Predatory Change in Terms - Ultimate Bet

[edmc]

Ok, I my point was that the change in the TOS affects a high percentage of affiliates. Incidently this rule change does not affect me at all, but it could if it becomes common place amongst sites. People are told to read and sign an agreement. Im guessing there is some disclaimier stating thy can change or add a term without further notice but as you can see, many saw it as pretty harsh and a notification of this new addition seems fair for affiliates to decide whether they want to continue with the site.

As for they havent enforced it yet. The fact is, they can if they want. What if an affiliate brings 5 online pros a year who rake in $1m, unlikely but it could happen. They could be cut off because of the silent new rule.

[offyourface]

Originally Posted by edmc

As for they havent enforced it yet. The fact is, they can if they want. What if an affiliate brings 5 online pros a year who rake in $1m, unlikely but it could happen. They could be cut off because of the silent new rule.

Yea, that line "we put it there but don't plan to enforce it is getting a little old". All the programs that make these changes sing that same song and it won't ever be a problem with affiliates until it is a problem, you feel me.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by stillshadow

I think that people should pay more attention to what is actually coming out about this from UB and Absolute: this hasn't ever been enforced on any affiliate. Why worry about it?

Because it is 1) moronic, and i don't like to do business with morons, and 2) the terms are all that matter, not whether they are enforced today.

The worst part of this is the statement that it has never been enforced. That means they aren't smart enough to have sane terms, but rather they need some sledgehammer they might use in the future.

The terms are bad; the "we haven't enforced it" is far worse.

[SmackDog]

Pulling UB tonight. I understand that if they want to terminate under acheiving affiliates, but to not pay them what they have earned up to that point is not acceptable.

So if I am reading this right, if you don't have 2 new depositors for 2 months in a row, they can/will terminate your account and not pay you any funds you have earned to that point.

This correct?

SmackDog