- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Agreed that we should drop the GPWA talk.
Arkyt’s done a fine job of taking action already. His approach to the testing is organized and well-thought out. I’m sure that his publication of the results will be organized and well-thought out too.
Good point about possibly working with or through APCW to do something more formal through the organization there in regards to testing. I’m happy to schedule a conference call for APCW if we want to brainstorm about that–just let me know if there’s any interest.
APCW is Integrity’s baby so I will let him decide if he wants to have a conference call about his project.
I do think a weekly conference call is a good idea for testing and now that you mentioned it I think it would be great for us as affiliates to just get together and shoot the shit about whats happening in general on a seperate call.
Randy do you know of a good 800 service that would facilitate something like this? CAP will be happy to sponsor and pay for the service.
I’ll get with the telcom guys at the office and see what I can find out today. I think a weekly call with CAP members will be a good idea–if nothing else, some of us that only know each other through our posts on the board will actually get to hear the real person on the other end of the keyboard.
My offer to Integrity and Arkyt for a conference call is still open too.
Originally posted by Professor
APCW is Integrity’s baby so I will let him decide if he wants to have a conference call about his project.I do think a weekly conference call is a good idea for testing and now that you mentioned it I think it would be great for us as affiliates to just get together and shoot the shit about whats happening in general on a seperate call.
Randy do you know of a good 800 service that would facilitate something like this? CAP will be happy to sponsor and pay for the service.
Ok, ok, ok!
Firstly, we really all agree here.
We want testing. We want to know. We support testing. I am going to support all testing. I will perticipate in any testing anyone wants to do and will put my money where my mouth is.
Lets do it, let’s do all of it, let’s tell each other what we find. We are definitely not going to be throwing any babies out with any bath water.
Secondly, reality is that we will never all agree on actions. The worst thing we can do is fight about it. The best thing we can do is talk it out and come to the best agreements possible. At this point, the whole argument is moot anyways. Let’s go forward and test test test. Then we can talk about results, not attitudes. My bet is that results will shape attitudes.
Thirdly, I need to comment on this:
To be honest, I had forgotten that it was you who actually implemented those things. I remember you pushing them hard, but when I refer to those campains (the boycott and the scum war) I remember it as a GPWA thing with Cindy spurring us on… and you as her “right hand”, so to speak, cracking the whip!!!
That is what Cindy wanted it to look like. In reality, Montreal was my idea, initiative and all of it was my work. Cindy’s extent of input was to say “ok” when I asked if I could post a poll to see if people wanted to boycott.
The scumwar she took a bit more interest in, she saw it as a way for GPWA to gain fame and flex muscle. But after some time she just occasionally confirmed what I said or did. I was the person initiating everything, planning everything and doing all negotiations. Lots and lots of those.
Actually, my independence was why I got booted. I was stepping on her toes. Just before attacking me publicly she called me and told me that SHE was the manager and SHE should be talking to the IGC and SHE was who mangers should contact and all of that.
I was a vigorous defender of the GPWA – but never really Cindy’s right hand. More like a thorn in her side. Stealing the show, in her words.
I will also never apply myself to that extent again. The thank you I got still sticks in my craw.
Just had to clear that one up.
Re 800 service: If we are not in a huge hurry – I know the guy who handles all the casino 800 numbers. He’s a relly good guy, but I think he may have just left for South Africa.
I really think that any further discussion of anything that happened related to the GPWA in this thread is completely moot.
Yep, water under the bridge.
Originally posted by Professor
Arkyt I think Integrity is to be commended for doing one thing many other critics are unwilling to do. [/quote]Unwilling? I don’t think any of us are unenthusiastic. Being the first to take action doesn’t mean you’ve necessarily created the best and/or only solution to a particular problem. I have waited patiently for the past to dissolve while unwearyingly observing the process from afar.
Quote:HE GOT OUT OF HIS ARMCHAIR AND DID SOMETHING.The urgency in my writing was intentional. I assure you I am off my armchair and attempting to instigate interest in the formulation of UNITY. Without interest and motivation a group project can not move forward nor prosper. And I fully believe that a “GROUP” project is required. Without unity we have NO chance at changing the system.
Quote:Instead of critiquing everything why not jump on the bandwagon and help APCW develop into a testing bed that meets everyones needs. It may not match 100% with your vision of exactly how things should be done. But it may help a lot more then rhetoric and screaming in the night.If it matched my views just 75% I’d jump at it, but tiding corruption takes a group effort. To succeed you not only need to be reputable, respected, and trusted, but you also need to act as one. APCW is not a watch-dog site – Integrity acknowledges this and clearly states it is not his intention to be one. APCW does not appear to act as one.
