Affiliate Union

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Staff member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
I'm still playing catch up with what is going on in the industry at this current moment in time. I was perusing the GPWA Board this morning when I came across a link to a new Affiliate Community in the making

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


The Affiliate Union (AU) is bound by its belief that gambling affiliates have rights to fair treatment, contractual terms void of deceit and honest ethics by gambling affiliate programs. To maintain its autonomous core values and full transparency the gambling Affiliate Union is fully self-funded.

The AU founding members donate their time freely void of compensation, monetary reward or gratuity.The founders are volunteers and servants to the Affiliate Union.The AU does not accept sponsorship nor does it display any form of advertising. Its objectives ensure the voices of gambling affiliates will be heard and less than honourable treatment abolished.

So since the spectacular self destruction of CAP earlier this year we are now seeing another Affiliate Community/Portal rise from the ashes of CAP.

I can completely understand why the people behind this site want to launch it. I am just worried that the affiliate community will become even more fragmented as a result.
 
I'm still playing catch up with what is going on in the industry at this current moment in time. I was perusing the GPWA Board this morning when I came across a link to a new Affiliate Community in the making

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.




So since the spectacular self destruction of CAP earlier this year we are now seeing another Affiliate Community/Portal rise from the ashes of CAP.

I can completely understand why the people behind this site want to launch it. I am just worried that the affiliate community will become even more fragmented as a result.

So who's behind this new place Webzcas if you know and don't mind saying that is?
____
____
 
As a Nobody in the grand scheme of things, here's my 2 cents...which doesn't mean much...and all I really have to go on is that GPWA thread...

While I have some respect for certain of the "founding members", some of them I most certainly do not. Apparently "ethics" is a term that is subjective, and will only apply to how affiliates are treated, and not how they act.
I applaud the idea of not being beholden to sponsorships and the like, but I wonder how long that can last, knowing the history of past and present affy organizations.
I wish them well, but I see no advantage for the small, ethical, non-super affiliate to join. Mama don't shmooze.
At best, I will take a "wait and see" posture.
 
Last edited:
There are so many changes going on right now and things subject to change.
But I'll try to come back with more info.

I can confirm I am a founding member along with Greek and Chalkie and that it is not a forum. AussieDave is the owner and will be coming out with announcements.

As I said at GPWA, affiliates need to be wary. We have no choice and we have learned the hard way that to survive in this business we have to be cautious, if not downright distrustful. I wouldn't expect affiliates to be any other way regarding the AU.
 
There are so many changes going on right now and things subject to change.
But I'll try to come back with more info.

I can confirm I am a founding member along with Greek and Chalkie and that it is not a forum. AussieDave is the owner and will be coming out with announcements.

As I said at GPWA, affiliates need to be wary. We have no choice and we have learned the hard way that to survive in this business we have to be cautious, if not downright distrustful. I wouldn't expect affiliates to be any other way regarding the AU.

This is an interesting concept. I just checked out the site which appears to be under construction.

Are you able to give us more info mojo? It the simple idea to build numbers large enough to throw weight around in disputes? Cause I'd be down with that.
 
I would like to chip in now and allow you all the knowledge that i am 1 of the founders, none of us have a reason to hide our involvement as we will all be there on display when the doors are open.

I for one hope that it does not fragment the industry any further and can categorically state that we are not looking to replace CAP or sneak in to the void left since its demise.

Look guys, not taking direct sponsorship for the organisation is completely different to whatever any affiliate does in their own business.

OK, playing with the devil will not be a good idea for any founder, however, in todays climate, if any affiliate was to omitt every program that had some sort of issue in lets say the previous 12 months, then we would all be carrying very few banners etc.

Small affiliate, large affiliate, super affiliate, we are all affiliates and suffer to some degree with bad apples.

The AU will not be asking for people to drop out of supporting here, the GPWA, APCW or anywhere else, especially as all these organisations have much to offer to the affiliate community.

The AU will maybe work with all the other organisations at times and autonomously at other times.

To succeed the AU will need the support of the affiliate community and will need to come up with methods not so far employed by any organisation yet! The AU will need to show results, and i can assure you that all founders are 100% committed to trying to create a much more level playing field for all.

What i will say is that every single 1 of the founders is so because they want to help sort out some if not all of the problems we all see on a daily basis.

In my mind, the more people fighting the issues the better and if 1 organisation comes up with a system of winning the war against the crooks then that can only be good.

Do i ask for support? NO

Do i want support? YES

Will we succeed without support? NO

Will we succeed with support? MAYBE

So what have we to lose offering support to the AU?

We the founders of the AU are not intending on using the AU as a tool for gaining any type of rewards for ourself, however, we will as individual business people continue to earn a living out of the industry by other means!
 
