APCW Perspectives Weekly 12/05/08

[joeyl]

Very good point Penny.

& anyway, it's not your or my concern how skint someone is, while they're arguably, intentionally or not, misleading us.

It certainly is not a good reason, excuse, just business, or whatever it's described as.

[joeyl]

I have just listened to the APCW Webcast for the first time since Gambling Wages were given a platform of sorts.

It's a pity the APCW had to learn the hard way regarding this firm.

As a member of the APCW, I accept Todd's apology on my behalf to any of the the non APCW members who had to endure.

In my opinion J Todd, the next time you decide to give Crooks a second chance, consult the membership first.

Through he APCW, is the only real way the GPWA involves the player. I have things i'd like you to do Todd. Fair terms is part of your remit if you want to represent the player old boy.

Join the Fight APCW, join the Fight GPWA!

[Integrity]

Joey et all....

We accept that we have been lied to. We accept that we could have handled things differently. We even accept that we may have appeared to be supportive of Gambling Wages. But there are some big problems here that I would like everyone to consider and give us feedback with.

This is not an attack on anyone or criticism of any person or organization. This is a look at history, and I feel it's very important to all our future here... and to understand why the APCW does things the way we do:


You must first realize that the APCW was formed when the GPWA imploded back in 2003 under different management. The entire reason the APCW was formed was because the leadership here at that time was doing things that the industry as a whole did not like.

The old management here tried several strong armed tactics to force casinos and affiliate programs to bend to their will... and all of them failed. They called for boycotts of programs. They upset other organizations like the River City Group. They eventually they ran off several powerful and/or"original" webmasters like Dom, the Captain, the Professor, and myself included. That's when CAP and APCW really took off... from the dust of the destruction over here.

That said, the GPWA eventually got past the negative reputation that the ol' Sly Administration built up... but it took years to overcome. And this is why the APCW... from way back in 2003... made three basic rules for itself to avoid the same pitfalls. These rules are listed below with an explanation of each:

=================================================

1) It's not our business to tell others how to run their business.

This came directly from the "boycott" bullpoop. Boycotts of programs are grossly ineffective for two reasons: First, webmasters will only stop promoting a program if they don't make any cash there... period. And second, if a program "loses" several non-productive webmasters but retains the few that actually bring them good traffic, all a boycott does is help them trim away their dead weight. Boycotts of casinos and affiliate programs, in general, do not work.


2) Report the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves.

This is an addition to the ineffective boycott philosophy. We realized after the fact that much of the fighting and ill-will from the old GPWA came from speculation and hearsay posted by others in the heat of conflict. We decided that --- in addition to not telling others how to run their businesses --- we would simply report facts and let others decide for themselves what the truth was.


3) Deal with everyone individually before making decisions.

This rule ties into the hearsay elements above. Many things get said in the heat of disagreements which have no basis in fact whatsoever. Our belief was to deal with everyone... webmasters, players, casinos, and affiliate programs... individually and base our judgements on the facts we gathered and our own experiences. If a person or a program was rotten, we would soon see the evidence, and we would have the facts to make a statement. If they were genuine, we would make them prove they were genuine. Either way, we would have facts... not hearsay... and report the truth.

=================================================


Now if you look over these rules and why they were formed, these are not such bad things. If you go back over all our reports (especially in regard to Gambling Wages) you will see that we abided by our own rules because... after all... how can we expect others to play fairly if we don't.

We said from the beginning that we would take them at their word, gather facts, and report the truth no matter what... which we did.

We said that if they were not genuine we would say so... which we did.

We gave them the rope to hang themselves, tried our best to get players funds back, and attempted to educate them on why it was better to be "good guys" than to keep down the path they were on. They chose to "stay the course". We reported it and apologized... not for trying, but for failing.

So here we are at the brink of forming a new set of criteria. There is a delicate balance between having enough programs to remain in business and setting a standard of membership. There's a balance between setting rules to follow and going with what everyone else wants us to do.

Those rules were designed to try to elevate us above the petty crap that goes on in this industry and set a standard of facts, facts, facts. Obviously, there is a flaw in the system somewhere. So please tell us what you want us to do? Your feedback is will affect how we operate in the future.


Should we have told Gambling Wages to piss off? Should we have given them a chance to fail or succeed?


Do we ever give a "rogue" a chance to correct mistakes and pay old debt? Is it better to boycott rogues or to keep communication open?


