Hi all,
well the way I understand it; is that Zane is asking us what we want?
Is that not correct?
ifso; then that is fine. I can go thru the process of voting if RB really thinks it is necessary. personally I have yet to talk to any affiliate, big, small, current or otherwise; who is happy with any of the new terms.
in fact; I think I am probably the most pro-RB person left around, and I damn sure cannot work with some of the new terms.
With that in mind please tread carefully as I think intelligence has been insulted enough if there is to be any kind of relationship to save.
be “re-acquired” by ANY affiliate. So please understand that there is a glass half full view to this too.
a long time ago when I signed up at RB, I thought that the fact that once we signed a player at one casino; we had them at all casinos … was a bad thing because I was new and it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that under those terms; it would mean a lot of people I sent to RB would have no chance at ever being mine.
I accepted that with the knowledge in mind that someday…. someday I would be that older affiliate who’s players couldn’t be taken away from me.
And now this?
see it from our side Zane. that is a real slap in the face.
dance with the one who brung ya. And same goes for stay with the same terms you started with.
thanks for listening
S.