My take on the Party debacle - Page 2

SinCityGuy · #11 10-14-2005, 05:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are incorrect. Party created this system. Party took the skins money. Party allowed skins to offer more in percentage than they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? First of all, the skins didn't "offer" anything. It was the affiliates who were defrauding the terms and conditions of their agreements. The skins only existed on the Iglobalmedia platform because Party brought them on board to attract new customers and grow. Instead, the affiliates used the skins to leach off of Party's existing player base.

I'm amazed at how many people like you think that the skins were on some sort of welfare system and had a reason to operate fraudulently at Party's expense.

palman · #12 10-14-2005, 05:19 AM

Oh, I was not aware until now you were talking about the ethical aspects of it. They screwed affiliates big time and could have handled it ALOT better.

beanie · #13 10-14-2005, 05:20 AM

Party unionized the players by being the first to do affiliate marketing in a big way.

I asked a cardroom manager if he would have a problem if I gave away rolexes instead of rakeback. He thought that was a great idea. What the hell is the difference. There is none at all, players play more with rakeback. Party knows this they are just trying to reduce their cost points and they feel they have all of you by the short hairs and you won't leave them even if they disrespect you and the deals that you were given. So far I think they are right they can give worse service and people will stay with them because of the illusion that there are no fish anywhere else.

This fact alone points to an opportunity for any cardroom that wants to take it. There is a gaping hole in service. BTW, this hole has been there since day one and the industry leader in customer service does little more than answer e-mails promptly.

palman · #14 10-14-2005, 05:21 AM

Believing that the skins were outraged by the affiliates violating the terms and agreements could not possibly be more misguided.

You apparantly weren't an affiliate who had contact with the skins themselves.

#15 10-14-2005, 05:22 AM

You say party changed terms of the deal midstream. So what? 'As far as right or wrong goes, either they breached terms of their deal with the skins or they didn't. If they did then skins can take appropriate action. If they didn't then they didn't. As far as whether or not what they did was good for them long term, it seems that opinions vary. Time will tell.

palman · #16 10-14-2005, 05:22 AM

It's not an illusion that there are no fish elsewhere, it's just a fact that they have the easiest games overall.

SinCityGuy · #17 10-14-2005, 05:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Believing that the skins were outraged by the affiliates violating the terms and agreements could not possibly be more misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said the skins were outraged. Actually, they were complicit (looking the other way) while the affiliates stole players from Party. Nevertheless, it was the affiliates, not the skins, who violated the terms and conditions of the agreements.

palman · #18 10-14-2005, 05:28 AM

It's not "looking the other way" when the affiliates have numerous conversations with the people running the skins about it.

beanie · #19 10-14-2005, 05:36 AM

You are so off base on your assertions that is to the point of being ridiculous. Clearly you know little about what you are speaking of, Empire and Eurobet both had tiering 5% or more higher than Party Poker. Am I wrong. Let me know.

Secondly, you are reading my comments incorrect completely, I openly stated that I think that spamming and recruiting is the reason for this whole mess in the first place. Of course skins are created to get new business but is it not logical that their would be some inequity created by offering more incentives through skins.

Affiliates that were doing wrong things should have been punished. But Party allowed unequal footing on their network that could have been controlled, it likely wasn't as easy to do as what they did but it would likely have caused less mutiny in the affiliate world.

To say the skins had no part in the mess as well is also off the point a bit. I doubt Party would have screwed them so hard if they didn't feel they were part of the problem.

So to paraphrase. I agree with you skins are supposed to bring in new customers and bring back inactives. Also, rogue affiliates should be dealt with in a harsh manner. Can we just agree to agree?

beanie · #20 10-14-2005, 05:53 AM

lets at least be honest that they were doing a little more than just looking the other way. And while we are on this point can we at least point out that toilet paper has more credibility than Party's terms and agreements. When they started calling everyone saying rakeback was open again was this not in direct contrast with their own terms and agreements.

Can I point out something a little off of the point and hopefully somewhat funny. Women would have never stood for this crap. Oprah would have had an expose' and hoards of women would be getting what they were promised within hours. As men we are like "damn they changed the deal on us, anyone know what time Monday Night Football is?" Like its that hard to download and transfer from Neteller to a new site or something. Women have better spines than we do when it comes to getting what they are promised. If you doubt me at all just forget your anniversary and see how that goes over.