Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 157
  1. #61
    Caruso is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    August 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    878
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 409 Times in 214 Posts

    Default

    I've just read that there's been some almighty kerfuffle over the fact that the Friday APCW video contained a screenshot of the page on the Nevada Secretary Of State site which lists the registered addresses of Fabiano and his partner.

    I also note that a dedicated thread has been posted at Casinomeister, when a discussion thread is already available, which seems to me intended to cause the APCW unnecessary embarrassment:

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...es-update.html

    Sorry, what the heck is this fuss about? The details that the APCW video posted are publically available, there's nothing secret about them - just do the relevant search in the box. An eight year old could do this.

    Why is GPWA / APCW giving credence to this nonsense by acquiesing to "demands" which have no business being made? Public information is just that: public. If you want to link to it or copy it, give correct credit and then do as you please.

    I understand the fear of the Mighty Lawyer, but you folks really shouldn't allow yourselves to be bullied. It sets a bad precedent, and plays right into CAP's hands, who have obviousdly decided that attack is the only form of defence. And it doesn't need a nuclear scientist to work out why.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Caruso For This Useful Post:

    arkyt (11 January 2009)

  3. #62
    GamTrak's Avatar
    GamTrak is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    1,678
    Thanked 890 Times in 629 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caruso View Post
    I understand the fear of the Mighty Lawyer, but you folks really shouldn't allow yourselves to be bullied. It sets a bad precedent, and plays right into CAP's hands, who have obviousdly decided that attack is the only form of defence. And it doesn't need a nuclear scientist to work out why.
    Obviously YOU don't understand what's important here and YOU do need a nuclear scientist to figure out that the majority of us want the victims of Card Spike to get paid as well as identifiying the owners of a rouge outfit.

    YOUR only goal here is to smear CAP and looking at your post history, (I understand why you were banned and why you were unbanned) your objective is obvious and therefore, I consider your input to be worthless.

    With that I"m done with this conversation! Peace out!

  4. #63
    casinobonusguy is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Posts
    1,945
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 984 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    I read the CAP thread first and I assumed they found the address by unethical means .When i realised the address is matter of public record then I think that is more than fair considering the letters from lawyers that have been flying.Gambling911 printed a story and seems this forum feels they need to prove it is true.

    Jeremy's statements here made a powerful effect on me and he also has valid points.Cap takes money from programs for certification ,it would be awful if they then took that money to compete against the programs.
    If they can tie CAP to Cardspike then that will be huge,At same time if CAP is not tied then i think This forum and Gambling911 should start liquidating because that would be some lawsuit .

  5. #64
    casinobonusguy is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Posts
    1,945
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 984 Times in 601 Posts

    Default

    I have one question -0Does any of Lou's addresses link back to cardspike?There is too much to digest here ,my head is busting lol

  6. #65
    ogpaper is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Posts
    183
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 43 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Never used ASP, but I find it funny someone from ASP will post they are not assocciated with CAP, when in fact you can click here:

    http://www.affiliatemedia.com/what-we-do.html

    and see that the CAP parent company claims to own ASP, as well. This is really interesting. Why is ASP claiming they have nothing to do with CAP? Does CAP itself now considers that it's a bad thing to be associated with CAP?!?

    WTF!


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ogpaper For This Useful Post:

    Randy72560 (10 January 2009)

  8. #66
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexpratt View Post
    CAP's official statement is here http://www.onlinecasinoreports.com/n...ap-comment.php

    Hopefully with this, ASP's statement plus Cake's staement which I understand will be released very soon we will stop jumping to conclusions and spreading malicious rumours which are actually hurting people's livlihoods

    What we have here is a rogue operator which 100% needs to be dealt with - Michael I strongly suggest you lock this thread and start a new one that is on exactly that subject as we must concentrate on that and not the propaganda people seem intent on spreading
    I am going to respond to your post Alex

    Move everything aside from who owns AS and just look at it this way

    Affiliates went 4 months without pay. There were some huge amounts owed to some which was well into the 5 figures.

