Member Focus

[Jokerman99]

Taking advertising money from casinos who do not pay their winners is a disgraceful policy. The GPWA should be role models for people in the industry. By taking money from these thieves they are complicit in the theft as they are endorsing programs where they know full well that the players money is being stolen from them.

Michael et al should hold themselves to higher ethical standards. They are obviously not solely to blame, but given their unique position in the industry they should be responsible for setting the bar high in terms of how they practice their business. Accepting money from known scam outfits is akin to spitting in the face of the players, the very people who enabled the people behind the GPWA to earn a living in the business.

[Roulette Zeitung]

Dear reader,

what do you think is this place here?
You know, which game will be played in this industry.
This place and all other "paid" places in every other business field, fields that are also working on the edge of law violations every single day is everything but a psycho-social counselling or hotbed of the truth.

It's an uncompromising business and nothing else.
The current case of Point Affiliates is a good example for it.
One more example to hundreds of others I could listed to the public.
Even edifying sweet talk or brown-nosing don't change this sober fact.
An uncompromising business like some other business fields and money is the only language.
And no one can say, that this is a hidden secret.
It's public, and you are just one click away.


Public source: https://www.gpwa.org/docs/gpwa-sponsorship-brochure.pdf
(Page 7)

It is necessary therefore for everyone to accept it?!
Things, the way they are: Walking hurts and inflicts pains.

Leopold

[-Shay-]

I'm not sure I've ever seen such negativity towards the GPWA in my years here. What exactly do affiliates expect from the GPWA? Surely we cannot expect the GPWA to solve the gambling worlds problems. Yes, they are slower than molasses to take action. But do they really deserve this?

A little history lesson.

Did you know that Mr C sued the DOJ for the right to promote gambling in the USA? https://www.gpwa.org/forum/casino-ci...ng-160437.html Does anyone else have the ways and means (and balls) to do this?

Then Mr C decided to take on the biggest, baddest most corrupt gambling affiliate forum ever. That forum was a black hole of greedy, lying, thieving bastards. Mr C and his team freed us of them. He took them down. The bigger they are the harder they fall. To this day that casino affiliate program forum is dead in the water. Thanks to the GPWA and staff. I am grateful. https://www.gpwa.org/forum/dancing-a...ht=lou+fabiano

It got ugly. http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...on-013009.html

After that we had freedom of speech which is what we all enjoy right here in this thread.

We've see a lot over the years. Affiliates don't care unless it happens to them. Blame affiliates for sleeping with the enemy. To put it all on the GPWA like this is unfair IMO. It goes in one ear out the other for me when affiliates jump to vote for these questionable awards.

Thank you for listening.

I both enjoy and appreciate the history lesson. Some of it I did know - but it is good to have a refresher and a renewed appreciation of said history.

As far as what I (as an affiliate) expect from the GPWA - I guess I will have to (fairly) ponder that over the next few days. My initial reaction is that my expectation is that I expect such an organization with this history to be member focused and an advocate for the industry and for the affiliate in a very similar fashion to how they were historically.

Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not... When a young, ambitious attorney joins a firm with aspirations to make partner, does he conduct business in the same enthusiastic manner after making partner as he did when he was trying to cement his place in the firm or does he become "comfortable" after he has "made it"?

[Roulette Zeitung]

This thread for sure will end like the carbonized hacker threads.

A short flare-up, embroidered with a spectacular spectacle, full of altiloquence and at the end ... with a tang of nothing.

Leopold

[mojo]

To bring it up to 2015 there is a conference next month. IGB is allowed to take sponsorship money from anyone that wants to buy a booth. No one complains and affiliates flock there. I've been saying this for years as some know and I get shut down every time. Some of the worst programs display there and recruit new affiliates. I have never understood why that's ok for IGB but not for GPWA.

Sure I agree there is always room for improvement here and I will continue to express that. There appears to be a double standard for these events however that also make money off affiliates with sponsorship fees. To me IMO if we are going to criticize GPWA then the IGB should go hand in hand. Affiliates won't do that though.

It's never lost on me that we are able to voice our different opinions without fear. There was a time when that wasn't so easy. Even if no one agrees with me.

