Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 111
  1. #21
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bb1web View Post
    IF the aff knows the deal .. then I fail to see any wrong doing of any kind.

    .....
    What up Steve? Hope things are well with you. This is the main issue here. I may not agree with the way referback does their tracking, but I don't need to because I don't work them. I'm know there are probably benefits for affiliates with this way of doing tracking, its just not the right model for my business which is why I choose not to work with them.

    But affiliates know this going in. As far as rome is concerned, they are not being forthcoming with this for affiliates, but instead are doing a "oh, by the way this is the way we decided to do our tracking". It just doesn't fly and is no way to run any kind of business.

  2. #22
    smv80 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 23 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slotplayer View Post
    what is exactly preventing affiliates from asking these questions before promoting a program?

    I see too many affiliates refusing to take responsibility for lack of throughness.
    That is what terms and conditions are for right. I started promoting Rome on some sites as soon as they came online. They did not have 2 casinos and had no mention of 2 casinos. I actually had to ask Gabriel for a tracking link when Diceland was released because they did not even have the affiliate links working yet for Diceland casino. That would have been a great time to tell me about any changes in terms. But there never was any change in their terms as you can see by Gabriels admission in my last post.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to smv80 For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (29 August 2009)

  4. #23
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    27,842
    Thanks
    2,182
    Thanked 7,880 Times in 4,968 Posts

    Default

    is something that I'll buy along with that bridge.
    Great Mojo, how about the bridge to the keys? I can let you have a very good price per mile.

    what is exactly preventing affiliates from asking these questions before promoting a program?
    I see too many affiliates refusing to take responsibility for lack of throughness.
    That is a bit unfair.

    First of all, Rome should have some defined terms on this.

    As affiliates, we expect to be paid for players we send that sign up using our links, we don't expect them to be taken away and given to a different affiliate.

    Yes Referback does this, and has clearly defined terms for this, although this is something most affiliates do not understand until after a discussion comes up about it in places like the GIA, GPWA etc...

    Situations like this are certainly making more affiliates aware, and may increase their more thorough investigation of terms.

    Rick
    Universal4
    Gambling World Online Roulette Online Blackjack Live Online Games Sports Betting Horse Racing
    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Hosting and Domain Names
    Gambling Industry Association
    GPWA Moderation by Me and My Big Bad Security Self
    If an affiliate program is not small affiliate friendly (especially small US Affiliate), then they are NOT Affiliate Friendly!

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    mojo (28 August 2009), offyourface (30 August 2009)

  6. #24
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman View Post
    If those are the rules then that seems completely fair
    Your right it would be fair if those were infact the rules and I knowingly still promoted the program under those rules. But you can't decide to all of the sudden run your affiliate program a certain way, and then keep affiliates in the dark with the way things are done. It's unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman View Post
    If those are the rules then that seems completely fair

    However, I can certainly say that if I was the second affiliate, I would not be happy about the situation at all. But I would probably be accepting of the situation if I were able to personally confirm, or have some trusted third party personally confirm, that was what actually happened and that there really was another bona-fide affiliate receiving the affiliate earnings.

    Michael
    This isn't even an issue with me. I could care less whether the other affiliate getting credit is confirmed or not since our issue is that the player never should have been moved in the first place.

  7. #25
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    This is some scary stuff. Imagine programs removing players randomly and without any proof of their claims whatsoever, and whenever they want.

    smv and offyourface, since you are both posting, do you mind if I ask if you two are partners?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (30 August 2009)

  9. #26
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    Its not that I dont take responsibility. I do ask and you wouldnt believe how many affiliate managers respond with " Um what. I don't follow. What do you mean"

    I ask how they track. I ask if bonus codes override cookies - the people running the show should be able to answer those questions without saying "Ill have to get back to you"
    Ditto, and heaven forbid some of these programs actually used their head a little and put this information on the affiliate site so we don't have to probe for it.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (29 August 2009)

  11. #27
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    This is some scary stuff. Imagine programs removing players randomly and without any proof of their claims whatsoever, and whenever they want.

    smv and offyourface, since you are both posting, do you mind if I ask if you two are partners?
    Yea, he is my partner Mojo. I also got stuck with him as my brother too.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (29 August 2009)

  13. #28
    slotplayer is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 323 Times in 252 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    Its not that I dont take responsibility. I do ask and you wouldnt believe how many affiliate managers respond with " Um what. I don't follow. What do you mean"

    I ask how they track. I ask if bonus codes override cookies - the people running the show should be able to answer those questions without saying "Ill have to get back to you"
    that's precisely part of my criteria for deciding to promote a program or not. Ask a bunch of questions and gage the response. If they say they have to ask and will get back to you and they don't or provide some spin, well isn't that the first clue?