    During the course of the 4 months, rarely was it every addressed on PAP from the two people who endorsed CardSpike and also set up a PAP arbitration forum for complaints. PAP employess would speak up about the fees that Chipleader was charging but stayed out of the Cardspike threads unless it was necessary.

    CS threads were deleted or altered. There are screenshots to prove that

    A CS affiliate was paid in advance due to errors reported by the stats at CS. This payment came from Warren, which was nice of him to do but

    Now lets look at this another way. I would post what I know, except that it was during a phone conversation so I have nothing in writing to back it up except for the phone number which was given to me through chat, and which is linked to effectivemedia. Whether anyone wants to believe me or not means nothing to me. So we will look at it as a what if

    As per the video it clearly shows that the prof has an interest in Effective Media. which by the way I am showing that EM is now down and no longer live. Effective media was consulting and running the affiliate program...now that I can back up because our emails originally went to effectivemedia.com not cardspike and I have copies.

    If EM is owned by Lou or he at the very least has a financial interest in it how does that look to affiliates?

    The am who launched the program was Greg who is well known, respected and of course because of him the room was able to obtain a **** load of affiliates that they wouldnt have had in the beginning. They had 100's of people promoting them within their first month and this would have NEVER happened to a new "noname" poker site

    The program was pushed through the affiliate forums, long before they even opened their doors. I had my pages up 1 mth before I could even signup as an affiliate


    Affiliates were more relaxed waiting for payments because it was Greg and because there was an added amount of trust.

    When **** hit the fan, no response from PAP or anyone involved with CS except a replacement AM who really didnt answer any questions

    So here is my question

    If Lou has an interest in Effective Media, what responsability does he hold in this?

    Should he have had a sponsored section on both forums when CS clearly competes with the other companys


    Should the members have been sold into promoting CS the way they were through the actual PAP forums rather than the standard " We are pleased to introduce a new room to our all in program"

    Should the person who consults for Effective media not stepped in when payments didnt come in Oct, Nov, Dec?

    Was it right to ignore?

    Should affiliates receive legal threats because they want their money?

    Should affiliates silence themselves because a room did not pay them?

    I dont give a rats ass if they own CardSpike or not. The problem is that the person hired to do the job was someone we trust. A good thing, but I also feel that this was an easier way to get affiliates on board due to his reputation. The forums were used to pimp this program off to affiliates and when payments didnt come not one of them had the balls to stand up and say look we ****** up. Never have they apologized for theri part in the CS crap and had the affiliates not stood together and posted their message I am 99% sure payments would not have come nor would they have been removed as a PAP/CAP sponsor. He made a post almost 6 weeks ago saying oh if they dont pay well remove and you can call me on that. It took people speaking out to get that done. Its not a CAP bash, people are pissed becasue someone at CAP also ran the program and shouldnt have hid it or put the blame on someone else. They shouldnt have put the room ahead of the affiliates and they should have been more upfront with what was happening instead of disregarding the affiliates who were making them money.

    Why should it have taken affiliate warnings, reports to cake for this room to pay.

    I understand where you are coming from but seriously if this was any other room, would you honestly say that we should have kept quiet. NO!

    And furthermore if you think we have the right to vocalize whats happend, do you not think that the person who consults for the company and is supposed to have the affiliates best interest should also have some responsability in this?

    There is no way you can honestly say that affiliates dont have the right to ask questions when Effective media was running the show.

    Alex the majority of us have known the involvment for sometime and not one of us cared who owned what. The problem is that the entire thing was mismanaged, swept under the rug and was not to be discusses...but you already know that dont you


    There is a huge conflict of interest here..so my question is who has whos best interest at heart when a program defaults and its made to be kept quiet. Who is watching out for affiliates, and who is only out to keep that ATM machine flowing?
    Last edited by ck8795; 10 January 2009 at 11:49 am.