[Jokerman99]

I completely agree about IGB. However, this isn't a case of "well X and Y do it, so we're going to do it too". Furthermore, IGB don't run the biggest online community of gambling webmasters; the GPWA does.

If it was my site I wouldn't even allow members to post here who promote all those scam operations. Those members are a disgrace to themselves and the industry as a whole and should be outed for their shoddy business practices.

The ones who feign ignorance are just as bad, as to not know which casinos are trustworthy and which are not, is at best negligent. If you're recommending casinos as the best online casino, knowing that they steal player money makes you a complete scumbag and a charlatan. The industry would be better without people like that, as would this and any other community that actually cares about the future of the industry and the treatment of the players who enable us to make a living.

[-Shay-]

To bring it up to 2015 there is a conference next month. IGB is allowed to take sponsorship money from anyone that wants to buy a booth. No one complains and affiliates flock there. I've been saying this for years as some know and I get shut down every time. Some of the worst programs display there and recruit new affiliates. I have never understood why that's ok for IGB but not for GPWA.

Sure I agree there is always room for improvement here and I will continue to express that. There appears to be a double standard for these events however that also make money off affiliates with sponsorship fees. To me IMO if we are going to criticize GPWA then the IGB should go hand in hand. Affiliates won't do that though.

It's never lost on me that we are able to voice our different opinions without fear. There was a time when that wasn't so easy. Even if no one agrees with me.

I personally do not believe IGB should let anyone with a pulse and sponsor fee in.

[GCG]

The problem is and originates from the beginning that the .org is a .com venture.

This forum provides information and some guidance and a forum to share opinions/advice but does not necessarily mean its there to protect and serve.

One must really see it this way.

[mojo]

I completely agree about IGB. However, this isn't a case of "well X and Y do it, so we're going to do it too". Furthermore, IGB don't run the biggest online community of gambling webmasters; the GPWA does.

It all matters. If we are asking the GPWA to suspend a program then IGB must too. Or be banned. These events matter a lot and thousands of affiliates go. They take sponsorship money that the GPWA cannot from that very same program. Then promote that event here. That makes no sense to me at all and never has. It's counter productive because IGB undoes whatever affiliates are trying to do to improve the GPWA.

The IGB must refuse that program (that won't happen) or be banned here, that won't happen either. The reason it won't happen is that affiliates are the ones who ask for change and they simply don't.

This is how I get shut down every time.

[universal4]

I did in fact reply on September 26th, 2014 as well as September 27th, 2014. In at least one of those pm's I explained that I had raised the issue to Michael a number of times. (a fact that I believe Michael even posted, if I am not mistaken)

I admit that I did not reply to the last pm I got from you September 28th, 2014, but you had developed a bit of an attitude and yet you accused me of having an attitude, and had I responded I am sure my attitude would have gotten worse so it was getting neither of us anywhere.

Neither the GPWA nor I are completely without fault, but making accusations against those who are fighting for the same things just do not help.

Rick
Universal4

[thebookiesoffers]

I did in fact reply on September 26th, 2014 as well as September 27th, 2014. In at least one of those pm's I explained that I had raised the issue to Michael a number of times. (a fact that I believe Michael even posted, if I am not mistaken)

I admit that I did not reply to the last pm I got from you September 28th, 2014, but you had developed a bit of an attitude and yet you accused me of having an attitude, and had I responded I am sure my attitude would have gotten worse so it was getting neither of us anywhere.

Neither the GPWA nor I are completely without fault, but making accusations against those who are fighting for the same things just do not help.

Rick
Universal4

fair enough, doesn't alter the fact michael and anthony ignored them all

[RacingJim]

The problem is and originates from the beginning that the .org is a .com venture.

This forum provides information and some guidance and a forum to share opinions/advice but does not necessarily mean its there to protect and serve.

One must really see it this way.

Spot on, I got a forum post deleted the other day that criticised one of the paying programs. End of the day this should be a free forum where members can post what they think, the forum should be unbiased and impartial, but money changing hands always changes this relationship somewhat.

