO of the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[m-i-k-e]

Imagine for a moment how many Dallas Cowboy fans visit Cowboys.com, and leave the site disgusted, and for those who know the story behind the domain, think of how many more people have a negative view of domainers.

The name was parked now it has been developed. How can development be reflected as negativity against the domain owners.

I understand that some people 'hate' domainers when they see domains parked because they don't understand that aspect of monetization, but, building a site also now reflects negatively?

What do you suggest they do? The football team didn't want to buy the name, so they built a site on it.

I've checked out the site. Gay people dating is no reason to be 'disgusted'.

 

[alien51]

Conspiracy theories will never die. Even if you go on circles over and over again. So it would be pointless to perpetuate an "unproven intent". That's the reason why the issue is being boiled down to whether it is legal or fair.

Morality cannot be used as an arbiter to settle disputes. Because pots will always call kettles as black. And they are blind to their own faults (which is the amusing part of it).

Only rules and laws can be used for arbitration, so we can move forward and avoid being trapped in a forever rat hole.