- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Public ruckuses based on facts or at least direct statements/accusations are not a bad thing. Industries need to police themselves, and the ethics of certain types of actions need to be discussed so a general industry-wide consensus can be reached.
What is a bad thing would be for a useful forum like CAP to degenerate into posts like “John Smith is a crook”, and for what ruckuses that do ensue to be filled with innuendo. Basically if this is a trailblazing thread, it should be done right. What was done is as bad an irresponsible thing as can be done. Talking to lawyers now is like talking to them after the cows are out of the barn, the barn has burned to the ground, and an earthquake has swallowed it up.
I understand your position Classics and generally I would be in total agreement too, but as you pointed out the cows are out of the barn and they shit all over the front lawn already.
Let’s get the bullshit cleaned up so we can move on without questions about “what ever happened to that thread at CAP?” It will become an Urban Myth then and never die.
Simon,
You seem to have some details about this issue, and I am aware you were a affiliate manager. Did you have personal dealing on this issue? If so can you provide some details? Is there other issues you might be able to shead some light on as well?
Thanks
Originally posted by Professor
I understand your position Classics and generally I would be in total agreement too, but ……yes….there is a but… and for me it’s that I trust Greg a heck of a lot more than I would ever trust Amateur.
I can say from 30-years police experience CAP MUST WASH its own dirty laundry if we expect to have public creditability. Cops call it Internal Affairs (IA). The IA model meets the CAP need – policing its own. If we want to be trusted by our clients (the public) we must aggressively police ourselves! You get a complaint; you investigate it IN A PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL fashion; an executive board (that’s you Professor) hears evidence and makes its decision/finding: take disciplinary/corrective action if warranted; and make a public statement as to the discipline issued BUT NEVER GIVE DETAILS of the investigative findings. I for one would not care to hear the gory, nasty details. I just want dishonesty handled aggressively, fairly, and promptly. Jim
Excellent post, USMC Casinos…
Unfortunately, this industry has always been more like a political soap opera than a collection of intellectuals… even though all of us are obviously well above average intelligence.
Seems like a shame… but you can’t bring a knife to a gun fight. And, in this industry, my experience in forums has been that the petty small people shoot off their mouths and flame while the people taking the high road go silent and look like they have something to hide.
CAP has always been better than most (and mch better than some) about keeping things professional… but it’s still people talking to people, and a short walk from “discussion” to “gossip”.
“I for one would not care to hear the gory, nasty details.”
Then don’t read the threads.
The idea of a private investigation leading to a public hanging is sickening.
Originally posted by usmc_casinos
I can say from 30-years police experience CAP MUST WASH its own dirty laundry if we expect to have public creditability. Cops call it Internal Affairs (IA). The IA model meets the CAP need – policing its own. If we want to be trusted by our clients (the public) we must aggressively police ourselves! You get a complaint; you investigate it IN A PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL fashion; an executive board (that’s you Professor) hears evidence and makes its decision/finding: take disciplinary/corrective action if warranted; and make a public statement as to the discipline issued BUT NEVER GIVE DETAILS of the investigative findings. I for one would not care to hear the gory, nasty details. I just want dishonesty handled aggressively, fairly, and promptly. JimI agree absolutely, Jim.
Luckily, this issue is so rare here, that CAP didn’t have the protocal in the company manual as to how to handle it, as would a police department.
CAP did have a very lengthy discussion about this in private. CAP was against naming names until there was enough evidence to go public. Greg waited until he got the go-ahead from CAP before posting names.
However, once the cat was out of the bag, Lou handled it very well and correctly, managing damage control and deciding how best to handle it. He was very against naming names because he was afraid it would turn the thread into a mud-slinging mess as seen frequently on other forums. I applaud his efforts here; he has done an excellent job.
A little off topic.
Don’t you all think that a CPA deal where affiliates are paid, say $150.00 for a $50.00 deposit is just ASKING for it?
:p
The world is full of people who are willing to take advantage of a situation like that.The only real way ahead for programs is to get rid of CPA deals, as certain affiliates have abused this, and replace it with:-
a) Percent of Initial Deposit (say 40%)
b) Percent of Total Deposit (say 20%)It’s a shame a few abuse it and I have spoken with four programs at length which plan to remove the CPA tier from their commission plan.
I have been paid as much as $250 for that, and cried about the lost whales.
It all depends on the integrity and intentions of the affiliate, and so these deals are often made on an individual basis.
Programs tend to trust affiliates more if they have been around a while and are prominent – and that has proven to be a huge mistake for some.
