Pokerstars Question

[CK]

Originally Posted by Kaus
This issue is no different than the one before except now the people who were badly affected by it want to move on and they also have every right to do so.

What issue? What are you talking about?

Exactly my point that you didnt bother to acknowledge the previous thread or your comments

You are clearly taking things out of context here and I am not going to debate that nor do I really care to right now. Think what you want, believe what you want but those who went through the BS from that room have a better understanding of what happened than you do whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I am off to bed now..for sure this time and I hope you all have a great night. You can reply if you like but I wont be responding..I think I may just sleep most of the day

[321]

What BS? What context? Whatever secret your are not talking about, I have no clue how it relates to this thread. In the future you might try to remember the rest of us are not inside your brain, and we can't read your mind.

I took nothing out of context. You pretended I said something contradictory when I sure didn't.

All this drama is awfully odd when talking about something that should be a no brainer positive for all affiliates, a cardroom saying it will be enforcing its terms equally for everyone.

Perhaps you think those terms are unfair, but I sure have not talked about that and it was never the subject of this thread. Randy wanted to know what the terms were, and MJ wanted to know that the terms were being applied in a way fair to everyone. How this is controversial is a mystery. If you don't like the terms, that could be subject for another thread.

[Ozpoker]

Well I'm gunna weigh back in - having ignored all the crap on the last two pages -

If Stars did not override cookies with marketing codes none of this thread would be relevant.

And Kaus' - your claims that Stars can't be expected to police every domain is only ridiculous - every week since the last blow up about this - I have found an offending domain in the top 10 googleSERP's - I may be a genius but it wouldn't take one to police the top 10 SERP's.

Personally could care less if Stars offer MGR to a select few or not - as long as the intial refferers get their CPA is all I care about.

Most worthwhile MGR players at any site get poached off to "other" accounts not long after they appear on ours anyway. 2-3 months worth of turnover and they dissapear.

You might as well get a decent CPA upfront and forget about it.

If the events of the last week have taught anything - it must be that this whole industry is built on matchsticks. At the heart of it there is no transperancy, there is little honour and there sure as sh*t is very little credibility or "one rule for all".

As I said once before here - If you play in this industry and it means anything to your livlihood you need to know you are swimming with the sharks - and I for one respect a shark only because of the harm it can do me if I leave myself vulnerable.

[CK]

And Kaus' - your claims that Stars can't be expected to police every domain is only ridiculous - every week since the last blow up about this - I have found an offending domain in the top 10 googleSERP's - I may be a genius but it wouldn't take one to police the top 10 SERP's.

I never said that.

[Ozpoker]

Ahhh - sorry - Kaus I have mistakenly targetted you - my bad, it was OPB - apologies

.... You can't expect an overworked affiliate program to catch every domain out of the hundreds that were used,....

[Trikkur]

I will admit I don't normally agree with 321, but in this instance I'm firmly with him. This is the internet, your business isn't kept private. Because ChardsChat is breaking the rules, it's directly costing me money because his site shouldn't rank as high as it does. There is no reason to keep it quiet, any person can google and find it. This isn't a payout issue with PokerStars that we are debating, those are understandably private. Something that 100% contradicts PokerStars TOS should be pointed out and asked why it's allowed for big affiliates but not others.

[Trikkur]

Sorry for the double post, but I just realized both the links on the front page of this thread don't redirect anymore.

[Holis]

Last I checked, anyone and everyone here has the right to share an opinion.

MJ, Regarding your clear bias with Pokerstars..........If you don't promote the Pokerstars affiliate program, what makes you think you have a right to judge? Many affiliates here work successfully with Pokerstars and they have absolutely 0 complains, so by mindlessly commenting on things that you are not involved in, you are not postively contributing to this community.

[Spry]

Here's the issue peeled down to it's bottom layer.

Selective enforcement.

We watched the domain name ban be selectively enforced in the past. Some affiliates had the new rules applied to them, and some did not. Some of those that did not have the rule applied to them happened to be some of the largest affiliates in the world.

That is the issue.

We understand the rule, just have witnessed selective enforcement in the past. Anyone see this changing this time around?

[Haynesey]

Here's the issue peeled down to it's bottom layer.

Selective enforcement.

We watched the domain name ban be selectively enforced in the past. Some affiliates had the new rules applied to them, and some did not. Some of those that did not have the rule applied to them happened to be some of the largest affiliates in the world.

That is the issue.

We understand the rule, just have witnessed selective enforcement in the past. Anyone see this changing this time around?

Totally agree with you here.

"That is obviously not allowed. We will withhold payments for any such affiliates until they take the sites down. Most affiliates have been very helpful and complied immediately."

So you withheld the payments of 2 or 3 of your largest affiliates for the best part of a year?

I dont think so.