Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

From my long-term empire affiliate

[ QUOTE ]


{enter some affiliates name here} will soon be able to offer rakeback at Party Poker! This is big news! Until very recently, we're talking a matter of hours, affiliates were not legitimately allowed to give rakeback at Party Poker. The following are the details of the offer that we can give to you:

-XX% Rakeback at Party Poker
-We are able to convert existing Party Poker accounts - legitimately.
-No worrying about your account being frozen because you signed up through an affiliate that did not have a proper deal with Party Poker.

I urge you not to rush into signing up with another affiliate. There are a lot of offers flying around out there right now, but most of the affiliates offering these rakeback deals are not legitimately working with representatives high up at Party Poker the way that we are. With us, you don't have to worry about being marked as having a fraudulent account as you would with many others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is everyone else hearing this too? Or, is my affiliate premature?

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is everyone else hearing this too? Or, is my affiliate premature?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would ask you to ask your affiliate (and everyone else who is posting that their affiliate has officially worked out everything with Party) when Party plans on removing Section 3.2.9 from their affiliate agreement.

You shall not and shall not authorize, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 Offer any so-called “rake-back” schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player’s rake to be returned to the player in any form;

If in fact all of these affiliates are telling the truth, and Party has indeed decided to allow it, don't you think it would be fairly easy to get an answer to this question?

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

I might be intrested in this.

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

Do you think every affiliate is lying about Party working with them? It seems that you just might be wrong about this one.

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

[ QUOTE ]


I would ask you to ask your affiliate (and everyone else who is posting that their affiliate has officially worked out everything with Party) when Party plans on removing Section 3.2.9 from their affiliate agreement.

You shall not and shall not authorize, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 Offer any so-called “rake-back” schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player’s rake to be returned to the player in any form;

If in fact all of these affiliates are telling the truth, and Party has indeed decided to allow it, don't you think it would be fairly easy to get an answer to this question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that if Party has decided to allow it, they would do so in the same way that Empire and the rest of the skins allowed it . . . unofficially. The Skins never took that section out of their T & C's, so why would you expect Party to do it now ??

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

Whoa...as much as I'd like to help, I'm not an affiliate or that closely related to them (Unless they want to pay me a referral fee--joke--unless you're going to do it). I've just used them in the past and present for mutual ends. Their are many reputable affiliates on this site and other websites who can help you out. There are now a few fairly large, respected, reviewed affiliates all saying they can do this as of tomorrow. Seek and you shall find, oR just wait one or two more days to let it fall out.

I've personally added even more sites to my playlist in the last few days--many with decent games, good rakebacks, and/or good bonus structures. One more day/week will not change too much.

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

SinCityGuy--
Spot on again. You've been great since days before the rift and through it. It's a very good question. Obviously, party can decide to not allow it in the future, or keep it on the down-low, but I'd like to see the anti rakeback clause removed too.

My point of view is that if the affiliate can convert an existing account (which is my situation), don't they have some implicit approval of party management?

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that if Party has decided to allow it, they would do so in the same way that Empire and the rest of the skins allowed it . . . unofficially.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I guess you could say that the skins were unofficially allowing their terms and conditions to be violated. Thats part of the reason that they're out in deep space right now.

[ QUOTE ]
The Skins never took that section out of their T & C's, so why would you expect Party to do it now ??

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the skins were operating fraudulently doesn't extrapolate into Party giving "unofficial" permission for their terms and conditions to be violated.

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

Why do I read so many posts that implicitly assume that the generic affiliate agreements displayed on certain sites are the actual contract between that site and every last affiliate?

I think it goes without saying that big powerful (not necessarily rakeback) affiliates negotiate all sorts of changes in the standard agreements before agreeing to work with a poker site. Many of these affiliates have a great deal of leverage because they control a lot of traffic. The standard agreements are very one-sided in favor of the rooms and I'm sure they would like all the small-fry affiliates to believe that no exceptions are possible. Sorry, that is not the way the world does business.

There are many good reasons for that clause to remain on Party's website. One of those reasons may be that it's actually true. But that need not be the case. Maybe they wish to maintain appearances with the fish, maybe it applies to everyone except a select few rakeback affiliates that Party trusts and controls, maybe updating the standard agreement and fixing their website is simply not something their lawyers and executives have time for right now. A change to the agreement would be news, but no change is not news. It doesn't mean anything.

Re: Sweet, I think it\'s back
 

Also, I'm waiting on more unofficial "officials" to confirm said statements above. Like I said, what's a day, a week, a month in one long poker game.

I think the unstickied post from earlier today is a positive sign though. Perhaps, I read too much into things.