[-Shay-]

I'm not sure I've ever seen such negativity towards the GPWA in my years here. What exactly do affiliates expect from the GPWA? Surely we cannot expect the GPWA to solve the gambling worlds problems. Yes, they are slower than molasses to take action. But do they really deserve this?

A little history lesson.

Did you know that Mr C sued the DOJ for the right to promote gambling in the USA? https://www.gpwa.org/forum/casino-ci...ng-160437.html Does anyone else have the ways and means (and balls) to do this?

Then Mr C decided to take on the biggest, baddest most corrupt gambling affiliate forum ever. That forum was a black hole of greedy, lying, thieving bastards. Mr C and his team freed us of them. He took them down. The bigger they are the harder they fall. To this day that casino affiliate program forum is dead in the water. Thanks to the GPWA and staff. I am grateful. https://www.gpwa.org/forum/dancing-a...ht=lou+fabiano

It got ugly. http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...on-013009.html

After that we had freedom of speech which is what we all enjoy right here in this thread.

We've see a lot over the years. Affiliates don't care unless it happens to them. Blame affiliates for sleeping with the enemy. To put it all on the GPWA like this is unfair IMO. It goes in one ear out the other for me when affiliates jump to vote for these questionable awards.

Thank you for listening.

Last week I said I would take some time to fairly ponder my expectations of GPWA. I have...

For starters, this forum is an industry leader. My expectation is a lead by example approach. I admit that I was substantially less than impressed to see the progression of this thread, only to see Michael posting in some other threads detailing his company's agenda but he couldn't be bothered to post in here. To me, that seems to be the case more often than not - the higher higher ups do their best to avoid certain issues. I expect more...

When it comes to adding new programs (read paid sponsors), my hope is that homework beyond ensuring the cheque clears is done. Sometimes I wonder if this is the case and I definitely wonder about the retention of current sponsors. Then again, taking a minimalist approach on many (not all) member issues - one can plead a degree of ignorance.

I'm not going to take too much more time with this post... I suspect that the ability to obtain sponsors at any given rate is surely tied to the perceived strength of membership and activity/receptiveness of the community here at GPWA.

I don't think I can "do it better" nor do I want to try. I do find myself more and more disappointed with GPWA's handling of the hacking situation and other issues directly and indirectly involving their sponsors.

Going forward, I expect that I will decrease my post count and time spent in this community posting here until such time that I "feel" the focus has returned to the member as opposed to protecting the sponsor money. I firmly believe that an organization such as GPWA will do right by their sponsorship by being true to their membership and this is something I feel has been lacking in recent months from the "top" of the "top".

[GCG]

Do not think things will change in this industry as you may get disappointed.

[mojo]

Last week I said I would take some time to fairly ponder my expectations of GPWA. I have...

For starters, this forum is an industry leader. My expectation is a lead by example approach. I admit that I was substantially less than impressed to see the progression of this thread, only to see Michael posting in some other threads detailing his company's agenda but he couldn't be bothered to post in here. To me, that seems to be the case more often than not - the higher higher ups do their best to avoid certain issues. I expect more...

When it comes to adding new programs (read paid sponsors), my hope is that homework beyond ensuring the cheque clears is done. Sometimes I wonder if this is the case and I definitely wonder about the retention of current sponsors. Then again, taking a minimalist approach on many (not all) member issues - one can plead a degree of ignorance.

I'm not going to take too much more time with this post... I suspect that the ability to obtain sponsors at any given rate is surely tied to the perceived strength of membership and activity/receptiveness of the community here at GPWA.

I don't think I can "do it better" nor do I want to try. I do find myself more and more disappointed with GPWA's handling of the hacking situation and other issues directly and indirectly involving their sponsors.

Going forward, I expect that I will decrease my post count and time spent in this community posting here until such time that I "feel" the focus has returned to the member as opposed to protecting the sponsor money. I firmly believe that an organization such as GPWA will do right by their sponsorship by being true to their membership and this is something I feel has been lacking in recent months from the "top" of the "top".

I don't disagree with anything said here. Without the members like you and those in this thread we'd never get anywhere. I too am dismayed at some things.

