Quote:
Originally Posted by TMM_John
Quite the contrary, you received a reply out of respect and I stated that I know your intentions are coming from the right place.
The two hide options have NOTHING to do with payout. They don't affect it in any way. They are strictly display options that are only taken into account when spitting out a stats page and on top of that they are only used if there is no related payout. These settings do not affect you being credited iwth a sale in ANY way. They are NOT in any way a secret way to shave.
I've given you the answer of No again for a third time. When you keep asking the same question regardless of the answer you get while drawing your own conclusions about how things work to suit the premise, I consider it akin to a conspiracy theory. It has nothing do with my level of respect for you. That's, in fact, probably quite higher than you think.
|
Sorry John I read the wrong emotions into your message then.
I get that the HIDE options only work in conjunction with the options to not pay for either rebills or joins.
But what I am asking is if when used with a combination of the RETRO ACTIVE option would NATS also not show joins or rebills based upon the payout rate at the time when the member joined? IOW if during the time when the member joined if NATS were configured to neither show or credit affiliates for joins or rebills would it later display those old backdated joins and rebills say a day later when the option is toggled back to normal? I'm trying to explain this as best as I can here.
Without the RETRO ACTIVE option it seems that a sponsor turning on and off these options would be easily caught when looking at historical stats. But if when turning that RETRO ACTIVE option on it makes the payout rates+HIDE JOINS+HIDE REBILLS "sticky" based on those settings at the time of the member join (rather than at the time when the affiliate displays the stats) then it could in theory be used to "shave" and cover up evidence of it.
Incidentally if this is the case I can see where it might simply be a mistake and something which wasn't thought of when the option was programed in.
I know you've answered but I'm not sure if you understand exactly what I am describing. It's a question of how all those options interact with the retro active option and it depends on how NATS was programmed.