CCbill shouldve known better, stupid asswipers. - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:23 AM

After all these years even they should know that people are scumbags...give them an option to cheat and people will use it.
CCbill is as guilty as the program owners using it imo.

How about a list of program that use the limited rebilling option?

Im sure there are plenty by now.

01-07-2004, 04:24 AM

I concur

liquidmoe · 01-07-2004, 04:24 AM

But its actually good because they publicly display that information. If a program chooses to shave you see it up front clear as day, so it actually helps to reveal a few shavers that would have just gone a different route in my opinion.

As long as that information is publicly viewable I dont see this as a bad action at all.

pamphage · 01-07-2004, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss
After all these years even they should know that people are scumbags...give them an option to cheat and people will use it.
CCbill is as guilty as the program owners using it imo.

How about a list of program that use the limited rebilling option?

Im sure there are plenty by now.

i believe jesus is keeping track in his sig

flashfire · 01-07-2004, 04:26 AM

Agreed! lets stick together on this one

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquidmoe
But its actually good because they publicly display that information. If a program chooses to shave you see it up front clear as day, so it actually helps to reveal a few shavers that would have just gone a different route in my opinion.

As long as that information is publicly viewable I dont see this as a bad action at all.

Tell that to all the people that are getting ripped off.

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:28 AM

CCbill made it possible.
Making this possible + money hungry idiots is as 1 + 1 = 2
And im pretty sure ccbill can count.

liquidmoe · 01-07-2004, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

Tell that to all the people that are getting ripped off.

Valid point, but think about all of the people who are getting ripped off but at least now know they are.

Would you rather live in a world where everyone shaves and you dont know about it, or one where if a sponsor decides to shave you can clearly see it.

Sure after you sign up you may think not to check the sponsors info, but after this, Im sure everyone has already gone through their list of CCBill affiliates clicking each one to make sure there are no shady options set. So those who thought they were sneaky and tried to cheat you are getting uncovered and exposed, damaging their reputations and revealing themselves as cheaters.

Otherwise they would go unnoticed. Sure it creates a situation to be ripped off, but Im sure there are also some practical uses, but really since the information is publicly viewable a quick check and you know whos on the up and up.

justsexxx · 01-07-2004, 04:32 AM

Well it might could HAVE been used legit. FOr example when program owners want to pay 80% first 3 months. And then 0%.

Or something like that...I mean that your car CAN drive 300 KM/h doesn't mean you HAVE to...

Andre

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquidmoe
Valid point, but think about all of the people who are getting ripped off but at least now know they are.

Would you rather live in a world where everyone shaves and you dont know about it, or one where if a sponsor decides to shave you can clearly see it.

Sure after you sign up you may think not to check the sponsors info, but after this, Im sure everyone has already gone through their list of CCBill affiliates clicking each one to make sure there are no shady options set. So those who thought they were sneaky and tried to cheat you are getting uncovered and exposed, damaging their reputations and revealing themselves as cheaters.

Otherwise they would go unnoticed. Sure it creates a situation to be ripped off, but Im sure there are also some practical uses, but really since the information is publicly viewable a quick check and you know whos on the up and up.

No, it simply shouldnt been there. Look at the mess its creating. wootfuckingwoot, we can see if they actually shave us, great. Why give em that option in the first place? So they can turn it on?

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by justsexxx
Well it might could HAVE been used legit. FOr example when program owners want to pay 80% first 3 months. And then 0%.

Or something like that...I mean that your car CAN drive 300 KM/h doesn't mean you HAVE to...

Andre

You, me and ccbill know better.

Petr · 01-07-2004, 04:37 AM

This option is obviously for webmasters paying 100% on the first sale and 0% on others. This way you can easily run a pay-per-signup (not recurring) program with CCBill.

OneHungLo · 01-07-2004, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

CCbill is as guilty as the program owners using it imo.

I dont think ccbill implemented that feature to help program owners to rip off affiliates, i think it more or less has to do with payouts.