Why even audit rogues? It's free publicity and can serve no good. If the audits are "clean" then we give them credibility. If the audits are "bad" then we are wasting time with what we already knew.


Come on, guys & gals... I am quite sincere. No matter what, I have always been sincere, and those rules served us well for many years. Is it time to abandon them and move on? What else should we be considering?

If we're gonna change, let's do it all the way. Let's get it right from the start.

Thanks...


.

[joeyl]

Now the question you beg alltold, is, what is the way forward regarding the bad guys? But Todd, that is the $64'000 question.

Firstly: I say it's folly to dismiss any option available to you as a course of action.

Secondly: If I say, that all possible customers, whether that be players or webmasters, should avoid doing business with Virtual/Gambling Wages for example, i'd be right.

Question: Can you tell me what would have stopped you giving this particular bad guy exposure?

[Integrity]

Well, I think the problem is that we don't view all exposure the same. It was never our intention to give Gambling Wages positive or negative exposure up front. As an information and quality control site, we wanted "nuetral" exposure to see what happened with the recovery of player funds... see if they were sincere about changes to their policy and operations... and see what happened when we audited them.

What if Gambling Wages would have come right out and paid everyone as they promised? What if they changed all their bonus policies for the better of the players & webmasters? What if... all of a sudden... complaints stopped and Gambling Wages started acting responsibly? I'm not saying that anyone should automatically trust a "rogue" without proof or testing... but what if? How are we supposed to respond?

You know what? You could take GAMBLING WAGES out of this entire argument and replace it with any rogue casino group or affiliate program, if you wish. This "change of heart" (or management) may actually happen for real at some point in the future, and if we tell that "rogue" site to go jump in a lake, then where is their incentive to change? Where is the incentive for any rogue to ever change?

This is really the root of where all the dislike toward APCW policy began, me thinks. And it's good that we're finally having quality discussion about it. APCW is in a unique position that is sometimes hard to define and often uncharted, so what do we do tomorrow if Grand Prive' calls us up and says they want to work with APCW to correct their mistakes?

Tell us, please... what are the correct steps.

.

[joeyl]

I have watched Virtual's shenanigans for a long time. I told Casinomeister, the OPU and Gambling911 in no uncertain terms they were beating their head against the wall giving this firm a chance.

You gave them a well intentioned chance, so be it.

Let's not discard GW as an example, because it ties in with your previous post, about why blacklists and so forth does'nt work the oracle.

It is because there will always be another well intentioned, or indeed unscrupulous webmaster who will take a chance with this firm, and other rogues, for the sake of arguement.

So we come full circle, and in this unregulated environment, where licensing jurisdictions, software suppliers, payment processors and the like care nothing for the player, or the affiliate (as I predicted years ago), what do we do.

I say we look to scrupulous, well intentioned ethical webmasters, and well intentioned ethical affiliate groups, to address the problem the best they can, which they don't as a whole, nowhere near it.

Let's look at the history of these rogues. Let's read their terms. Let's repay the good guys and not the bad guys. Let's not pussyfoot around for another decade playing all cool calm and collected, while the rogues thumb their noses at us.

[Ricbyrne]

Integrity said:

) It's not our business to tell others how to run their business.

This came directly from the "boycott" bullpoop. Boycotts of programs are grossly ineffective for two reasons: First, webmasters will only stop promoting a program if they don't make any cash there... period. And second, if a program "loses" several non-productive webmasters but retains the few that actually bring them good traffic, all a boycott does is help them trim away their dead weight. Boycotts of casinos and affiliate programs, in general, do not work.

The boycott can be and is a very useful tool if used properly. BingoPlayersUnion has use this tool successfully for years and have documented proof that it can be very effective against bad site behavior. I guess its meaning can differ from one organization to another, but we try and use it the way its used in the real world. Punishment for wrongdoing.

With the boycott, we drove one powerful Bingo site from the US market, where they could no longer cheat US players. We would have loved to see these crooks go out of business, but they sure did downsize. To this day we monitor their activity and if we see any indication that they intend to come back to the US Market, we will be ready for them.

In another case We had a group of sites Boycotted for non payment of wins, because they claimed a software malfunction, that was never proven to have happened. That boycott continued for about a year, until new management team took over and contacted us to settle this. Players were paid and the boycott lifted and the sites reputation restored.

