Originally Posted by Far-L

First off, most of these so called "examples" are way off the mark.

The situation is not at all like what people are trying to compare it to.

This is what happened, not some misleading characterization of it by board warriors, VS changed their policy YEARS AGO and they tried to inform the affiliate that the policy had been changed. The affiliate didn't want to go by the new terms and felt that the new terms should not be retroactive to when he signed up. Simple. Reasonable. Most affiliates under VS were under the new terms and ZERO of them ever stepped up to say that VS cut off their accounts or withheld funds. In fact, no one besides Chrome ever stepped in to say they ever had a problem with VS paying, who in fact have made thousands of webmasters literally MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of cash since they began over 10 years ago. I defy anyone to audit their VS accounts and find a single underpayment. The only other complaint was from one of their thousands of former and current models about a technical issue that was resolved to everyone's satisfaction... long ago.

I happen to know for a fact that the mob justice mentality only made matters worse in this case because instead of actually creating a mutual resolution of the problem it made VS defensive. Chrome admitted he did not contact VS when asked repeatedly to do so, even on the checks he was receiving. No disrespect to him but perhaps he could have discussed his issue in a way that achieved the same results without bringing it to the boards. The people that discussed this privately and professionally with VS are the ones that really created positive resolutions here. Not the flamers and the pissants who think they "won one" for the poor defenseless affiliate.

Sure, VS could have done a better job communicating their position and being defensive did not help their public relations but they are not theives. How do I assume this? One of the requirements of people that joined the case against Acacia was that they had to be willing and able to show their books in discovery and they had to pass by certain professional and ethical standards. Sure, it was in retrospect not a great idea to make the terms retroactive - but it was not STEALING - they just wanted to keep working with the affiliate in a way that was productive - that qualifies it as a marketing decision and not a theft or a cheat. The point was made by reasonable people and peers that they should not be retroactive to terms previously made and VS saw the ethical and reasonable side of it and acted accordingly. Not everyone makes great decisions all the time. But if you look at the history of VS they have made 99% good decisions and one bad one in over 10 years, how many other companies can say the same that have been around as long? More importantly, how many of those companies actually corrected their problem in a way that was mutually beneficial and acceptable to all concerned?

At this point, the only ones to gain anything by continuing to flame away are the disingenuous, disgruntled, and delusional... the carpetbaggers trying to gain a marketing advantage, anons, haters, and holier than thous that just want attention, and the kind of so-called affiliates that are more of a financial drain than an income generator for not just a program like VS but any program. Chrome calls for peace and future prosperity like a professional and everyone turns on him and says he is a traiter to the cause. I think he is behaving like a businessman, not an ethics professor.

Go ahead and spew on me -

Tell me you would never join our program - I will thank you for saving me from future headaches.