OK, playing with the devil will not be a good idea for any founder, however, in todays climate, if any affiliate was to omitt every program that had some sort of issue in lets say the previous 12 months, then we would all be carrying very few banners etc.

Small affiliate, large affiliate, super affiliate, we are all affiliates and suffer to some degree with bad apples.

We the founders of the AU are not intending on using the AU as a tool for gaining any type of rewards for ourself, however, we will as individual business people continue to earn a living out of the industry by other means!

I'm interested in your idea and will likely lend my support to it if I am convinced that the project truly turns out to be a "non-profit organisation", as you claim.

Couple questions if I may:

1. That point you make early about bad apples...will there be some kind of committee who decides what bad apples are to be 'tolerated' (still good for apple pie, etc) and also decides which bad apples are to be universally discarded by members?

2. If so, who will form this committee - and how could online casino affiliates making a living out of the industry be expected to be objective in this regard? Will the proof simply be in the pudding? Wait and see whether there is true objectivity in the decision making process?

3. Also, every union I've ever heard of has elections every year or so. Do you plan to hold such elections? If not, what would be your reasons for not wanting to consider that model?

revolution.jpg
 
I'm interested in your idea and will likely lend my support to it if I am convinced that the project truly turns out to be a "non-profit organisation", as you claim.

Couple questions if I may:

1. That point you make early about bad apples...will there be some kind of committee who decides what bad apples are to be 'tolerated' (still good for apple pie, etc) and also decides which bad apples are to be universally discarded by members?

2. If so, who will form this committee - and how could online casino affiliates making a living out of the industry be expected to be objective in this regard? Will the proof simply be in the pudding? Wait and see whether there is true objectivity in the decision making process?

3. Also, every union I've ever heard of has elections every year or so. Do you plan to hold such elections? If not, what would be your reasons for not wanting to consider that model?

revolution.jpg

Thanks for your pledged possible support and for posing some good questions.

I can only answer briefly as the foundations are not completely set as yet.

We have every intention of never changing our stance on taking funding from programs. To change this would involve breaching the whole make up of the AU and we will never do this!

There may be times when members (only affiliates and not programs will ever be allowed to be members) are asked to contribute to maybe a fighting fund or for other similiar reasons and even then, we will most likely do so in a way that the AU is never allowed to handle the finances. for example if a court case was needed, then we may ask for donations of the figure required to be made direct to the legal team. This is all conjecture, however, an insight in to the ways that we are looking at.

Basically, no one person or even the AU as a whole will expect any type of compensation for time spent doing any type of AU business.

In vague response to your questions, it is intended to allow the membership an equal vote on all issues, therefore, the white, grey and black lists will be drawn up by the members and not the founders. There may well be a committee and if there is then this will no doubt be subject to a periodic vote.

I am sorry that i cannot set you answers out in stone, however, as you can appreciate, we are still setting the foundations and are unable to give precise answers to most questions.

What i will say is that we are aiming to be completely transparent, open to all input from affiliates and only interested in fighting evil, for this we will require no compensation.

I hope that helps a little and would like to stress that we are not intentionally being vague, however, are unable to answer some questions as we have not agreed the answers as yet.
 
I would like to chip in now and allow you all the knowledge that i am 1 of the founders, none of us have a reason to hide our involvement as we will all be there on display when the doors are open.

I for one hope that it does not fragment the industry any further and can categorically state that we are not looking to replace CAP or sneak in to the void left since its demise.

Look guys, not taking direct sponsorship for the organisation is completely different to whatever any affiliate does in their own business.

OK, playing with the devil will not be a good idea for any founder, however, in todays climate, if any affiliate was to omitt every program that had some sort of issue in lets say the previous 12 months, then we would all be carrying very few banners etc.

Small affiliate, large affiliate, super affiliate, we are all affiliates and suffer to some degree with bad apples.

The AU will not be asking for people to drop out of supporting here, the GPWA, APCW or anywhere else, especially as all these organisations have much to offer to the affiliate community.

The AU will maybe work with all the other organisations at times and autonomously at other times.

To succeed the AU will need the support of the affiliate community and will need to come up with methods not so far employed by any organisation yet! The AU will need to show results, and i can assure you that all founders are 100% committed to trying to create a much more level playing field for all.

What i will say is that every single 1 of the founders is so because they want to help sort out some if not all of the problems we all see on a daily basis.

In my mind, the more people fighting the issues the better and if 1 organisation comes up with a system of winning the war against the crooks then that can only be good.

Do i ask for support? NO

Do i want support? YES

Will we succeed without support? NO

Will we succeed with support? MAYBE

So what have we to lose offering support to the AU?