Quote:If you cant get behind APCW create an alternative for people and it will either be embraced for its merit or rejected for failing meet others vision of what is needed.I reckon thats what it will eventually develop in to … my preliminary testing results clearly show there is a desperate need for a group of checks and balances.
Originally posted by Integrity
I believe, however, that you may want an association that is a bit more personal… more aggressive… more confrontational. I think that’s a short sighted approach to the issue of acheiving long-term effectiveness in this industry[/quote]Sure – I want it to be personal and cordial after all the process deals with people. And yes a watch-dog site has to be aggressive – in a “professional” manner. However, I don’t mean aggressive as in violent sense – I mean it as “insistent” and “passionate” … Also I believe when required YES – any group or individual should be willing to vigorously “confront” problems. None of those characteristics are interested in short term success.
Let’s stick with the topic – testing.
There are different people testing. APCW is, BB1 is, Arkyt is, I am and I bet there are more of us.
What I would like to see is that the test results are shared.
There is no precendent for how we all will react, because this is not like any boycott we have had before – this is personal.
If manger XXXXX shaves your personal account, you are not going to be happy. Regardless of who condones what action, you are now dealing with a personal problem, and it is a lot less likely that you will shrug your shoulders and move on.
Integrity doesn’t want APCW to suggest action. Arkyt wants to suggest action. These are all bridges we can cross once we have found the river – the testing results.
In my opinion, the differences discussed here have a good chance of taking care of themselves IF we all share our test results.
If more groups form – that is fine. I will be supportive. But still and even so – we ought to share the results so we can all benefit from each others efforts.
HOLY HOLY HOLY HOLY SHEE-MOLIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have never seen this group get so pasionate! :bigsmile:
Professor, I didin’t know you knew words like that! LOL! Let’s see… where to begin…
First, I will admit that there are many different ways to do things which may be effective… NOT just the way I set them up for APCW.
My reasons for doing so have been detailed here, and I do believe in my heart that (in the long run) the approach I’ve chosen will be the best to deal successfully with the issues that arise.
That said, please let no one think that I am a cavalier, wanting to run the whole show and/or take credit as the next Casinomeister. Some may dissagree with me, but my basic thought with APCW was this:
There’s a need for this sort of service… I want to provide that service successfully and for the long-term… And, to do so, I need to create the best service possible.
TO THAT END, I can use all the help anyone wants to give…
AND I WILL provide all the help I can to others.Originally posted by Fergie
…a number of us have been privately testing casino programs. This is not intended as an afront to APCW…I don’t think it is. But, when I saw the topic, I naturally was drawn in.
Originally posted by Fergie
…If the very existence of APCW is going to hinder independent other efforts to evaluate affiliate programs, then what?I don’t care who tests whom, actually. In fact, there was a time when APCW considered testing non-member programs. I decided not to do this, however, as I thought the members (who were paying dues) may take offense that they are open and willing to participate… but then I use their dues money to test compeditors casinos.
Originally posted by Fergie
…Who said we weren’t being professional? Do we strike anyone of being a group of boisterous, disorderly, rowdy, trouble-making morons?No, but believe me, these things are like wild fires. A spark, a flame, then a sudden gust of wind and *poof*! The whole hillside is gone… trust me… it happens.
Without bringing up the past, the only reason that other organization was brought up is because I framed APCW to avoid those same issues and troubles. If I see a *spark* of what once burned us all, I scream “Fire!”… sorry….
Originally posted by Integrity
First, I will admit that there are many different ways to do things which may be effective… NOT just the way I set them up for APCW.APCW is seemingly set up to assist webmasters in choosing who to market by way of presenting reports detailing average conversions, player values, and payouts. However what is working well for one webmaster does not and will not necessarily do well for the next.
So how exactly do you consider that approach do be effective? If you discover a program that is possibly “selectively shaving” but take no unified measures to curtail the injustice HOW is that being effective?
Quote:There’s a need for this sort of service…You believe theres a need to show webmasters which programs work best for other webmasters? What we need is a service that will assure that the industry is fair for each and every webmaster without fear of injustice. What we need is a sanctioning body of checks and balances that will act as one to minimize and eventually eliminate the unjust behavior of any number of less than honest programs.
