Retroactive Terms Poll - Casino Coins

[Guard Dog]

[warnnote]NOTE: AffiliateGuardDog.com is taking this poll VERY seriously.

NOTE: All votes are anonymous.[/warnnote]

<hr>
Casino Coins implemented a 'Big Winner' Policy (Seen at: Casino Coins Latest Revision - Big Winner Policy)


This policy is retroactive (applies to all players regardless of when they were referred).

The policy works as described below:

1. MONTH 1 - The big winner's negative earnings will NOT affect commissions. 'Big Winner' is fenced immediately.
2. SUBSEQUENT MONTHS - The big winner remains 'fenced' (removed from the earnings calculations) until which time that player generates positive revenue at the casino.
3. When the player is generating positive revenue, (s)he is returned to the affiliate account.

<hr>

<p align="left">7.5 In the event that an Affiliate has a player that has won more than $25,000 (a "<strong>Big Winner</strong>") in a single month which causes the Affiliates overall earnings to be negative, Casino Coins reserves the right to contact the Affiliate and temporarily remove the Big Winner from the Affiliates Channel (herein known as ‘<strong>fencing</strong>’). The formula that Casino Coins will use to determine if a player has won more than $25,000 is Total Bets less Total Payouts less Bonuses from the first of the month until 11:59pm on the last day of the month. The following outlines the fencing process: </p>
<div align="left">
<ol type="a">
<li>In the event that a player wins over $25,000 causing the referring Affiliates earnings to be negative at months end, that player will be temporarily removed or <strong>fenced</strong> from under the Affiliate, until which time the Big Winner has lost back their winnings.</li>
<li>Earnings from the current month will be retained by the Affiliate, as the Big Winner will be fenced in the month in which the win occurred.</li>
<li>Once the negative net win from the Big Winner is recouped, they will be returned to the Affiliate to earn off future positive net win.</li>
</ol>
</div>

TERM Location: Casino Coins Terms and Conditions

 

[Simmo!]

This is a good thing isn't it? Coins carry over negs right?

 

[lunaraurora]

It seems a bit
.. ehm ..
PREDATORY

 

[Guard Dog]

This is a good thing isn't it? Coins carry over negs right?

Nope, I'm afraid not:

7.4 Casino Coins does NOT carryover negative balances month to month due to player winnings.

 

[Engineer]

I like the way the fencing is handled. If a program must fence, this is the fairest way to do it.

However, I don't like the fact that this new policy applies to my existing player base. I voted "not acceptable" for that reason.

 

[triple777s]

Voted - Not acceptable

 

[mojo]

I like the way the fencing is handled. If a program must fence, this is the fairest way to do it.

However, I don't like the fact that this new policy applies to my existing player base. I voted "not acceptable" for that reason.

Agreed. They are also calling it 'Big Winner' which is more on target. The threshold is 25k which is also better.

However, the problem remains that it is a retro change. This is tough because while we want to help the casinos along, do we really want to open this door? Goodness only knows what we will see next with changes.

The fair thing to do is grandfather existing players.

 

[Rhondagrace]

Casino Coins's retroactive Big Winner Term is NOT acceptable

 

[Nandakishore]

This sounds better but again applicable retro, so I have voted 'Not acceptable'

 

[matted]

One of the better high roller terms, but like everyone else - the fact it is applied retroactively without my permission it is unacceptable.

Honestly, I'd allow this term to be retroactive... but they have to ask my permission.

 

[bonustreak]

Term is okay but it is retro so not acceptable.

 

[Vladi]

Ditto. The term is fair unlike the predatory Microgaming ones we have seen lately, but changing the terms of a contract after it has been agreed is a no-no without consent of both parties. It is basic contract law, regardless of any "we can change whatever we want whenever we want" unenforceable BS clauses that may exist.

Voted unacceptable for that reason.

 

[Bonus Paradise]

Like that term much better than the others Roxy and Playshare.

Here is the winner fenced immediatly, it will not affect my comission I made with other players in month 1.
Also like that the call it "Big Winner Policy" instead of High Roller

But still, all retro active terms which are added without affiliates being asked are worrying me, so I voted no, not acceptable.

 

[dominique]

Would you guys vote the term in if coins let you choose?

I would, it's a decent term and would set a nice precedent for other programs to let affs choose.

 

[Bonus Paradise]

Would you guys vote the term in if coins let you choose?

I would, it's a decent term and would set a nice precedent for other programs to let affs choose.

Yes I agree, the term is good, also the 25,000 is ok for the big winner policy.

Still scares me always if terms are just changed, without being notified.
this is why i voted here no, I just dont like the way, I find affiliates should be notified about any change in terms, especially about such retroactive terms.

Did anyone get notified, maybe i just did not see or receive e-mails?

 

[dominique]

The term is not released yet, we are helping shape it here.

What I meant was, if Coins, instead of making it a retroactive (forced) term, let you vote if you would accept it, would you accept it?

That way it would not be a breach of contract since the two parties agree.

So, if Coins did a vote and let affiliates vote it in, would you vote it in?

I think letting affs vote for terms changes instead of imposing retro changes would set a nice precedent for other programs and would make this whole terms change thing something doable as both parties would be agreeing to the change. There is no issue if both parties agree to change a contract.

 

[WCD Admin]

Yes, we need a place setup to have these types of discussions and votes so that the programs that would sit down with us, COULD. There is no physical location to do this yet. I hope Guard Dog does spearhead that like it seems you are indicating. It's necessary and now could not be a better time.

I think in all fairness, there would need to be a discussion before the vote took place. Asking if it would pass if Coins came to the table and we held a vote doesn't produce the same result as them actually coming to the table, having a discussion and then actually having the vote without knowledge of the outcome

Plus others should be notified that this is taking place - Coins needs to email affiliates telling them where to come to make input in the discussion and when/where voting on the term change takes place. It would be a shame to leave anyone out, or have them think we were speaking for the entire affiliate base.

 

[Bonus Paradise]

YEs, Dom, I would accept it,
I think their term is very fair.

The term is not released yet, we are helping shape it here.

What I meant was, if Coins, instead of making it a retroactive (forced) term, let you vote if you would accept it, would you accept it?

That way it would not be a breach of contract since the two parties agree.

So, if Coins did a vote and let affiliates vote it in, would you vote it in?

I think letting affs vote for terms changes instead of imposing retro changes would set a nice precedent for other programs and would make this whole terms change thing something doable as both parties would be agreeing to the change. There is no issue if both parties agree to change a contract.

 

[dominique]

Well, the discussion is here and now, and of course the vote would have to be publicized and set up, Referback did this years ago.

What we are doing here and now is talking about how the proposed change looks to us and what needs to be altered - and so far all I see as needed to change is the retroactiveness.

One way to do that is to see if both parties (coins and us) agree to change the terms, and that can be done via a vote.

It looks like a neat solution to me, and likely would encourage other programs to follow suit and allow us to take part in the decision process in this way...

 

[WCD Admin]

Sounds good to me. I was just thinking maybe coins should send out email so people can comment - or at lease be aware this is going on - so that no one gets left out and cries foul.