  9. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    AK (10 January 2009), arkyt (11 January 2009), Dealer Dan (10 January 2009), Fergie (10 January 2009), joeyl (10 January 2009), vinism (11 January 2009)

  10. #67
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,083
    Thanks
    807
    Thanked 5,153 Times in 1,672 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caruso View Post
    Why is GPWA / APCW giving credence to this nonsense by acquiesing to "demands" which have no business being made? Public information is just that: public. If you want to link to it or copy it, give correct credit and then do as you please.

    I understand the fear of the Mighty Lawyer, but you folks really shouldn't allow yourselves to be bullied. It sets a bad precedent, and plays right into CAP's hands, who have obviousdly decided that attack is the only form of defence. And it doesn't need a nuclear scientist to work out why.
    I'd like to be clear here that the decision I made was not a reaction to being bullied. We did receive a call from their attorney, and he tried to argue that we should make changes for legal reasons, but there attorney could not cite any convincing legal reason why the material needed to be removed when I explained what happened. And our own attorney did not believe there was any legal reason why we needed to take action unless the attorney for Affiliate Media presented a convincing legal argument for us to take action, which he did not.

    My decision to have us remove the material was based on my decision to take the high road and do what I considered to be the right thing. While there are business issues to root out here, I have absolutely no desire to be personal in what we do. In fact, I have a desire to avoid that to the greatest extent possible. I am taking the actions I am taking because I think there is a real ethical business issue that I don't feel should be hidden away.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot

    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  11. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    AK (10 January 2009), Fergie (10 January 2009), kwblue (10 January 2009), ppw (11 January 2009), Randy72560 (10 January 2009)

  12. #68
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,083
    Thanks
    807
    Thanked 5,153 Times in 1,672 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by casinobonusguy View Post
    If they can tie CAP to Cardspike then that will be huge,At same time if CAP is not tied then i think This forum and Gambling911 should start liquidating because that would be some lawsuit .
    Of course we can tie CAP to Cardspike or I would have never made the statements I made nor would we have run the videos we have run so far.

    But it is a multi-part story. First some background about how Cardspike is rogue, then the relationship between CAP and PAP and Affiliate Media with the company Effective Media Group (this was covered the first two episodes on Tuesday and Friday of this past week), and then with information about Effective Media Group and Cardspike, which will be covered in future episodes.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot

    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    AK (10 January 2009), ppw (11 January 2009), Randy72560 (10 January 2009)

  14. #69
    Caruso is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    August 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    878
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 409 Times in 214 Posts

    Default

    I understand that, Michael. I don't necessarily agree, but I acknowledge your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by GamTrak View Post
    YOU do need a nuclear scientist to figure out that the majority of us want the victims of Card Spike to get paid as well as identifiying the owners of a rouge outfit.
    These are the only two issues. Payment to players and the ownership matter is the only content of this thread. I have no idea what you mean here. Noone has talked about anything else, including me.

    I understand why you were banned and why you were unbanned
    I've never been banned at GPWA.

    Quote Originally Posted by casinobonusguy
    I have one question -Does any of Lou's addresses link back to cardspike?
    As a beneficial ownership this would almost certainly not be a matter of public record (possibly dependent of the size of the interest and the potential necessary declaration thereof in the relevant jurisdiction). That's one of the reasons for beneficial ownership. Cardspike is owned by "Domain Holdings Ltd" (see the Casino City listing), which is presumably a company which owns companies on behalf of the "beneficial" owners, ie. the owners who, for whatever reason, do not want to be listed as the real owners. LOL, "Domain Holdings" is a pretty good indication of the nature of the company, even if we didn't have Michael's and Gambling911's information.