But in any case they should have made this info available to the affiliate long ago

liquidmoe · 01-07-2004, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

No, it simply shouldnt been there. Look at the mess its creating. wootfuckingwoot, we can see if they actually shave us, great. Why give em that option in the first place? So they can turn it on?

Exactly, thats perfect, because a person who turns it on, if it's not there would just eventually find a program that would allow them to do it. Maybe they didnt have the cash to spring for their own affiliate software, then bam, CCBill offers this, so they start shaving happily away, not realizing that they are actually airing their dirty laundry.

Think about it, if PerfectionGirls wasnt using CCBill but some other program that had this option but didnt display it publicly webmasters would still be getting shaved and not know about it, now one other cheating affiliate program is revealed instead.

Sure, CCBill's decision to include the option is questionable, perhaps they did have some valid requests, maybe they didnt, but they display all information publicly, showing that they want each person who signs up to be clear on the terms. And its not something thats hidden behind fifty different links and impossible to find.

liquidmoe · 01-07-2004, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Petr
This option is obviously for webmasters paying 100% on the first sale and 0% on others. This way you can easily run a pay-per-signup (not recurring) program with CCBill.

I think they have a separate option for that aside from rebilling, specifically for pay-per-sign up.

Rorschach · 01-07-2004, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OneHungLo
But in any case they should have made this info available to the affiliate long ago

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:49 AM

If people want to pay out 90% for 3 months and then stop the rebilling or something then ccbilll shouldve offered it on a case by case basis not just give everyone the option....thats as stupid as it can be.

Calvinguy · 01-07-2004, 04:50 AM

That rebill option has been available since day one. If you were making in the past so will you tomorrow

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calvinguy
That rebill option has been available since day one. If you were making in the past so will you tomorrow

Wonder how many people got screwed by it since day 1? Let me answer you, a lot. And ccbill was looking at it and ignoring it.

Carrie · 01-07-2004, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss
If people want to pay out 90% for 3 months and then stop the rebilling or something then ccbilll shouldve offered it on a case by case basis not just give everyone the option....thats as stupid as it can be.

No, having multiple versions of your software for case-by-case clients is stupid as can be.
Talk about a support and programming nightmare - excellent way to put yourself out of business in a hurry.

CCBill didn't start their business to do custom processing programming on a per-client basis, they did it to provide processing to as many clients as possible.
One interface for all of them. Easier to support, easier to fix bugs, easier to update.

pamphage · 01-07-2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

Wonder how many people got screwed by it since day 1? Let me answer you, a lot. And ccbill was looking at it and ignoring it.

hm. good point. maybe they felt guilty about that and decided to reveal everyone while they were at internext :-)

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

No, having multiple versions of your software for case-by-case clients is stupid as can be.
Talk about a support and programming nightmare - excellent way to put yourself out of business in a hurry.

CCBill didn't start their business to do custom processing programming on a per-client basis, they did it to provide processing to as many clients as possible.
One interface for all of them. Easier to support, easier to fix bugs, easier to update.

How many people you think used this option in a fair way and how many to cheat?
Tell me honestly what you think...
And ccbill allowerd it because it prolly wouldve been more work for them..

chodadog · 01-07-2004, 04:58 AM

I agree. I mean, i read a thread a while ago when i think corvett was explaining the benefits of the bonuses, and different payout structures, but it was very alarming to see that someone could simply whack in a shave without any bonuses. Looked like a huge oversight, and you'd be a fool to think that a lot of affiliate programs haven't been using it.

Hell, everyone knew this information was going to be available to affiliates, and something like 13 sponsors have already been found to be shaving affiliates with the feature.

Makes you wonder how many were doing it prior to this.

Yeah, different payout structures. That's great, but they should have had a system in place to prevent people from simply ending rebills prematurely like that. Especially since most of these programs are pushing the "earn for the life of the customer" bullshit.

