@Engineer 143488 wrote:
Furthermore — I don’t believe my earlier post was warranted (the one where I said “yikes, thanks for the heads up”). In my opinion, negative carryover isn’t really that predatory. It isn’t the most attractive arrangement, but it isn’t really “predatory,” IMO.
I’m afraid I don’t agree with you here…
You WERE waranted in your response because NOBODY from Prime had verified at that point that the terms aren’t retroactive… And, until they do here at CAP, we cannot all just rely on the words of their affiliates.
Negative Carryover is NOT predatory. It is also VERY MUCH NOT affiliate-friendly.