    For some reason, the Gibraltar company register seems to require subscription, it is not freely publically available (but it bloody well should be). So to get details on Domain Holdings it would be necessary to fork out. Rather odd. The US registers appear to be freely available.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Caruso For This Useful Post:

    Randy72560 (10 January 2009)

  16. #70
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Of course we can tie CAP to Cardspike or I would have never made the statements I made nor would we have run the videos we have run so far.
    I know you can Michael, so can I and many others. I guess it all depends on those who embrace truth no matter what the consequences maybe.

    greek39/

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to pgaming For This Useful Post:

    Fergie (10 January 2009)

  18. #71
    Caruso is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    August 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    878
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 409 Times in 214 Posts

    Default

    I've done a write up on my site - see the "latest news" section if you can be bothered. Brickbats / bouquets etc. Plus, if you want to comment there you're more than welcome - anything goes, within reasonable reason.

    In doing my write up I took a better look at the volcanic explosion of inaccurate hyperbole from CAP:

    This is criminal and not civil.
    I believe Michael is being (fallaciously) accused of a crime here. No criminality is involved.

    I urge everyone with a shred of decency to stop supporting GPWA and APCW in any capacity.
    This looks like an attempt to damage Michael's business on the part of somebody with a lot of influence, again on fallacious grounds.

    The rest of the post verges on defammation, but probably moreorless stops short. Accusations of criminal activity and intent to damage business do not stop short.

    If it were me, I would at least note these things down for possible future reference.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Caruso For This Useful Post:

    Randy72560 (10 January 2009)

  20. #72
    Rhino is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bonustreak View Post
    Forum rumors and wars can be very very ugly and many are hurt in them.
    It may look like a forum war, but it isn't.

    If we were to have these discussions on CAP
    1. CAP owning CardSpike,
    2. CAP owning Affiliate Speed Pay
    3. CardSpike not paying affiliates

    and wanting to know the truth, our threads, and comments would be censored and members would be barred from CAP.

    We ask transparency from Affiliate Programs and Online Casinos.
    It's not much to ask the same from CAP or GPWA is it?

    GPWA allows us to have this discussion.
    CAP would censor it.

    It's not a forum war, just members with a difference on opinon, where CAP owners don't like this discussion.
    Last edited by Rhino; 11 January 2009 at 1:52 am.

  21. #73
    Fortune Palace's Avatar
    Fortune Palace is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    June 2007
    Posts
    372
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 127 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caruso View Post
    I've done a write up on my site - see the "latest news" section if you can be bothered.
    Sorry, don't know your site. Can you provide a link?
    Andy

    www.fortunepalace.co.uk - Fortune Palace | Online Casino Games Guide
    www.livedealersicbo.com - Live Dealer Sic Bo | 真人荷官骰宝

    Fortune Palace on Twitter
    Fortune Palace's YouTube channel
    Fortune Palace's Google+ profile
    Andy Follin's Google+ author profile

  22. #74
    alexpratt's Avatar
    alexpratt is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Posts
    1,429
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 717 Times in 423 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    It may look like a forum war, but it isn't.

    If we were to have these discussions on CAP
    1. CAP owning CardSpike,
    2. CAP owning Affiliate Speed Pay
    3. CardSpike not paying affiliates

    and wanting to know the truth, our threads, and comments would be censored and members would be barred from CAP.

    We ask transparency from Affiliate Programs and Online Casinos.
    It's not much to ask the same from CAP or GPWA is it?

    GPWA allows us to have this discussion.
    CAP would censor it.

    It's not a forum war, just members with a difference on opinon, where CAP owners don't like this discussion.
    The fact is these have been answered - CAP made a statement on CardSpike, ASP and CAP made a statement re ASP and affiliates have been paid or are in the process of being paid -

    What more is there to discuss??
    iGB Affiliate - The biggest magazine and events for affiliates in igaming

  23. #75
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexpratt View Post
    The fact is these have been answered - CAP made a statement on CardSpike, ASP and CAP made a statement re ASP and affiliates have been paid or are in the process of being paid -

    What more is there to discuss??

    Can you honestly answer any of the questions in my reply to you? IMO CAP's statement about CardSpike was false. At the very least they managed the affiliate side of the program.
    Edit - not CAP's statememt entirely. To explain CAP is owned by several people and not all of them are involved with CS, so when I refer to CAP I am referring to only those people who have an interest in CardSpike, not the whole organization.

    What more is there to discuss]
    Why it took affiliates bitching to get paid
    Why threads were deleted and members banned when they questioned cardspike
    Why did it take 4 mths to pay affiliates when the Cake Network already paid CS in Nov
    Why members of this community receive threats of lawsuits when they discuss CS openly
    Who should take the responsability for this room

    I dont think this site was set up as a hit and run, I think possibly it was over the heads of those who were running it, and with that I think they owe at the very least an apology to the people who made them money once these payments have been made
    Last edited by ck8795; 11 January 2009 at 7:01 am.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    arkyt (11 January 2009), kwblue (11 January 2009), matted (11 January 2009)

  25. #76
    Rhino is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexpratt View Post
    The fact is these have been answered - CAP made a statement on CardSpike, ASP and CAP made a statement re ASP and affiliates have been paid or are in the process of being paid -

    What more is there to discuss??
    I'm not sure if this is a defensive statement, but what more is there to discuss?
    Forums allow us to have this discussion.
    Everyone wants the same end... to get on with business.
    Last edited by Rhino; 11 January 2009 at 8:24 am.

  26. #77
    alexpratt's Avatar
    alexpratt is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Posts
    1,429
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    151
    Thanked 717 Times in 423 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    Can you honestly answer any of the questions in my reply to you? IMO CAP's statement about CardSpike was false. At the very least they managed the affiliate side of the program.
    Edit - not CAP's statememt entirely. To explain CAP is owned by several people and not all of them are involved with CS, so when I refer to CAP I am referring to only those people who have an interest in CardSpike, not the whole organization.



    Why it took affiliates bitching to get paid
    Why threads were deleted and members banned when they questioned cardspike
    Why did it take 4 mths to pay affiliates when the Cake Network already paid CS in Nov
    Why members of this community receive threats of lawsuits when they discuss CS openly
    Who should take the responsability for this room

    I dont think this site was set up as a hit and run, I think possibly it was over the heads of those who were running it, and with that I think they owe at the very least an apology to the people who made them money once these payments have been made
    Kaus - I really can't answer those questions just like the majority of people in these forums as I don't work for CAP, PAP or CardSpike so really don't know the answers - I work for iGaming Business who partners with CAP on events and magazines - so instead of guessing the answers and adding fuel to the fire all I can honestly do is read statements from people involved or any evidence that is presented to me

    Anyways - I am going to follow Greedy Girls advice and just stop posting here because actually I don't know the situation on this and all I am doing it seems is fueling this fire.

    Kaus - sorry I couldn't answer your questions
    iGB Affiliate - The biggest magazine and events for affiliates in igaming

  27. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to alexpratt For This Useful Post:

    bonustreak (11 January 2009), GamTrak (11 January 2009), thisisvegas (11 January 2009), wagerprofits (11 January 2009)

  28. #78
    Randy72560 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2008
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 44 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Hey alex, are you not the same Alexpratt that is an admin for CAP/PAP? You send out the CAP magazine issues, works on the CAP events, etc?

  29. #79
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexpratt View Post
    I work for iGaming Business who partners with CAP on events and magazines
    That should answer your question, Randy. Alex is not admin at CAP, he works for iGaming Business and is an event organizer and publisher.

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dominique For This Useful Post:

    bonustreak (11 January 2009)

  31. #80
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Thanks Alex and my apology I was under the assumption that you worked for CAP. Thanks for clearing that up

    I am going to post this link, because I think with this being the CardSpike thread and the number of people who come to this spot to read or ask questions, this link is relevant. Randy posted in the "Enough" thread with a screenshot which shows Warren Jolly telling him they are managing the affiliate program. While I am sure others may have more information about this, this alone should raise questions and is why I asked my questions in the previous thread.

    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/enough-17...tml#post524663

    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/524657-post14.html

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •