Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers

Reply To: Affiliate Union

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=2]
#731363
Anonymous
Inactive
pearlgaming wrote:
…hopefully this discussion alone can solve some of the outstanding issues some of the affiliates are experiencing.

BINGO! Gold star for you! :bigsmile:

That was actually my intention when I wrote the very first post! I was hoping that by simply demonstrating the high level of affiliate frustration the delinquent parties would become properly motivated to pay.

pearlgaming wrote:
…Haven’t such methods been used in the past by listing rogue casinos? What effects has that had?

Some have had a good effect, like the 888 case. Some have not been so well receeived, like the boycots of spyware programs.

APCW has never ever condoned boycots or strong arm tactics in the past, but it seems to us that all the possible “politically correct” moves have been exhausted without any success. It also seems that history has taught us that there are a few programs will only respond to affiliates when forced to.

pearlgaming wrote:
Can a union be prone to abuse, like when people take the law in their own hands and then find out that they punished an innocent person?

Absolutely it could be abused. And once again I will state as clearly as possible that the name Affiliate Union is just a name, and no actual union was planned on being formed.

If you want to see how the APCW would have run such a site, just go back and look at our Auditing reports for some of the major sites we reported on. How fair were they? How thorough? Were they biased? Did they imply dishonesty? Or were they factual reports for people to read and draw conclusions from?