Then we had a case with a rogue site that the boycott put them out of business and stopped them cold when they tried to enter the Bingo Market under a different name. I might add the Boycotts we put in place are because players demand them. The Boycotts we call are supported by players and word gets around.

We have found that if we find a webmaster that supports a rogue site, we will contact them and submit the evidence, that a particular site is bad. Some will reply with “Thanks for the heads up! I will remove their banner”, and some, but few will say F-off! Bottom line is evidently a boycott will hurt their bottom line.

As tough as it is to be a successful watchdog/Player advocate group you do have to tell some people how to run their business from time to time. Sure there are some that don’t like the fact that you ask them to remove a banner, of a bad site, and construe this as you are telling them how to run their business! But what is the alternative? Say nothing? We tell webmasters what we find, like it or not. It is their final decision as to what they are going to do. If they are a well known webmaster and we know they are sending a lot of players to a site that is ripping them off, we have other ways of dealing with them.

Hopefully by now I have made my point that Boycotts can be a very effective tool, if properly used.

The afore mentioned leads me to this... The APCW and BPU were web partners for about 2 years, than we had a disagreement over APCW’s involvement with GW and I ended our partnership. J Todd personally ridiculed me on his utube video for advising him (in private) that he maybe making a mistake with his position on GW.

All that aside.. my question is since we were web partners and exchanged many emails and posted on each others forums, how is it possible that J Todd had no idea that we were using boycotts as a tool to deal with bad behavior with sites? I took j’s comments here, on boycotting, to mean, that although we were partners, he know absolutely nothing about what we do and this has always been about what BPU Can do for APCW, not visa versa!

I did watch j Todd’s last video, and implore him to consider giving up the practice of ridiculing those that do not agree with him or their convictions oppose his. Surely the time he spent on video, ridiculing that 60 minutes reporter could have been use for constructive industry news. Some may think it humor, but I do not share that opinion.

On the topic of APCW having an Advisor Board: This may or may not be a good idea. I would expect if such a board was to be created, it would be something that a vested group of individuals would put together as a group and voted upon. I would consider it a mistake for any individual to come forth an declare themselves as leader of any such board, without proper discussion.

Finally!
.

APCW is in a unique position that is sometimes hard to define and often uncharted, so what do we do tomorrow if Grand Prive' calls us up and says they want to work with APCW to correct their mistakes?

If you want to continue to walk on the wild side, that is your perogative! I just hope you can handle the flack you may encounter better than you did in the past. It’s my personal feelings that if a rogue site wants to clean up their act, they should start by demonstrating they want to change. Not with mere words, but with cold hard cash. Clean up your outstanding complaints then we can talk!

[Anthony]

I do agree with you that boycotts have their place and can be quite effective if used properly. APCW is banning together with other affiliates to fight the situation with Grand Prive. I do not believe JTodd was saying all boycotts just don't work.

If you want to continue to walk on the wild side, that is your prerogative! I just hope you can handle the flack you may encounter better than you did in the past. It’s my personal feelings that if a rogue site wants to clean up their act, they should start by demonstrating they want to change. Not with mere words, but with cold hard cash. Clean up your outstanding complaints then we can talk!

If someone wants to talk I do not consider it a walk on the wild side.
Of course action not words are what count. But more times than not, you have to talk in order to clean up the complaints.

[Integrity]

Please direct all future APCW decisions making questions to Anthony & Michael...

Thanks

[Ricbyrne]

Please direct all future APCW decisions making questions to Anthony & Michael...

Thanks

J! I can we are at square one again! What kind of leadership passes the buck to others when tough questions come their way? I believe its my right to direct questions to you, that are presented in a professional manner, and expect an answer from you, not Anthony or Michael!

The only one that can defend your position is you not others! You kind of made the same post at CM when their membership asked you tough questions, you made kind of the same statement and disappeared and left Anthony to answer for you. I’m telling you straight out that if you are in a leadership role, you need to stand up and make your actions accountable. We have all had to do that from time to time. Its unpleasant, but we survive. Its part of what we do.

Or is this just more of your belittlement of me and I can only address you through Michael or your staff!

[TheCPA]

I have a few thoughts on SEVERAL of the latest posts in this thread, but wanted to consider my response before doing so.
Maybe tomorrow if I can find the time.

Please direct all future APCW decisions making questions to Anthony & Michael...

What's up with that comment???
Are you no longer a part of the APCW???

