Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers

Reply To: Rome Audit Update

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=2]
#793592
guljo
Member

I was replying to this yesterday when the forum was closed…

bb1webs;195120 wrote:
Hi Joshua and welcome to the jungle.

So where’s the fun and games? :tongue:

bb1webs;195120 wrote:
1) I’m actually inclined to give them a chance because they were not given a fair jump out of the gate if I understand correct … NONE of the second deposits were ever made by any of the testers?

If true then I think the testers need to be more adamant about completing their responsibilities and being aware the damage they can cause when not …

Not exactly, some of them were, and some of them were not. Some of the ones that were, were not correctly reported in the audit, but the rest that were made, were correctly reported. There is not a single unaccounted for deposit though.

bb1webs;195120 wrote:
2) Joshua, you’re far from out of the woods. I don’t even hear the sound of cars in the far distant yet so don’t light up any cigars.

A) As the Prof so astutely points out: your approach to tracking leaves us older affs concerned because of the reasons he mentioned way, way back at the start of this thread and ones that I don’t think you’ve ever chosen to address. Such as the cookies not overwriting like the standard. We all know that you are setting up a situation for one person to get rich off the work of the rest of us by having that backwards way of overwriting cookies. And I am as backwards as it gets so if i understand the problem then your people should fully see the flaw and be scrambling to fix it.

This is something that was of serious concern to us the day the audit came to our attention, and has already been changed.

Now basically, the affiliate that “makes the sale” is the credited affiliate. The newest cookie will always overwrite the previous cookie, as of a few days ago.

bb1webs;195120 wrote:
B) Pat, why don’t you go ahead and toss up what you have for us all to see and I”m certain between the bunch we will figure out the situation to everyone’s satisfaction. (I put that one in your category Joshua because its your problem if it don’t look right. fair? And Pat seems pretty adamant there is a situation

I hope what I posted yesterday clarified this for you (as well as Pat).

bb1webs;195120 wrote:
C) They only last 2 weeks … a period of time that the testers obviously can’t even seem to find time to get back in and gamble so its a given there are going to be a lot of playrers that download the software and don’t actually sign up to play for a period out lasting that sorry stretch of time.

This was a colossal misunderstanding. The cookies actually never had a time limit on them at all, at any time.

bb1webs;195120 wrote:
D) Joshua as you can see there are more issues than just the audit and they should be given as much attention as the audit … perhaps more since there was an error with the audit.

There are definitely issues, since the software is fairly new, and I’d like to thשnk Lou, as well as all of the auditors, for bringing these issues to our attention. We have every intention of being the best program we can be, and helping TopGame become best casino software choice for US players and affiliates.

I’d just once more like to point out that although there were some misunderstandings here, the audit shows that our tracking works, that our processing rocks the house, and that Rome Partners, and TopGame, are 100% serious and interested in being transparent and honest partners to all affiliates.

Once again, thanks to Lou and the team of auditors for this initiative, I for one, think this is exactly what this industry needs.