    Ditto, and heaven forbid some of these programs actually used their head a little and put this information on the affiliate site so we don't have to probe for it.
    Again, isn't lack of information on the site or a poorly done job a clue?

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

    offyourface (30 August 2009), sipka (29 August 2009)

  15. #29
    bb1web's Avatar
    bb1web is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2003
    Posts
    1,481
    Thanks
    592
    Thanked 412 Times in 252 Posts

    Default

    to remove a player because they ASSUME they are playing due to their cross promotion
    Well that shouldn't ever be a consideration ... whether the player was aqquired via a cross-promotion or driving over to their house and physically forcing them to sign up .. the means by which they came to the casino shouldn't be of question.

    IF their system is fluently consistent (I say this caveat for obvious reasons pointed out in coming paragraph) then it shouldn't matter how the player came to be playing in the 2nd casino (or any casinos after the first has been signed up) ... because the deal is that the player once signed at a property .. is that affs player at ALL the properties ... end discussion.

    ..............................


    Its really all good up to this point but then the aff program really goes sideways by saying [QUOTE] We've been doing it like this since we opened Diceland a few months ago [QUOTE] What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? What a lame answer.

    Let me tell you folks anytime you're in this type of situation and instead of being told to go check the T&Cs on their website .. .if you are told
    [QUOTE] We've been doing it like this since we [QUOTE]

    Something is amiss!

    They go to contradict themselves in several ways so its not really worth picking apart as the clearly are suspect ... but here's an example

    We've been doing it manually after several affiliates complained, were upset, and threatened, like you are now, to make a big deal out of it. We didn't change our terms though.
    Doing it manually (anybody see some red flags there?) ... after several affs complained (as many as several eh?)

    and what the H is meant by "we didn't change our terms though"?

    That statement in itself clearly defines they did one thing while it said the other in their terms ...

    So I say the better question is who doesn't see something wrong with this picture?

    .....

    btw: Jim is right. Everything we needed to know ... to know enough to stay away from these jokers ... is now in front of us. So if we didn't have enough data available to make an educated guess about the matter before ... I think we do now.

    So its up to the individual aff whether they want to work with a program that ... has this to show for themselves.
    Almost Here! How would you like to be able to get not just one sign up from your player, or even a couple, but every single casino they join from here on? I've a plan that can make that happen and it will likely also tell you every time the player is active within the casino.

    Gambling Affiliate Place
    Slot Machine Games
    Casinos Accepting USA Players
    Real Time Gaming Slots
    slots tip
    avoid non paying casinos

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bb1web For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (30 August 2009)

  17. #30
    Magenti is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2009
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    Besides the cookie, my first thought is to question if they really did give it to 'another affiliate'.

    Look at the stuff that Rome has been doing! Not to mention the topgame software MESS with unwinable jackpots.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/blunders/topgame.php

    How do we know this money didn't go straight to Rome! This kind of affiliate program messing around has gotten WAY to out of hand!!
    I am quoting from page 1 on page 3 I know. But that has got to be the dumbest manager I have seen in my life. He not only speaks like a retard, he spams the chat and cannot write a complete sentance.

    Obviously this was some idiot paid comission for bringing in deposits and he got excited about it. They called me up on the phone once for a site I had and offered a pretty good deal. But seriously, after reading this I am never promoting them aside from a flatfee.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Magenti For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (30 August 2009)

  19. #31
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    2,092
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 172 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    This situation is really bad. I would hate to be the affiliate who has $16,000 deducted from my account for this.

    What I learned from this:
    (1) communication: All the affiliates should have been explicitly told about the cross promoting and affiliate tagging before they did it. That way affiliates would have had the option of promoting the new property based on the TOS.

    (2) Tagging the affiliate: It should not have to be done manually. Manually is too vague. The parachute opens or it doesn't. There is no middle ground here. The affiliate should not have been tagged for that other affiliates player. For all practical purposes the first affiliate could have been the in-house marketing team.