[TheCPA]

Apparently there are some hard feelings here that I missed.

J.Todd, you need to be accessible for better or worse!
I fully understand your dilema, BTW.

Been there plenty of times myself!

[Sissy]

if we tell that "rogue" site to go jump in a lake, then where is their incentive to change? Where is the incentive for any rogue to ever change?

IMO the incentive is to STOP promoting them.. they will hear $$$$, or the lack thereof talking I am sure. Cut off their money. That in itself will show them just HOW important players, affiliates and webmasters are to them.
Online gambling sites cannot function without what all three entities do for them.

Of course not everyone will stop promoting... but those who have earned the positions in this industry as a "force to be reckoned with" can call in favors and promise favors in return to make this dicussion a reality. The boycotts DO work. What works with one site may not work for others.

This goal of finding what will work to make cheater sites "play fair", will never work if one tries to do it their way alone. The strength is in UNITY! It is in numbers. It is not now and should have never been a "my way is better than yours" scenerio! Each individual who participates should add his or her area of expertise and utilize their own sources of knowledge to accomplish what the bottom line is (for me)... shut down the cheaters.

BPU is strictly about Online Bingo, but I would help to blacklist casino sites as a way to help the Industry as a whole. I believe my team would agree also. We are a team... not one.. not individuals.

We have had our noses bloodied, but I still stand here and fight. I always will. I have the utmost respect for anyone in this industry who strives for ANYTHING that is for the betterment of the industry AS A WHOLE. I believe that there are those within the Industry who can force changes in how the cheater sites operate. What is left is to make THEM understand that we can and will.

[MichaelCorfman]

J! I can we are at square one again! What kind of leadership passes the buck to others when tough questions come their way? I believe its my right to direct questions to you, that are presented in a professional manner, and expect an answer from you, not Anthony or Michael!

The only one that can defend your position is you not others! You kind of made the same post at CM when their membership asked you tough questions, you made kind of the same statement and disappeared and left Anthony to answer for you. I’m telling you straight out that if you are in a leadership role, you need to stand up and make your actions accountable. We have all had to do that from time to time. Its unpleasant, but we survive. Its part of what we do.

Or is this just more of your belittlement of me and I can only address you through Michael or your staff!

Richard,

I'm a strong believer in letting folks express their opinion here on this board. And I think there has been a lot of constructive discussion in this thread that will have a positive influence over time. However, I don't think portions of the post I have quoted here were that helpful in a tense situation.

It is very clear to me from many discussions that J.Todd has been trying very hard to work for the good of the industry even if that has not been clear to everyone in every board out there. And I think we all know how hard it can be to have people question our integrity and our approaches. J.Todd has been working very hard in ways I think are clear to pretty much everyone who has read this thread to try to improve the techniques used to accomplish the ends I believe we all care about. But he is just a human being, and like all of the rest of us, we try things and find out that sometimes they don't always work exactly the way we had hoped.

Anthony and J.Todd have been business partners in the APCW for a long time, and they have know each other and been friends since their early teens. Like most good friends they help each other out. So when J.Todd knows that a discussion is getting heated in a way that is it difficult for him to respond to in a constructive fashion, and asks that his friend Anthony or I handle things for a while, I think it is fair to respect that request and the wisdom it reflects in terms of trying to move things to a better place than would otherwise be the case.

Let's try to focus on the goals here, and accept that Anthony, J.Todd, and I are trying to work as a team to do the right things even when there are some bumps in the road.

Richard, in response to your comment about the 60 minute video I'd also like to say that I think there is a fine line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, and between what is funny and what is rude, when dealing with public figures. J.Todd certainly pushes the line there as you have observed. I firmly believe that sometimes those lines deserve to be pushed, and sometimes they don't. And certainly there is a challenge in having the APCW vidoes push that line when it works for the good of the industry and rallying folks in the industry together for a good laugh and understanding when that might not be the case.

Michael

[vegasfever]

very nice!

[joeyl]

Let's try to focus on the goals here, and accept that Anthony, J.Todd, and I are trying to work as a team to do the right things even when there are some bumps in the road.

What is the goal is the question..

"Fairness" is the simple answer.

How to do that without a boycott, is a serious discussion.

It's the same dilimna as the player has had to deal with when it comes to rogue behaviour.

That conversation usually ends with affiliates disagreeing with a boycott, because there is then apparently no reason for the rogues to shape up.