croupier wrote:
We have all done the donkey work for these casinos for years (and have been paid well for it) but now they are starting to reneg on their lifetime player payments agreements and we need to do something about it.
The other clause change about reduced payments at first looks reasonable but isn’t this just the thin edge of the wedge? Once they have made one major change to the T&C will they not feel like they can make further changes at a later date? This one also helps keep us in line for those future changes, if we don’t like a change that is made later then this clause will reduce the payments of those who protest by removing links.
The other clause change about reduced payments at first looks reasonable but isn’t this just the thin edge of the wedge? Once they have made one major change to the T&C will they not feel like they can make further changes at a later date? This one also helps keep us in line for those future changes, if we don’t like a change that is made later then this clause will reduce the payments of those who protest by removing links.
In short, a deal is a deal. Any retroactive changing of any terms for that affects negatively on players or affiliates regarding anything is the action of a rogue ~ to be avoided by everyone. Which as Croup points out is covered by the “new” terms nicely for future retroactive term reduction.
Also, proven thievery of an affiliates traffic, buy any means, should warrant the money made from such thievery, go straight to the stolen from party ~ by default. Is my first thought on the matter upon thinking about it for 1 moment, so excuse my cynicism ~ but this should already be in place ~ about 5 years ago. As it is not ~ great idea Wager.