    For me the question is not whether or not the first affiliate gets the revenue, it's how it was implemented that caused the problem. Communication before hand with proper technical support would have made this a non-issue.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LiveCasinoPartners For This Useful Post:

    EricEricEric (1 September 2009), giggles7p (30 August 2009), offyourface (30 August 2009)

  21. #32
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WagerX View Post
    This situation is really bad. I would hate to be the affiliate who has $16,000 deducted from my account for this.

    What I learned from this:
    (1) communication: All the affiliates should have been explicitly told about the cross promoting and affiliate tagging before they did it. That way affiliates would have had the option of promoting the new property based on the TOS.

    (2) Tagging the affiliate: It should not have to be done manually. Manually is too vague. The parachute opens or it doesn't. There is no middle ground here. The affiliate should not have been tagged for that other affiliates player. For all practical purposes the first affiliate could have been the in-house marketing team.

    For me the question is not whether or not the first affiliate gets the revenue, it's how it was implemented that caused the problem. Communication before hand with proper technical support would have made this a non-issue.
    Yea any sort of attempt to let affiliates in on how they are doing things and I have no gripe here. It would still suck, but if I signed up for this sort of tracking then it comes with the territory. But to keep us in the dark, then spring this on us after the fact doesn't work at all.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (30 August 2009)

  23. #33
    Spearmaster is offline In Memoriam, 1964-2010
    Join Date
    November 2002
    Posts
    1,993
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 141 Times in 70 Posts

    Default

    What a load of malarkey!

    If I buy Eveready Heavy Duty batteries at Walmart, then decide to upgrade and choose to buy my Energizers at Target, should I pay Walmart instead of Target?

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Spearmaster For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (31 August 2009), offyourface (31 August 2009), sipka (31 August 2009)

  25. #34
    GabrielRome is offline New Member
    Join Date
    August 2008
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Our response

    First, I must say that this situation has been extremely taxing on us. It is in no way easy for us to tell an affiliate of ours that a mistake has been made and he will be making less money. That being said, we believe our original conclusion was correct, and I will try to explain why.

    This player was referred to us by the original affiliate. She would not be playing with us at all if it was not for that affiliate. At some point, last month, after playing with Rome for a very long time, we felt it would improve her player value to introduce her to Diceland. The player was incentivized by a sales rep to play at Diceland. We don't know if the player then found your link to Diceland, or if she had checked out Diceland sometime before that, but I don't think it makes a difference. The player was specifically told there was a bonus waiting for her in her Diceland account, and this was the last chat she had at Rome before playing at Diceland. If we were not to credit the original affiliate with this player, I believe would be doing her an extreme injustice.

    That being said, we are more than happy to have an impartial arbitrator, Michael Corfman; being in my personal opinion one of the most trustworthy individuals in this industry, review the chat logs for himself, and confirm that the situation is as I described it to be.

    I would also like to clarify a couple misunderstandings here. First of all, the original affiliate is by no means a "big affiliate". It is not relevant to the disagreement, however, I want it to be known that this is not a case of big vs. little. I would also like to clarify the issue of tracking. This is not a tracking issue. The tracking works so that the last affiliate to refer the player did indeed "sell" the player to us. This is why the player did appear under your account. However, this is an issue of cross-marketing, which I believe trumps tracking.

    I will certainly admit that this should be reflected in our terms, and we are willing to rectify this and make the relevant changes. This is usually how terms are conceived though, through a dispute or disagreement.

    In light of this issue, before adding this clause to our T&C, I would very much like to hear the opinions of people on this forum in regards to this matter. I personally believe that if we cross market to a player, that should trump basic tracking, and the original affiliate should receive credit, but I would like to hear opposing arguments though, and if you can convince me, or reach a consensus, I am willing to change the policy. Our new affiliate program software is going to be launched in a few weeks, and we will be able to easily have it reflect any new policy.

    Respectfully,
    Gabriel

  26. #35
    sparky1 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Well for starters you state that you advise this player she had a bonus in her Diceland acct so this must mean she had signed up under the second affiliate but had failed to deposit. Your position was to do what you could to convert this player to play at Diceland.

    So obviously the second player directed this player to Diceland even if you cross promoted at another time. The second affiliate should by no means suffer for this. It i just wrong in my opinion.