We the founders of the AU are not intending on using the AU as a tool for gaining any type of rewards for ourself, however, we will as individual business people continue to earn a living out of the industry by other means!

open to all input from affiliates and only interested in fighting evil

Welcome to Casinomeister Chalkie...:thumbsup:

I've just got two simple and quick questions for you here, if I may:

1. What is the AU's stance or policy on it's members, founders, etc. etc. promoting Known Rogue Casinos?

I'm not talking about a few casinos that have had a shaky or shady past over the last say 12 months or even two years but those Known Rogue Casinos that have fu*ked and screwed peeps over for the last decade. The likes of the notorious "Virtual Group" or the "Crystal Palace Group" !!

2. How will the ethical affiliates mix with the not so ethical ones?

Tuff questions I know, but they should also be two simple and easy questions that I for one would certainly hope that have been brought up for discussion amongst yourselves in laying the foundation of this new organization on granite and not clay.
____
____
 
Welcome to Casinomeister Chalkie...:thumbsup:

I've just got two simple and quick questions for you here, if I may:

1. What is the AU's stance or policy on it's members, founders, etc. etc. promoting Known Rogue Casinos?

I'm not talking about a few casinos that have had a shaky or shady past over the last say 12 months or even two years but those Known Rogue Casinos that have fu*ked and screwed peeps over for the last decade. The likes of the notorious "Virtual Group" or the "Crystal Palace Group" !!

2. How will the ethical affiliates mix with the not so ethical ones?

Tuff questions I know, but they should also be two simple and easy questions that I for one would certainly hope that have been brought up for discussion amongst yourselves in laying the foundation of this new organization on granite and not clay.
____
____

Good questions and the first one not tough at all.

1. Founding members will not promote Virtual/GW casinos or any other well established rogue casinos. Period. We did discuss this and it is firm.

2. Is actually a little tougher. I'm sure you know that affiliates cannot be told who they can/can't promote. It only alienates everyone. That is not the purpose of the AU. We do hope however that we can strive for influence in this area.

#2 we need more discussion on Rob to be honest. For example, rogue affiliates, spammers etc. We are still working hard on a lot of things.
 
Good questions and the first one not tough at all.

1. Founding members will not promote Virtual/GW casinos or any other well established rogue casinos. Period. We did discuss this and it is firm.

2. Is actually a little tougher. I'm sure you know that affiliates cannot be told who they can/can't promote. It only alienates everyone. That is not the purpose of the AU. We do hope however that we can strive for influence in this area.

#2 we need more discussion on Rob to be honest. For example, rogue affiliates, spammers etc. We are still working hard on a lot of things.

In that case GamTrak needs to check her homepage. ;) Today's view lists Cirrus and Cool Cat on the front page.
 
Last edited:
If I was an ethical affiliate, only promoting good, trustworthy casinos, I wouldn't have anything to do with this new "program".

As a player, I have some knowledge of the founders, and it isn't very impressive, IMO.

You simply can not expect affiliates and others to believe your "mission statement" when some of the founders do, in fact, promote rogue casinos and programs, or have "other" problems.

So, as usual, it's all about the dollar.
 
In that case GamTrak needs to check her homepage. ;) Today's view lists Cirrus and Cool Cat on the front page.

Oh I'm sorry if this comes out too strong, but I will have NO PART of any organisation at ANY point which has an affiliate like this even as a member, let alone in some kind of influential or founding position / status.

Actually, I'm not sorry. Any organisation that has an affiliate like this as a member will be, for want of a better term, a 'target' for me to criticise (FAIRLY) and expose. If there are ethical affiliates in that founding group (as I firmly want to believe), I apologise if they are your personal friend or something, but I cannot see how your organisation can claim any kind of moral high ground with members of this ilk.

Cirrus Casino? I'm in such shock I'm not even able to objectively read my words to see if they are offensive. I'm trying not to be offensive.

But Cirrus were one of the most ROGUE casinos in the world FIVE years ago (and I hear are just as ROGUE now). They still owe me thousands from 5 yrs ago in PURE theft.

That someone is promoting them now whilst talking about (or in some way involved in) setting up an organisation which claims to "fight evil"....literally has me staring at the screen in shock.

I'm flabbergasted right now. I don't know this person, I have no 'agenda' against him or her, but I will not be a part of any organisation that allows them to be a member at any point (even if they dropped all their Rogue casinos before joining).
 
The new Affiliate Union is being "closed" before it opens... :eek:

Seems the "founders" weren't aware of Gamtraks involvement with Virtual/Gambling Wages... :rolleyes:

You did the right thing, Dave... :thumbsup:


Posted on the GPWA by Dave:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Wow. I just read the last page - in the past, I would have found that delightfully delicious drama. Am more 'sad' now though.

What a mess. I'm not even *close* to qualified enough to comment on any part of it (so out of my depth here it feels almost redundant to post) except to say it very much seems like you did the right thing, Dave! :eek:

AussieDave said:
The AU was something that could have worked.

However the stink in this industry is partners with corruptions, conflicts of interest and cliques who want a monopoly over not only gambling affiliates but the industry on a whole.

dammit. Is it a hopeless war this one that I've just started spectating from the sidelines?

....and I thought the online poker rakeback industry was a chaotic mess! What a world! I feel...inadequate and ill-equipped.
 
Am more 'sad' now though.

Ditto. I was pretty passionate about it and still am. It was a bad start that just got worse and finally unfixable. Dave did a great job handling things the way he felt was right. However, I do have my own independant feelings on some things.

Maybe it'll go better next time. :)
 
For some reason I am unable since last night to access the GPWA Forums from my office, although I have seen the latest posts up to JTodd's comment in the thread via my iPhone.

I would like to clarify a couple of points raised by Aussie Dave made in the thread over on the GPWA:

1) I do not have a hidden agenda. I only found out a couple of days ago that Gamtrax promotes Virtual Casinos, as a result of Zebedy stating this over on the Sucks Board.

2) Whilst I believe the industry needs to come together to provide one voice for affiliates, I also strongly feel that if a union is created that it does not fragment the industry further.

In addition, whilst the principles of the union you were fronting seemed good on the surface and admirable, I felt further due diligence needed to be undertaken. Publically listing your founders one of which whom openly promotes a known rogue group did your proposed union a great disservice.

3) I note you comment that I work for Casinomeister.com :eek2: - I am a moderator on the forum and do not get paid for my occasional input here. Yes Bryan is a friend of mine and yes I considered it an honour to be asked to help out. However there is no hidden agenda. Indeed, I post my opinions and my opinions only on here. Bryan was not aware of my intention to start this thread and I post representing my views and my views only.

So I want to put to bed here and now any conspiracy theories you may have regarding my involvement which led to your decision earlier on today to close the union before it opened for business.

4) I see Michael, Anthony and JTodd have now posted - I like other affiliates would like very much to see any and all correspondence you have had. Indeed Michael has asked if you can post it. I think this would be a wise thing to do for transparency sake.

Finally I would like to state that I believe what you were intending to achieve is admirable, but as you are now finding out, it is a lot harder than most envisage. The situation we ( Affiliates ) find ourselves in now is a direct result of the antics of the mismanagement of CAP by the owners of their parent company Affiliate Media.

Affiliates need to come back together as a sole cohesive unit so we are stronger again. But and this is extremely important, we also need the players on our side to achieve this. Creating a union headed up by affiliates who promote places like cool cat and other virtual clip joints, is not going to get any credibility or support from the player community. Whilst you were unaware of this, which I have no doubt it true - it proves that a lot of groundwork needs to be completed before an additional affiliate mouthpiece can be formed and work for the good of the industry as a whole.
 
I am unsure of the real reasons for Dave deciding - without any input from any other founding members - to close the AU

Robins involvement?

No, she was asked to resign instantly the issue become apparent. Now as the AU was not open, the fact that she would not be there on opening day does not put the AU into a compromised position.

Because of the politics involved in other organisations? If there is that is!

I do not see this as a valid reason at all.

Dave has closed the AU before it even started because he was not happy with the way it was panning out as far as i can make out.

Other founding members are not happy to close the AU and will be discussing further our options in due course.

Feel free to quiz me on any aspect, i will answer as and when i can, as truthfully as i can.
 
Maybe whatever members are left could take a short break, rethink it then come up with a plan that will try and please everyone, or atleast answer some of the questions that will get asked, or a list of how you intend to go about what you are intending to do,

IMO the AU it probably came to the forums to early, before you had a chance to research certain things,
It would be a shame if closed its doors in this short time but i think AussieDave was on to something on what he was trying to do, maybe he will have a change of heart,
 
Maybe whatever members are left could take a short break, rethink it then come up with a plan that will try and please everyone, or atleast answer some of the questions that will get asked, or a list of how you intend to go about what you are intending to do,

The concept is good. It is the implementation that needs to be looked at. Also based on Dave's post over on the GPWA in the early hours, I think he really needs to post the correspondence with Michael, JTodd et al. Indeed Michael has asked for this

As the tone of his post over on the GPWA implies there was a conspiracy against him.
 
If there was a conspiracy against Dave the founders were not part of it.

I do not go with the idea that there was, however, i am not subject to it so may see it from a different light to David.

David has his reasons for doing what he has done and i will not knock him for this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top