Affiliate support is needed though. Getting backup from affiliaes can be very difficult in this business and you need backup to for sufficient pressure to make changes. One reason is that some affiliates need some of these programs to survive for whatever reason. Maybe they have a family to feed and it's an earner. I can't judge them for that. They are unwilling and/or afraid to jump in the fray and lose that income. Then there are the programs themselves. One day they are the best thing since sliced bread and the next they are rogue or gone. Didn't we just see a promising program open and then close two months later without warning? It happens on the turn of a dime. Some of our best programs were gone in the night and all that work for nothing. Then we have to decide which program is ripping us off the least and though we may strongly feel something's not right, we still use them. It's all a crap shoot here in affiliateland. It's a bit more difficult to define the bad guys. The GPWA can't do that alone nor should they have to.

Public v Private

In an ideal world we could do everything in public. That's simply not going to happen. To many eyes and fear. On a side note, some affiliates won't share much, including myself, because there are too many lurkers (that are competitors) that absorb info and give nothing back.

There's a private forum for GPWA policy discussion. I feel you may find more open discussion there and I have brought up sponsorship myself. Keep in mind if we are able to vote on these things you must be a private member. Membership votes cannot be public for obvious reasons. By all means have a public thread but I feel you must have a private one too because private members can make the changes.

Do not think things will change in this industry as you may get disappointed.

I would have to agree with GCG quote here. I'll just add we should never give up trying.

[Triple7]

1. LAWFUL BUSINESS CONDUCT AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
   
   Sponsor agrees that both Sponsor and the companies Sponsor represents (collectively “Sponsor Companies”) will abide by all laws, regulations, and applicable license requirements of the jurisdictions within which they operate. If licenses are required to conduct the business of the Sponsor Companies within said jurisdictions, then the Sponsor agrees to provide evidence of said licenses upon request.
   
2. RESPONSIBLE PROMOTION AND PROCEDURES
   
   Sponsor Companies will be truthful in all promotions and publish only accurate information about their operations. Any rules and registration procedures affecting affiliates or the public will be made publicly available by the Sponsor Companies. Sponsor Companies will not use unethical methods of promotion either directly or indirectly through others.
   
3. AFFILIATE EARNINGS, BONUSES, WINNINGS, AND ACCOUNT BALANCES
   
   Sponsor will pay affiliates in a timely manner and in accordance with Sponsor’s published terms and conditions and will honor all of Sponsor’s written agreements with affiliates. Sponsor Companies will credit the accounts of players with bonuses and winnings in accordance with published rules and procedures and will promptly pay players any balance in their account upon their request.
   
   Source: GPWA code of conduct

[MichaelCorfman]

This thread discusses a number of different topics.

In terms of the hacker, Anthony was given direct responsibility for following up with programs where there were issues, and for letting me know if any of the programs were being uncooperative in a fashion that warranted termination of their GPWA sponsorship. I have asked him to both post an update and to engage more actively in the forums regarding what is happening on that front. He made the following post a few minutes ago:

Michael has asked me to gather the various tracking links and to contact the sponsor programs and make recommendations if any should be removed for not cooperating. I have submitted several affiliate accounts to programs and have had those accounts closed. Currently the hacker(s) have dozens of accounts for each brand and the task of identifying and closing is a time consuming process that is difficult to show progress when several new accounts appear after one is terminated or link redirected. I am in the process of putting together a list of affiliate accounts that have been closed. To show the accounts that have been affected through my efforts. There has been cooperation from the sponsor programs, but it does not stop the cycle.

Once I finish this next round I will update each account and program interaction. I should have outlined everything here, as it was going on instead of waiting till there was a noticeable change to the sites. Will have more soon.

With respect to the discussion in this thread on Stan James, a couple of points. First of all, Shay, thank you for pointing out the content on the page www.igamingaffiliateprograms.com/affiliate-program/stan-james-affiliates/.

I have now rewritten the introductory text on that page to conclude with the following sentence: "Many affiliates consider the program to be rogue due to the aggressive termination of affiliate relationships deemed unprofitable."