We are not talking about someone cheating a program out of $100 by sending in their girlfriend and sister to make a deposit, we are talking about someone doing this on a huge scale with several programs and over some time.
A little thing I found. I thought CAP members would be interested in it. I do not want the mud slinging to start, so please keep any responses well moderated.
Quote:wagerjunction wrote:
If you are able to read it you should be able to defend it To respond to your questions
Quote:
And BTW, who else have you talked to that would accuse me of such a thing?? No one, that’s who
Well how about
Quote:
Thanks Greg… for just pointing to the white elephant and shouting “LOOK!”. Most of us did know these were the two, and I am happy you have the courage to name names… I’ve never dealt with Michelle, but Elizabeth doesn’t surprise me at all. From what I’ve gathered by reading her posts, she seems like the type to put “self” first at all costs…. even at the price of her own (dare I say it?) integrity….
Thats right Elizabeth it happened with previous managment and i put a stop to it immediately and apparently it didnt only happen with me. Should i collate all of the proof ,i am quite sure that it can be organized . If you want to take action then please by all means do so. Regards GregAnd that’s supposed to be proof?? Of what?? And they “knew these were the two”? What is that supposed to mean??
You had damn well better post more than that as proof of anything!!
Right here!! Right now!!! Everything you have that says I’ve cheated you or, for that matter, anyone out of anything!!
You didn’t put a stop to anything, because there was nothing to stop, you liar!! I am saying right here and right now that you are an out and out liar, Greg, who thinks you have someone you can pick on, to suit your own purpose. What that purpose is, I have no idea!! I have received no monies, or tried to receive any monies from Wager Junction since months before you came along.
You unscrupulous liar. Show your proof, not quotes from some board where conmen are the main posters. If that’s where you go to hang out, then I know what kind of lowlife you are!! Most of them are rejects from the GPWA, and love nothing more than to come over here and cause trouble. They sent you on a mission here, Greg?
This looks like another in a long list of things done by those people in the hopes of making life miserable for GPWA.
But you’ve gone too far, for your buddies this time. You’ve opened yourself to libel charges, and as an agent of Wager Junction, to boot. I know a very good attorney who will love this. I’m calling him today. You will be hearing from me, make no mistake!
_________________
AmateurActually I don’t think your post is off-topic at all Fergie.
(Referring to: A little off topic.
Don’t you all think that a CPA deal where affiliates are paid, say $150.00 for a $50.00 deposit is just ASKING for it?The world is full of people who are willing to take advantage of a situation like that.)
If I were running an affiliate program, I would NEVER structure a CPA deal the way most of these CPA deals are structure.
Any time you offer people a bounty of $150 for a player who deposits $50 or even $100, you’re practically screaming, “Take advantage of me.”
Even a program where you received a commission of 100% of the initial deposit would make more sense than this. You could always cap the maximum amount of commission at $200 or $400 or something like that, and you could still subtract commissions for chargebacks.
I posted something similar to this in the private area, but it obviously belongs in the public area where the affiliate managers can read it.
And like I said in the private area, I’m not defending or sticking up for anyone who attempts to defraud anyone else. I’m suggesting a solution that would prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future altogether. I only do rev share deals personally because I think that’s the fairest way to work with an affiliate program. I think a lot of affiliates and affiliate managers agree with me.
As far as posting people’s names in public on a forum for some alleged fraud they’ve committed, I think it’s a bad idea, since there are probably liability issues involved. I think a better idea would be to focus on solutions that would prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future. THAT’s what would help us all make more money.
Hi Randy,
The CPA deals affiliates are from figures based on averages, and what happens is lets say the affiliate brings in the following players with the following deposits:
>> Player a, initial deposit $50, total deposits $500
>> Player b, initial deposit $10, total deposits $40
>> Player c, initial deposit $200, total deposits $3,000
>> Player d, initial deposit $20, total deposits $90If we set a limit saying the player must at least deposit and wager the CPA rate (lets say it is $100).
Then the affiliate would only make $200, when in fact the affiliate brought in 4 depositors and in the eyes of the casino is seen as a good affiliate and the affiliate should earn the full $400, even though two players are under the threshold to count on the CPA deal.
Affiliate programs on the whole like to be fair to the affiliate as they know the effort put in by the affiliate and cost to bringing a player in.
Now lets take the fraudulent affiliates player base:-
>> Player a, initial deposit $5, total deposits $5
>> Player b, initial deposit $10, total deposits $10
>> Player c, initial deposit $7, total deposits $7
>> Player d, initial deposit $20, total deposits $30Total deposits for the casino is $52
Amount paid to affiliate is $400To get the perfect match is quite tough.