    That being said and the fact you had not been clear in your terms I think it is only fair you compensate the second affiliate accordingly. At the very least revenue made via play at Diceland should be evenly split AS you failed to include this in your terms and you cannot expect someone to read something into terms that is not clearly defined.

    If you can't agree to that then the second affiliate should be made a settlement offer at least equal to half of the $16K that they have lost let alone future revenue lost.

    I'm sorry if you disagree but patience for errors is not something I am tolerable of, not under these circumstances. You have a responsibility to ensure your terms cover off everything properly and if you fail to do so then the onus is on you to cover all related costs, weather assumed or unassumed!

    In my opinion if you fail to do either of the above you will have lost all and any credibility as a viable affiliate program worthy of our time as hard working affiliates.

    Really it is that simple to me. Having Micheal review chat is a positive and I trust his opinion without question but in the end the above still applies IMO and this affiliate must be properly compensated.

    Hopefully you'll do just that and begin the process to gaining affiliates trust again as I feel that failing to do that you will not gain trust but will further lose any that is left standing at this point.
    Last edited by sparky1; 31 August 2009 at 5:44 pm.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sparky1 For This Useful Post:

    mojo (31 August 2009), offyourface (31 August 2009)

  28. #36
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GabrielRome View Post
    First, I must say that this situation has been extremely taxing on us. It is in no way easy for us to tell an affiliate of ours that a mistake has been made and he will be making less money. That being said, we believe our original conclusion was correct, and I will try to explain why.

    This player was referred to us by the original affiliate. She would not be playing with us at all if it was not for that affiliate. At some point, last month, after playing with Rome for a very long time, we felt it would improve her player value to introduce her to Diceland. The player was incentivized by a sales rep to play at Diceland. We don't know if the player then found your link to Diceland, or if she had checked out Diceland sometime before that, but I don't think it makes a difference. The player was specifically told there was a bonus waiting for her in her Diceland account, and this was the last chat she had at Rome before playing at Diceland. If we were not to credit the original affiliate with this player, I believe would be doing her an extreme injustice.
    No, the extreme justice is that we promoted your brands in good faith based on the information given to us on your website, and your coming in after the fact saying your policy is different than what is illustrated on your website. All the while you think we are out of line because we are not mind readers and promoted Diceland in good faith and expect to be paid accordingly on referrals we send.

    Quote Originally Posted by GabrielRome View Post

    I would also like to clarify a couple misunderstandings here. First of all, the original affiliate is by no means a "big affiliate". It is not relevant to the disagreement, however, I want it to be known that this is not a case of big vs. little. I would also like to clarify the issue of tracking. This is not a tracking issue. The tracking works so that the last affiliate to refer the player did indeed "sell" the player to us. This is why the player did appear under your account. However, this is an issue of cross-marketing, which I believe trumps tracking.
    What cross marketing? The way I see it is you got one of my signups to convert by offering her a bonus, its as simple as that. I think the more likely scenario here is that we generated enough interest to get this player to signup an account at Diceland. Then you noticed she was a baller since you have her history for Rome and decided to get things rolling quickly by getting her on live chat and offering her a bonus. I know the way topgame works, the minute we open up the software you guys start hounding the player. I bet this is exactly what happened, and not that it matters because this is so wrong in many different ways but I would like to know the date she opened the account, and the date you had that chat with her about the bonus.

    Quote Originally Posted by GabrielRome View Post
    I will certainly admit that this should be reflected in our terms, and we are willing to rectify this and make the relevant changes. This is usually how terms are conceived though, through a dispute or disagreement.
    Not really Gabriel, most reputable programs do not run their business half ass and are smart enough to put the basic information about how commissions are calculated on their website. It's fundamentally how we all make our money and for you guys to be so cavalier about not updating your website just blows my mind. Your asking affiliates to accept invisible terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by GabrielRome View Post

    In light of this issue, before adding this clause to our T&C, I would very much like to hear the opinions of people on this forum in regards to this matter. I personally believe that if we cross market to a player, that should trump basic tracking, and the original affiliate should receive credit, but I would like to hear opposing arguments though, and if you can convince me, or reach a consensus, I am willing to change the policy. Our new affiliate program software is going to be launched in a few weeks, and we will be able to easily have it reflect any new policy.

    Respectfully,
    Gabriel
    What policy Gabriel, you guys are pulling this policy out of your ass. The time to ask for opinions would have been when you implemented this policy and you know this. You guys had months to update your website with this new tracking system and failed to do so, so I can only conclude that you deliberately kept this information from affiliates because your moving around players as you like. I mean we are talking 20 minutes tops to update your website to reflect such a policy. Are you guys really that busy?

