Irrespective of this specific issue, I don't understand how or why what another affiliate thinks is acceptable has anything to do with me. A contract between two parties is not a democracy that other parties can have a vote on.
If they held a vote and 99% of affiliates said yes to a change but I (or anyone else) said no, then I expect that they should not be able to change my specific contract. I don't care if it is harder or more work for them to maintain individual contracts with affiliates. That is what happens in any other business in "the real world", not affiliate marketing fantasyland.
If they really want to leave themselves the option of changing terms then make every contract last for a fixed term (eg 12 months) and then you have to agree to a new one after that. Players referred under a specific set of terms should always be handled under those terms unless I explicitly give the program permission to migrate them to a new set of terms.
Otherwise what is to stop a program saying "we'll only pay you for players who generate net revenue of 10,000 a month". You would all be up in arms if that happened. I don't see a difference here, whether it is a good change or not. The big problem is that cross-border jurisdictions and associated costs make it very unlikely that a program will get taken to court when they attempt these kind of manoeuvres.
On this specific issue, I would likely say yes as it is being implemented the right way. However "votes" between others which are not party to my contract are irrelevant, meaningless, and a waste of time.
If they held a vote and 99% of affiliates said yes to a change but I (or anyone else) said no, then I expect that they should not be able to change my specific contract. I don't care if it is harder or more work for them to maintain individual contracts with affiliates. That is what happens in any other business in "the real world", not affiliate marketing fantasyland.
If they really want to leave themselves the option of changing terms then make every contract last for a fixed term (eg 12 months) and then you have to agree to a new one after that. Players referred under a specific set of terms should always be handled under those terms unless I explicitly give the program permission to migrate them to a new set of terms.
Otherwise what is to stop a program saying "we'll only pay you for players who generate net revenue of 10,000 a month". You would all be up in arms if that happened. I don't see a difference here, whether it is a good change or not. The big problem is that cross-border jurisdictions and associated costs make it very unlikely that a program will get taken to court when they attempt these kind of manoeuvres.
On this specific issue, I would likely say yes as it is being implemented the right way. However "votes" between others which are not party to my contract are irrelevant, meaningless, and a waste of time.