Got caught with 2 Full Tilt accounts.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
The player never entered into a contract with the affiliate, and should not be bound to him when he later becomes enlightened that he was duped by the affiliate into giving all the revenue he generates for the affiliate to the affiliate and not getting a piece of action for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where the misunderstanding comes in...

The player did enter into contract with the affiliate by signing up using that affiliate's link; whether he knew it or not. Said player's ignorance is not the affiliate's responsibility. It is against FT's policies to have more than one account, and they seem to be enforcing that more strictly than most other sites at the moment. I'm sure they're working on getting it changed, but it's not an overnight process. It's more complex than the naked eye perceives.

As far as being "duped", that's not true either. There was a time (a few years ago) when rakeback didn't even exist. No one got it. Period. At a later date, some affiliates decided to offer it to NEW players who specifically signed up under their affiliate accounts in order to be more competitive. NO site ever allowed players to be transferred under these new rakeback affiliates if they were tracked to an old affiliate. EVER. If Full Tilt takes this step, and gives in to the requests of everybody here, it will be an industry breakthrough.

While you may think it's the old, non-rakeback affiliate screwing you, you're asking FullTilt to do the same to them. No matter how you twist it, it's still up to FullTilt to settle this dilemna fairly.

[dahouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Rakeback isnt a right, its a privilege.

I stuck without rakeback at two of my favourite sites, suck it up and deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which 2 sites are those stars and which other one?

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
Which 2 sites are those stars and which other one?

[/ QUOTE ]

WPEX

[Michael Davis]

"The player did enter into contract with the affiliate by signing up using that affiliate's link; whether he knew it or not."

You cannot enter a contract unknowingly. That the system between Full Tilt and their affiliates is set up in this way is totally irrelevant in considering the contractual status of individual players.

-Michael

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
"The player did enter into contract with the affiliate by signing up using that affiliate's link; whether he knew it or not."

You cannot enter a contract unknowingly.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can in the online poker world. The affiliate system of every MGR poker site works this way...not just Full Tilt's. Welcome to e-pokerz.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I being punished for having had an account there since they first opened?


[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't being punished for having had an account there, you're being punished for having two accounts at the same time, and for waving a red flag in their face telling them what you wanted to do before you did it, and then doing it anyway after they told you not to.

I was in the same position at Party, opened it long before I knew anything about rakeback, never even deposited, and it still took a lot of effort to get it closed. Then I waited a few months, started with a different computer and different e-mail address, and opened a new account with rakeback.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
I was in the same position at Party, opened it long before I knew anything about rakeback, never even deposited, and it still took a lot of effort to get it closed. Then I waited a few months, started with a different computer and different e-mail address, and opened a new account with rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party was probably a little more lenient because of their skins.

Full Tilt knows you have no other choice except to leave.

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]

This is where the misunderstanding comes in...

The player did enter into contract with the affiliate by signing up using that affiliate's link; whether he knew it or not. Said player's ignorance is not the affiliate's responsibility. It is against FT's policies to have more than one account, and they seem to be enforcing that more strictly than most other sites at the moment. I'm sure they're working on getting it changed, but it's not an overnight process. It's more complex than the naked eye perceives.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't buy that you can just create a "contract" out of thin air, or that it can be enforced, just by using the affiliates links. Maybe a lawyer can weigh in (as if it even matters. It's funny how many people want to call a lawyer, or call the police, or whatever. We all know that both playing poker online and being an affiliate business online is all a shady business that U.S. authorities/courts are going to have little sympathy/interest in protecting in court. Conversely they might be interested in prosecuting. Whenever fraud happens people want to call the police, as if the police would come running when one crack dealer rips off a grip of money from another crack dealer. But I digress...)

Whether they are old non-rakeback affiliates from the time predating rakeback or new non-rakeback affiliates greedily trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes, it is wrong to hold people hostage and not allow them to receive benefits that everybody else is receiving. It is also bad business to drive them to other sites. To me it is far more wrong to screw a player, for any reason, than it is to screw and affiliate. Am I biased as a player? Yes. Do I feel bad about it? No. Will I be convinced that the affiliate who wants 100% of the player's pie is ever in the right in any way shape or form? No. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Bobo Fett]

I'm no expert on law or affiliates, but I can't help but think that this contract thing is being looked at a little backwards. Isn't it FT that has the contract with the affiliate? An affiliate brings people to FT on the understanding that they will receive x% of the players MGR, I imagine as long as the player plays there. Then the affiliate chooses how to go about bringing in players. They may choose to give back part of the MGR they receive in the form of RB, bonus gifts, or freerolls, or a combination of these things. They may give away nothing because they spend a large amount of money on advertising, or a really good interface for their players, or just because they're greedy. They don't have a contract with the player, but their contract with FT gives them exclusivity, which won't allow another affiliate to be paid for bringing the player to FT. If a second affiliate won't be paid by FT, they of course have no money to give to the player.

For FT to allow the player to go somewhere else, they would be breaching their contract with the original affiliate. Even if there isn't a binding contract in place, FT won't be doing themselves any favours by breaking agreements. What reputable affiliate is going to want to spend money bringing in players when they might lose them at any time?

All that being said, a wise solution would seem to be to allow a change in affiliate after a certain period of dormancy. Is that 3 months, 6 months, 1 year? I'm not sure, but something like this would make sense. If a player has decided they will never play at FT again without RB, the player is not doing their first affiliate any good, nor FT. Better to let the player go after a period of time. Even if the first affiliate had to be paid a small buyout fee, that would be preferable to the current situation.

[Our House]

Bobo,

Agreed on all points.