Also, I would like to be clear that we did not simply let the Stan James sponsorship agreement expire. We made an active decision to terminate the relationship and sent a unilateral notice of GPWA sponsorship termination to them. Certainly I agree the process took too long. From a legal perspective Stan James adopted the position that they were not violating the code of conduct, and their arguments were ones I thought would prevail in a court of law, even though they certainly would not prevail in the eyes of affiliates. I was caught in a situation where I had to agree with Stan James that I would be violating the GPWA's contract with them if I claimed breach of contract on their part as the justification for termination, so a more protracted termination process was required. Some of these details have been explained in other threads.

Michael

[thebookiesoffers]

This thread discusses a number of different topics.

In terms of the hacker, Anthony was given direct responsibility for following up with programs where there were issues, and for letting me know if any of the programs were being uncooperative in a fashion that warranted termination of their GPWA sponsorship. I have asked him to both post an update and to engage more actively in the forums regarding what is happening on that front. He made the following post a few minutes ago:



With respect to the discussion in this thread on Stan James, a couple of points. First of all, Shay, thank you for pointing out the content on the page www.igamingaffiliateprograms.com/affiliate-program/stan-james-affiliates/.

I have now rewritten the introductory text on that page to conclude with the following sentence: "Many affiliates consider the program to be rogue due to the aggressive termination of affiliate relationships deemed unprofitable."

Also, I would like to be clear that we did not simply let the Stan James sponsorship agreement expire. We made an active decision to terminate the relationship and sent a unilateral notice of GPWA sponsorship termination to them. Certainly I agree the process took too long. From a legal perspective Stan James adopted the position that they were not violating the code of conduct, and their arguments were ones I thought would prevail in a court of law, even though they certainly would not prevail in the eyes of affiliates. I was caught in a situation where I had to agree with Stan James that I would be violating the GPWA's contract with them if I claimed breach of contract on their part as the justification for termination, so a more protracted termination process was required. Some of these details have been explained in other threads.

Michael

why did you ignore my PM's then and never share 1 bit of info I asked for about my own Stan James account?

[MichaelCorfman]

why did you ignore my PM's then and never share 1 bit of info I asked for about my own Stan James account?

I provided you the complete details Stan James provided to us showing your affiliate earnings for the seventeen month period (January 2013 forward up to and including the time your account was closed in May 2014). That information was provided to you on 9 May 2014, the same day we received it from Stan James.

The information shared with you showed that over that time period the account was a money losing account for them, even without factoring in the affiliate payments they made to you, since they did not carry over negative earnings, and so there were positive months where you earned affiliate revenue even though overall the account was negative.

As I told you before, Stan James took the position that you referred winning players, and so a continued business relationship made no business sense to them. In previous posts I agreed with you that I thought this was mostly silly, and certainly shortsighted thinking on their part. But they were quite clear that was the reason they took the decision they did, and they were also quite clear that the decision was based on what they viewed as a sound business principles of terminating relationships with business partners that were not currently generating revenue for them.

On this basis we decided they should not be a GPWA sponsor. However, I did not feel the facts supported a proof of unethical behavior required for a finding that the code of conduct was actually violated.

Michael

[thebookiesoffers]

I provided you the complete details Stan James provided to us showing your affiliate earnings for the seventeen month period (January 2013 forward up to and including the time your account was closed in May 2014). That information was provided to you on 9 May 2014, the same day we received it from Stan James.

The information shared with you showed that over that time period the account was a money losing account for them, even without factoring in the affiliate payments they made to you, since they did not carry over negative earnings, and so there were positive months where you earned affiliate revenue even though overall the account was negative.

As I told you before, Stan James took the position that you referred winning players, and so a continued business relationship made no business sense to them. In previous posts I agreed with you that I thought this was mostly silly, and certainly shortsighted thinking on their part. But they were quite clear that was the reason they took the decision they did, and they were also quite clear that the decision was based on what they viewed as a sound business principles of terminating relationships with business partners that were not currently generating revenue for them.

On this basis we decided they should not be a GPWA sponsor. However, I did not feel the facts supported a proof of unethical behavior required for a finding that the code of conduct was actually violated.

Michael

as I said to you after that, I opened the account around 2008, then got blanked

no point going through it again though really but to pretend GPWA handled it in any other way than a farce and/or joke is laughable. stealing players is unethical