This solves the retroactive problem of this clause but leaves me with questions. If you are willing to go to the trouble of tracking lapsed players from before August 1st and after separately then there must be some benefit to you, and therefore a penalty to the affiliates.
Stop trying to spin this clause, there is obviously profit to be made from these lapsed players and now it will go 100% to you.
These two examples are not mutually exclusive. A player is someone who deposits and plays – you can twist this around all you like but the simple fact is that if someone deposits and plays then they are a player.
Whether the first deposit is incentivized or not is irrelevant. Clearly the overall net effect of your bonuses makes a profit, otherwise you wouldn’t offer them, so we’ll be happy to take players from their first deposit thank you.
It may be that we’re shooting ourselves in the foot on this one but even if you believe the new clause is better for us then it’s still a bad clause if we don’t believe this also.
Requiring one new player a month to avoid being penalized is clearly a retroactive clause in the classic program and there’s little to argue with on this one – change it back.