- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree completely.
Excellent post, World Casino Directory.
Great post, Bernie, and this is the exact reason this term is soooo predatory. There are a multitude of reasons why affiliates may be unable to respond and unable to send players. (Search Engines decide your site isn’t worthy of high rankings anymore, you are a new affiliate and finding it tough to gain a foothold…. so many reason)
It is very unethical to steal commissions in these or any other scenarios.
Excellent post, Bernie.
I agree with every word, please reconsider this. I, too, sponsor AGD and I support the guidelines there.
This clause is not necessary and I hope it will be removed.
I know you are not fond of message board discussions, please feel free to discuss this with me in person.
I am curious to see if this thread will be addressed by the affiliate manager. If not, I am curious as to why they are certified? Not from Professor’s view point (which I understand – to keep the line of communications open)
But from the view point of Casino Blasters. Are they only certified so that they may “appear” above board and gain new affiliates? I see that they prominently display the CAP certified logo, along with the GPWA certification.
Do they post at GPWA? They don’t post here very often. Tarzan thinks they only are members so they may display the seal for Public Relations reasons only and not to actually help/solve affiliate problems. I think this thread here can be the litmus test for this.
So… we are waiting for some response – positive or negative, no matter. Personally I think it’s B.S. for them to do that. Also, the least they could do would be give CAP a link back since they are riding on our good name.
There are several programs here that want to support the community, but are not equipped to or interested in posting on messageboards.
Their contributions also help to keep CAP going and growing with more features and they help keep conferences free to affiliates.
The forum also provides an easily acessible place for affiliates to voice concerns, and these programs can stay informed of affiliate reactions that way. Your comments here do get read.
Last not least, they are accessible to cap admin for problem resolution.
Blasters is also one of the few programs that took great care that we did not lose our players in face of UIGEA, and that will always set them a mile apart from the other Playtechs in my mind.
So let’s stick with the actual issue at hand, the “player quota”, and not attack CAP policies. If we wanted to do that, there is a forum to do that in also.
The point here is to get something fixed.
I am not attacking CAP policies. I figured that someone might mention exactly what you just mentioned, so I preluded my note with the fact that I understand why they are certified here from our point of view. (for communications and as you bring up, to support CAP activities and growth)
I was not attempting to change the topic of the thread. Just frustrated because I would use the response to decide whether or not to pull the plug on them and worry that I’ll be waiting and waiting for nothing.
Absolutely no problem with CAP policies, just want to make that clear.
And point taken about keeping the thread on topic. I should have posted that elsewhere. I hope we get a response to this via CB, or an admin, if in fact talks happen. I guess however we must all make our own decisions if they are not forthcoming with an answer….
Sorry bout’ that,
TarzanThey are one of the programs that are present here but do not post.
Perhaps these need to be marked to avoid confusion.
There is a new thread for suggestions on a letter being prepared for Casino Blasters by AffiliateGuardDog (thanks KWBlue) at the request of Jeff K. from Casino Blasters.
http://www.casinoaffiliateprograms.com/bb/new-terms-and-conditions.27480.html?