    Conclusion: I can't believe this injustice and as you can see most every other affiliate who chimed in here has the same sentiments as I do. I went out of my way to put you guys on the map when you first started out and this is how you repay me? I stuck my neck out for you with both of my brothers and you have made me look like a real asshole.

    You guys leaving this tracking out of your terms and asking affiliates to accept this is beyond rogue. You keep harping on cross promotion and that doesn't even come into play here because we were pissing in the wind from the getgo with your invisible tracking policy. Meaning you were going to pay the first affiliate regardless of wheter you say you cross promoted them or not, and this is what is not right. How can you possibly think this is ok to do? We got this player to signup and expect to be paid accordingly. What you do to get MY PLAYER to convert has nothing to do with any other affiliate.

    I just can't believe what I am reading here.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (31 August 2009)

  30. #37
    offyourface is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    103
    Thanked 127 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by casinobonusrus View Post
    Well for starters you state that you advise this player she had a bonus in her Diceland acct so this must mean she had signed up under the second affiliate but had failed to deposit. Your position was to do what you could to convert this player to play at Diceland.
    That's what I thought their job was too. They are really all over the place on this one.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to offyourface For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (31 August 2009)

  32. #38
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    This player was referred to us by the original affiliate. She would not be playing with us at all if it was not for that affiliate.
    You don't know that.

    At some point, last month, after playing with Rome for a very long time, we felt it would improve her player value to introduce her to Diceland. The player was incentivized by a sales rep to play at Diceland. We don't know if the player then found your link to Diceland, or if she had checked out Diceland sometime before that, but I don't think it makes a difference. The player was specifically told there was a bonus waiting for her in her Diceland account, and this was the last chat she had at Rome before playing at Diceland.
    Yes, it makes a difference. You are just winging it here Gabrial. You cannot say what was in the mind of the player when they clicked when and what they did. What you can say for certain is that your cross promotion was seriously flawed. If it was done properly the player would have automatically gone to affiliate 1 under your scenerio. You don't know which affiliate did what and you cannot take the player from affiliate 2 at the 11th hour upon assumption. How did you discover the error btw?

    If we were not to credit the original affiliate with this player, I believe would be doing her an extreme injustice.
    If you feel it would be an injustice you merely need to compensate both affiliates. If you do not, you will be doing an extreme injustice to either one or the other affiliate. Only you can correct this by making it right with BOTH affiliates.
    Last edited by mojo; 31 August 2009 at 7:14 pm. Reason: grammer

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    Daera (31 August 2009), giggles7p (31 August 2009), offyourface (31 August 2009)

  34. #39
    smv80 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 23 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Gabriel also said that he does not know if the player already had an account or what, when the cross promotion got placed. How do you put money in a players account if they did not already have one. This means that they must have signed up with me and already had an account. This also means that your cross promotion team came in after the fact. How is this not important? It answers the question of why the player signed up at your casino in the first place and why your sitting with $50,000 in your casino account, and that is by following my advice, my work, and my website. It tells you clear as day that I sold her on the player. It is your job to make sure any player deposits whether you are cross promoting or not.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to smv80 For This Useful Post:

    giggles7p (31 August 2009)

  36. #40
    Chalkie's Avatar
    Chalkie is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    December 2008
    Location
    West Bromwich UK
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    683
    Thanked 580 Times in 393 Posts

    Default

    Jeeeeezus, what a mess.

    This is a really awkward situation.

    But imo in cases like this the operator should make both parties happy.

    Pay both because there will never be a happy medium. Maybe even enter discussions with the both parties and try to come to an agreement!

    There are good points for both sides of the arguament really (affiliate wise that is) and to be fair the operator should appease both if no agreement can be made.

    Only way to level this thread out is for the other affiliate to be involved maybe!

    I have to be honest, i would feel a little depressed if i was the operator in this situation, because they have found themselves in a really awkward position! That is of course if there is a third party.
    Paul

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]


    GAU - Gambling Afilliates Union


    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

    Winston Churchill

    Please sign this petition if you live in the UK or are an ex-pat Do not let any more children die for no reason

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Chalkie For This Useful Post:

    offyourface (31 August 2009)

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •