Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

jman220 (2171 posts) asks in Affiliates/Rakeback:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and on a related note, how is busterstacks not banned from 2+2? I saw that he posted recently. Come on, he used 2+2 to create a scam wherein he defrauded dozens of users of this site for thousands of dollars. How is that not grounds for having your account banned?

[/ QUOTE ]
Buster is widely viewed as a deadbeat rakeback affiliate because of events related to the Party network breakup. Buster acquired a lot of business by being around 2+2.

I am asking a general question here and not a Buster question. How do we feel about posters who have used the forums to commit serious wrongs against the readership but haven't broken enough rules to be banned for standard reasons?

One issue to consider is underlined by jman220's post itself. It appears that some of our customers want/expect us to do this.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

I saw this post in A/R also and think jman makes a valid point.

If we view Buster as something of a 'scam-artist' then I think he should be banned.

However, he claims to have lost far more than his players did in the party break-up...otherwise I really don't know many of the other details as I didn't follow the drama that closely.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

Can someone explain how "he used 2+2" in the execution of this "scam"? Did he have banner ads here? If so, I can see that being ban-worthy because 2+2 should stand up for the banner ads being legit. If not and the situation is that he simply happened to be an affiliate and some of his customers happened to be twoplustwoers and there is a dispute over payments, that absoultely is not somethng we should be getting involved in.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

Can someone confirm what other name Buster is posting under?

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

We've had this discussion twice now. It appears that the concensus, or at least the word from Mat, is that we do nothing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=16#Post3705988

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=16#Post4331526

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

Morgant can speak to this better, but in no way did Buster lose money in the split. He may have lost future earn, but any suggestion that he ended up in the red because of this is a lie on his part.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
He may have lost future earn, but any suggestion that he ended up in the red because of this is a lie on his part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this accusation.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please expand on this accusation.

[/ QUOTE ]
morgant 10/18/05 in A/R "Re: Anybody seen my Empire Affiliate Busterstacks":

[ QUOTE ]
rakeback works like this. money in > money out. always. his tiers at empire are locked in. he gets XX%. and pays out 30%. he is always making more then he is paying out, unequivocably. he is trying to pull a fast one by this lame post. he clearly didnt realize, that some of us on here have 'forgotten more about the affiliate business then he will ever know'

[/ QUOTE ]
The key words in the above are "tiers ... locked in" which refuted Buster's excuse that he couldn't meet his payout rates because his volume tanked in the breakup.

I don't have personal knowledge of Empire's affiliate policies, but common sense tells me that morgant must be right. Empire could not afford to put its rakeback affiliates into negative cash flow at the exact moment it was desperately trying to hang on to as many high-volume players as it could. Multiple Empire rakeback affiliates dropping the site and defaulting on payments to players could have been the end of Empire.

Anyone with no life is recommended to read the whole story here.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone with no life is recommended to read the whole story here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Werd. That thread is classic 2p2 drama.

Re: Food for thought - Busterstacks
 

this is not necessarilly true.

i know an affiliate who was giving people more money than he was taking in, or at least 100% of the money he was taking in, in order to build up his business so he could get to higher tiers of affiliate revenue. unfortunately for him, the month he was finally going to meet the requirements to be profitable was also the month the skins broke up. he gave all the money to his affiliates, but never turned a profit. so i guess i have a problem with M(in) > M(out). it should be more like M(in)>=M(out).

or something.

personally i have a huge problem with the concept that a person should be allowed to have backup screen names that they can run and hide to when they either become disgraced, defraud a community, or whatever. i know that a lot of people would have chosen to ban the buster account, and maybe it was banned eventually, and if the reason it "he's a slimeball fraud etc" then it's him, not his account that that accusation should be made of. (i know many of my posts here sidle towards "i think that mods should have the ability to figure out who posts under what screen name, via ip check if htat's the only way," but that's because i'm totally intolerant of assholes.

c