Quote:… these things are like wild fires … If I see a *spark* of what once burned us all, I scream “Fire!”… sorry….What?
I think that a sanctioning body that provides checks and balances is unlikely to occur in this industry, just because of its very nature.
And the statistical average that are provided at APCW are just that–statistical averages. I don’t think anyone there expects them to hold true for their numbers just because they are the average across a selection of webmasters. I wouldn’t be satisfied with most of the numbers that I see are statistical averages there, but it does give me one more set of data to look at when I make my decisions about who to promote and how much energy to put into it.
In the words of David Gilmore:
Quote:“So I open my doors to my enemies, and I ask ‘Can we wipe the slate clean?’……But they tell me to ‘Please fo fuck myself’… you know you just can’t win.”
:laughcry: Great post, Arkyt. I was wondering if you’d pick up the olive brach I dropped or throw down your gauntlet. The odds were 4/1 on the gauntlet… thanks for not disappointing…
Originally posted by arkyt
So how exactly do you consider that approach do be effective? If you discover a program that is possibly “selectively shaving” but take no unified measures to curtail the injustice HOW is that being effective?[/quote]You’re mixing things together. It has eluded you — again — so let me explain — again — just like in our PM’s last night:
The Performance Reports are to help with marketing efforts.
The Audit Reports are to help catch shaving and “injustice”.True, I am “foolsh” to allow people to make there own decisions instead of making a “call to arms”.
If I had a magic Utility Belt… and could create a truly “unified” group… then we could all punish the villian casinos and help “curtail the injustice” that abounds here in Gotham.
It would be a perfect world.. complete with Red Capes and big S’s on our chests. That’s not the reality, though, so go on and repeat your mistakes.
Originally posted by arkyt
What we need is a service that will assure that the industry is fair for each and every webmaster without fear of injustice…we need is a sanctioning body of checks and balances that will act as one to minimize and eventually eliminate the unjust behavior…[/quote]Seriously… you sound like a Marvel Comic. There are ideals… and then there’s the reality of how things work. You go get “sactioned” and “independently funded” and hope no one throws mud your way about kick-backs or special interest. You go test casinos and hope there’s not someone else like yourself who comes along to pick apart your efforts. You go scream “cheater” from the highest hills and hope you didn’t miss something that will make you look like a fool. You go bully and push and threaten and just see what kind of respect your efforts get (noble or not), and then watch your “sanctioning” and “funding” dry up with the way you’re perceived in the industry.
… these things are like wild fires … If I see a *spark* of what once burned us all, I scream “Fire!”… sorry….
>>>What?
Stand on a ladder and read it again…:rolleyes:
Originally posted by krystall2
I Agree with you J Todd.Actually, I believe this post was what actually fractured the ranks here. What have you to say for youself, girl? :p [bed without supper for you!]
Understandably, this put Arkyt on the defensive. It would have done the same for any of you reading this now, if you were in his position! [You know this is accurate] We webmasters are a proud lot! It really doesn’t take much to get us passionate, eh? lol
The rest is history.
Now what we have on our hands is an unwanted and uneeded battle. Stop it.Contrary to what has been inferred here, Arkyt’s method of testing the casinos is very well thought out. He has us recording dates, times, games played, amount deposited (his money, too). He gets some to accept the bonuses, others not to, etc. And record, record, record. Most importantly it involves his peers. This is how we are all testing them – not in a vacuum.
Another huge advantage of this method is just being in closer contact with fellow webmasters. I like that aspect very much.
I think it would be an excellent idea if the APCW involved its members in this way. Then we would actually feel like members of the APCW, rather than spectators. IMO the APCW needs to start involving other webmasters in the testing, if for no other reason than PR.
This Point:
Quote:All the testing in the world isn’t going to do any of us a damn bit of good if we don’t stick together and force wayward programs to clean up their act!…is being entirely ignored by everybody except for those of us involved in private testing.
All the rest is bullshit and a complete waste of our time and emotions until we address that.
Olive branch you dropped? LMFAO!
I’ve attempted to speak my opinion in a professional manner and all you want to do is belittle my efforts in an attempt to make your system look like gold – real professional – NOT!
If you felt you needed to defend your efforts – then do so – but don’t make negative comments directed at me as a person!
I’ve provided you with the perfect platform to explain to others why APCW is the right answer – you’ve done nothing but make snide comments and in the process make yourself look like a real lame guy.
If you desire to be a smart ass and make sarcastic statements – fine! However, I stated from the start I have no desire to argue all I am interested in is results.
