MPC

This was a response I was going to make in this thread, but by the time I submitted, the thread got locked. So I figure my efforts were not to go to waste, thus a new Blog post emerges!

Regarding this particular topic, it's really simple: First, let's not target PokerStars specifically. What we're talking about is enforcement of a clause in a TOS, which is something every poker rooms have. The problem described with this particular PokerStars case (having to do with "marketing codes" in the domain name) could occur against a different TOS clause in a different room, but the fundamental issue is the same. So let's look at the roles:

Poker rooms define the TOS, thus they are responsible to ensure the TOS is respected.

Affiliates have one responsibility and one only - to respect the TOS they agreed too. That is the key point want to make. It is an error to assume that the TOS you agreed to is the same for everyone. The TOS does not state "You and everyone else who deals with us will agree to the following". It only says "YOU will agree with the following". Most affiliates operate under the standard TOS, but that doesn't mean that poker rooms can't grant different conditions to another affiliate. Unfair? Yes. Illegal? Nope. I'm not saying this is the case here with PokerStars because I don't know. It may or may not be. My point is that terms can be negotiated and in some cases they are.

Is the enforcement of TOS the responsibility of any affiliate? Absolutely not. I don't have the time to police websites. If I happen to come accross a situation, I will report it if it's out of line. In fact I did recently where I saw a site that was an exact mirror of the poker rooms site. Plus they had a "login to your account" form which was a huge security risk so I did report the situation for the sake of protecting unsuspecting players. The site was taken down very quickly.

How poker rooms handle a "reported" situation is ultimately their own business. If poker rooms chooses to operate in a manner which their own rules are applicable to some, but not others, they have the right to this. They assume the risks that go with it.

As an affiliate, if I am opposed to the practices of some poker rooms because the selective enforcement affects me in a negative way, I have few options:

I can try to convince the poker rooms to change its practices by explaining why it's not a good thing. That never works

I can try the same tactic with a group of affiliates to increase the pressure and use the power of a collective voice. That can work, but rarely does. Take the 60 day limit clause at FT for example. Remember how everyone reacted strongly, trying to make that change. Didn't happen. But if you think every affiliate is under the 60 day clause, you're likley mistaken. If FT agrees to make a different deal with someone, its their right to do so. I'm not saying it's right. But it's our reality. When you can't change the behavior, you either accept who you're dealing with or you go somewhere else, just like anything else in life. This applies to poker rooms, and it's not like there's no options out there.

p.s. Am I over doing it with the SEO thing?