GPWA Code of Conduct Update

One month ago, after careful internal discussion, we made a decision to update to the GPWA Code of Conduct. The update was made because we wanted the Code of Conduct to be a more effective tool in combating the criminal activities of the hacker.

All GPWA sponsor programs were notified of the update a month ago, and the new provisions are now in full effect.

Paragraph 2 of the GPWA Code of Conduct, which covers responsible promotion and procedures, now includes the following statement:

Quote:

---

Sponsor Companies will not use unethical methods of promotion either directly or indirectly through others and will cooperate with the GPWA in accordance with its policies and procedures to ensure affiliates and other third parties do not financially benefit from unethical behavior.

---

This new statement replaces the previously weaker statement that read "Sponsor Companies will not use unethical methods of promotion either directly or indirectly through others."

The revised GPWA Code of Conduct allows us to have policies and procedures to combat the criminal activities of the hacker, and to be able to find a Sponsor Program in violation of the Code of Conduct if they do not cooperate with us in accordance with those policies and procedures. None of us want the hacker to benefit financially from criminal activities, and we all want the backing of every GPWA sponsor program on that front.

Let me lay out the new policies and procedures we plan to follow going forward.

First, when it is discovered that the hacker is using an affiliate link in an attempt to generate revenue from a GPWA Sponsor Program, we all know that redirecting the link so that neither the affiliate nor the sponsor program benefits is the strongest possible course of action, and we recommend that approach.

A good alternative is for a sponsor program to interact with the hacker in such a way that the hacker's affiliate account is closed, and that it is clear to everyone that the account is closed because the hacker has responded by removing the affiliate links from the hacker's sites.

However, when a program states that accounts are closed, but affiliate links from hacker remain in place, the concept of "trust but verify" leaves everyone in an uncomfortable place. So our new policy is pretty simple. If the links are not redirected, and if the links remain in place, then the GPWA must be given control over any such affiliate accounts. We will closely monitor any accounts turned over to us, publicly report what we see, and if they generate any revenue we will either donate the revenue to charity or use it to reward and fund efforts to stop activities such as those of the hacker.

Michael

The audience shall be informed about the fact, that this change of Code of Conduct is obviously the exclusive result of the inexpressibly yukky criminal activities of the Buffalo Crime Family, here in this forum better known as failed "Buffalo Partners" Platinum Sponsor, the biggest liars ever seen on GPWA in the last decade.

This so called "Platinum Sponsor" abused Anthony, one of the most honest people in this industry, over many, many months, lied to him in such a disgusting way, that this can only be described as a textbook of sociopathy. It's proven that they also requested (with success) censorship, that they intentionally made Anthony over many, many months look so bad as if he is either a tacit accomplice or an incompetent forum leader. Both things are untrue but it was the result of their activities.

In my opinion this change of Code of Conduct came too late, because only in the last 4 weeks hundreds of new websites were hacked with this Jackpot City hacker tool and other brands from the Buffalo Crime Family, hundreds of new casino players were coaxed by this Buffalo team hacking and all this players are lost for the regular webmasters who put their trust into the GPWA responsibility outside of the focus on sponsor fees.

There is one point that is flooded by obviousness due to the undisputableness: In every regular country it is unthinkable that a criminal or criminal organisation like Platinum Sponsor "Buffalo Partners" will not be sentenced for the committed crimes in the past if they just stop the felony. Such a remission of sentence would set any legal coherence and understanding ad absurdum.

One must not have balls to write such statement. One must simple defend the truth, based and protected by the First Amendment, because GPWA is cemented on the ground of the United States of America, a country where the First Amendment is worth everything, the climax of modern civilization, and criminals like the Buffalo Crime Family are worth nothing.

That's what I thought.

Leopold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

So our new policy is pretty simple. If the links are not redirected, and if the links remain in place, then the GPWA must be given control over any such affiliate accounts. We will closely monitor any accounts turned over to us, publicly report what we see, and if they generate any revenue we will either donate the revenue to charity or use it to reward and fund efforts to stop activities such as those of the hacker.

Michael

---

Although at first glance this is small step in the right direction.

BUT :

With regard to privacy and legal reasons, the GPWA is not a government/legal body that can make such a request as this information is criminal evidence that belongs to the FBI/Interpol/Police not another affiliate aka commercial entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCG

With regard to privacy and legal reasons, the GPWA is not a government/legal body that can make such a request as this information is criminal evidence that belongs to the FBI/Interpol/Police not another affiliate aka commercial entity.

---

We are not requiring that personal information of the sort governed by privacy laws be turned over to us, and have specifically allowed for that fact in the recent notice we provided to an affiliate program that has been used by the hacker as shown in the following quote from the notice sent to the program's affiliate manager representative.

Quote:

---

We understand and appreciate that certain information available within an affiliate account may not be appropriate to be provided to us. This could include, for example, the hacker’s bank account information. We request that you let us know in advance the nature of any information associated with an account that you would propose to remove prior to turning control of the account over to us.

---

The GPWA is, of course, free to make whatever requests we wish. A program may or may not decide to comply with the requests we make. And we may or may not decide that failure to comply with a specific request is grounds to declare that a program is in violation of the GPWA Code of Conduct. In general, we will evolve our policies and procedures over time so that they allow us to find programs that do not actively work with us to stop the hacker in violation of the GPWA Code of Conduct while also respecting what we find to be reasonable boundaries on the information appropriate to share with us.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

.... Sponsor Companies will not use unethical methods of promotion either directly or indirectly through others and will cooperate with the GPWA in accordance with its policies and procedures to ensure affiliates and other third parties do not financially benefit from unethical behavior.....

---

Very good move GPWA but IMHO hard to follow up and enforce...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

Let me lay out the new policies and procedures we plan to follow going forward.


First, when it is discovered that the hacker is using an affiliate link in an attempt to generate revenue from a GPWA Sponsor Program, we all know that redirecting the link so that neither the affiliate nor the sponsor program benefits is the strongest possible course of action, and we recommend that approach.


A good alternative is for a sponsor program to interact with the hacker in such a way that the hacker's affiliate account is closed, and that it is clear to everyone that the account is closed because the hacker has responded by removing the affiliate links from the hacker's sites.


However, when a program states that accounts are closed, but affiliate links from hacker remain in place, the concept of "trust but verify" leaves everyone in an uncomfortable place. So our new policy is pretty simple. If the links are not redirected, and if the links remain in place, then the GPWA must be given control over any such affiliate accounts. We will closely monitor any accounts turned over to us, publicly report what we see, and if they generate any revenue we will either donate the revenue to charity or use it to reward and fund efforts to stop activities such as those of the hacker.


Michael

---

I have to assume this applies to all current and (potential) sponsor programs regardless of their status, history and frequency of posting here?

So with regards to "unethical methods of promotion", what if a program simply states "we don't do this and have no control over third party activities"? How will GPWA follow up?

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by affy

I have to assume this applies to all current and (potential) sponsor programs regardless of their status, history and frequency of posting here?

---

Yes, that is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by affy

So with regards to "unethical methods of promotion", what if a program simply states "we don't do this and have no control over third party activities"? How will GPWA follow up?

---

The reason we made the change to the code of conduct is so that we have a way to follow up. Now, if a program says that it is not working with the hacker, and has closed the account, we can require that they cooperate with us in accordance with policies and procedures that we have established. Most importantly, if the affiliate links continue to remain in place, we can specifically require that control of the associated affiliate accounts be turned over to us in accordance with our newly stated policy. If a program refuses to do that, or to come to some other mutually acceptable arrangement, then that refusal to cooperate with us in accordance with our policies and procedures is a violation of the GPWA Code of Conduct, and grounds for suspension of sponsorship.

Michael

Cool!

Two things:

1) So I assume all sponsors here have to agree to the new update before they are able to log in to their sponsor section and/or are able to post here? For sure the sponsors won't have any problem with it as most of them force affiliates to agree to "one sided" updates of their T&C's all of the time. If one doesn't their access to the back-end is usually blocked.

2) Does this only apply to online "hacking and tracking" or are we talking offline spam here too?

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by affy

So I assume all sponsors here have to agree to the new update before they are able to log in to their sponsor section and/or are able to post here? For sure the sponsors won't have any problem with it as most of them force affiliates to agree to "one sided" updates of their T&C's all of the time. If one doesn't their access to the back-end is usually blocked.

---

Our contracts with sponsor programs give us the right to update the code of conduct, and our right to update the code of conduct is not conditioned upon acceptance of the update by any sponsor program. It is only conditioned upon proper notification being given to the sponsor programs. Accordingly, no special actions beyond providing proper notification to sponsor affiliate programs were taken in conjunction with the update to the code of conduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by affy

Does this only apply to online "hacking and tracking" or are we talking offline spam here too?

---

The new policies and procedures we have put in place relate only to the activities of the hacker at this point in time. Policies and procedures relating to those activities are straightforward because the activity of the hacker and presence of affiliate links on sites that can be identified as hacker sites is relatively easy and straightforward and publicly visible.

Spam email is more complicated because we don't typically receive copies of email with headers intact and because forgery is easier, making proof of unethical behavior more difficult for us as a third party. So, at the present time we have not moved beyond requiring that sponsor programs respond to individual issues in a fashion that we feel shows evidence of their taking appropriate actions based on the information they are given.

Michael