Carrie · 01-07-2004, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

Wonder how many people got screwed by it since day 1? Let me answer you, a lot. And ccbill was looking at it and ignoring it.

I cannot believe you are laying this on CCBill rather than the sponsors.
It's like saying that because GM makes cars that *can* go 100mph, then GM is responsible for all speeders who get into accidents... NOT the idiot drivers themselves.

Or saying that when some madman picks up a gun and shoots up a McDonald's, it's not the madman's fault, it's Smith & Wesson's fault.

The fault here lies completely and squarely on the backs of the sponsors who used it in an unethical and immoral way.
CCBill has no responsibility to be the morality police. Their responsibility is to provide processing for their clients. Period.

Rather than taking your anger out on CCBill, start calling up the scamming sponsors and bitching THEM out. THEY are the ones who took this feature and used it for scamming purposes.

spooky181 · 01-07-2004, 05:01 AM

Verotel has always emailed affiliates if a program owner switched off the rebilling option. Any affiliate that has ever promoted a Verotel program has never been shaved, no if's no but's...

VeriSexy · 01-07-2004, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquidmoe
But its actually good because they publicly display that information. If a program chooses to shave you see it up front clear as day, so it actually helps to reveal a few shavers that would have just gone a different route in my opinion.

As long as that information is publicly viewable I dont see this as a bad action at all.

Why did it take so long for all this to get exposed? Glad I never use any CCBILL sponsors.

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

I cannot believe you are laying this on CCBill rather than the sponsors.
It's like saying that because GM makes cars that *can* go 100mph, then GM is responsible for all speeders who get into accidents... NOT the idiot drivers themselves.

Or saying that when some madman picks up a gun and shoots up a McDonald's, it's not the madman's fault, it's Smith & Wesson's fault.

The fault here lies completely and squarely on the backs of the sponsors who used it in an unethical and immoral way.
CCBill has no responsibility to be the morality police. Their responsibility is to provide processing for their clients. Period.

Rather than taking your anger out on CCBill, start calling up the scamming sponsors and bitching THEM out. THEY are the ones who took this feature and used it for scamming purposes.

You and i think very differently on this matter.

Carrie · 01-07-2004, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

How many people you think used this option in a fair way and how many to cheat?
Tell me honestly what you think...
And ccbill allowerd it because it prolly wouldve been more work for them..

I think a lot *less* sponsors used it in a cheating way than the ones who used it honestly.
I personally have 15 CCBill sponsors. Out of those 15, 2 of them are using the feature in a fair way (and it is documented on their signup page) and the rest aren't using it at all (unlimited signups).

Only one sponsor is paying a lower percentage than what they promised, and that has nothing to do with the rebill cutoff feature.

Think of the hundreds upon hundreds of sponsors using CCBill, and there are only about 13 that have been caught cheating??
That right there is proof enough that the ones using it to cheat are the rarity, not the norm.

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spooky181
Verotel has always emailed affiliates if a program owner switched off the rebilling option. Any affiliate that has ever promoted a Verotel program has never been shaved, no if's no but's...

Ccbill couldve easily dont this but i think their company has a alot of people like Carrie working there.

Hey, heres a shaving function. You are not allowed to abuse it tho and if you do then....uh...then its the affiliates problem, not ours.

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

I think a lot *less* sponsors used it in a cheating way than the ones who used it honestly.
I personally have 15 CCBill sponsors. Out of those 15, 2 of them are using the feature in a fair way (and it is documented on their signup page) and the rest aren't using it at all (unlimited signups).

Only one sponsor is paying a lower percentage than what they promised, and that has nothing to do with the rebill cutoff feature.

Think of the hundreds upon hundreds of sponsors using CCBill, and there are only about 13 that have been caught cheating??
That right there is proof enough that the ones using it to cheat are the rarity, not the norm.

1 sponsor who is cheating is already enough and ccbill made it possible.

You are justifying 13 sponsors who cheat...oh its only 13 sponsors so far out of 100's.

Great thinking.

Carrie · 01-07-2004, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

You and i think very differently on this matter.

*nods* That we do.

Are you pissed at the cheating sponsors themselves at all, or are you taking the stand that it's not their fault since the feature was made available to them?

Digipimp · 01-07-2004, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

I think a lot *less* sponsors used it in a cheating way than the ones who used it honestly.
I personally have 15 CCBill sponsors. Out of those 15, 2 of them are using the feature in a fair way (and it is documented on their signup page) and the rest aren't using it at all (unlimited signups).

Only one sponsor is paying a lower percentage than what they promised, and that has nothing to do with the rebill cutoff feature.

Think of the hundreds upon hundreds of sponsors using CCBill, and there are only about 13 that have been caught cheating??
That right there is proof enough that the ones using it to cheat are the rarity, not the norm.

Please do post the names of all these outstandingly honest affiliate programs that you use.

Petr · 01-07-2004, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

The fault here lies completely and squarely on the backs of the sponsors who used it in an unethical and immoral way.
CCBill has no responsibility to be the morality police. Their responsibility is to provide processing for their clients. Period.

That pretty much sums it up.

Carrie · 01-07-2004, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Digipimp

Please do post the names of all these outstandingly honest affiliate programs that you use.

Some of them I signed up for and never got around to promoting, but here's the list from my CCBill admin:

Cloud9Cash.com (Run by Vick, awesome guy)
ZP Referral Program (no idea what this is anymore)
Pocket-XXX Partner Program (pda porn)
Wetlands Wetcash (amateurs)
Plumper Cash (plump girls, obviously)
DDF Cash (??)
Domai Partners (artsy nude site)
Content God (from All Of 'Em, content manager)
Blood Money (Goth stuff by IanX)
Join Right Now (Dugmor's program)
Twisted Cash
Strip Kittens - Kitten Cash (really cool stripper desktop program)
Naughty Checks
Tushy Lickers

And the one that's paying less than promised (paying 40%, program says 50%):
Swinger Money

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 05:49 AM

cough

Libertine · 01-07-2004, 06:53 AM

CCBill should've made it public from the start. Simple as that.

scooby doo as scooby does · 01-07-2004, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

I cannot believe you are laying this on CCBill rather than the sponsors.
It's like saying that because GM makes cars that *can* go 100mph, then GM is responsible for all speeders who get into accidents... NOT the idiot drivers themselves.

Or saying that when some madman picks up a gun and shoots up a McDonald's, it's not the madman's fault, it's Smith & Wesson's fault.

The fault here lies completely and squarely on the backs of the sponsors who used it in an unethical and immoral way.
CCBill has no responsibility to be the morality police. Their responsibility is to provide processing for their clients. Period.

Rather than taking your anger out on CCBill, start calling up the scamming sponsors and bitching THEM out. THEY are the ones who took this feature and used it for scamming purposes.

Agree one hundred per cent. I don't care if people think this option didn't have legitimate uses. It did. I might use it myself one day. I don't want it removed because idiots blame the tools and the not the terrorist.

rooster · 01-07-2004, 06:58 AM

has ccbill made any statement yet about 'programming glitches'

I bet they are trying to come up with a good way to handle that. Im sure some of these bigger unethical sponsors are super pissed at them for letting the cat out of the bag.

On one hand it would make sense for ccbill to make up some bogus error story, because otherwise a few of these clients busines is going to turn to shit and that means no more 15% of their sales.

On the other hand, its going to smell like total bullshit.

major dillema for them

jimmyf · 01-07-2004, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

No, having multiple versions of your software for case-by-case clients is stupid as can be.
Talk about a support and programming nightmare - excellent way to put yourself out of business in a hurry.

CCBill didn't start their business to do custom processing programming on a per-client basis, they did it to provide processing to as many clients as possible.
One interface for all of them. Easier to support, easier to fix bugs, easier to update.

This is sooooo very true. They would have 2 have a big team of programer's. Plus each programer writes code Diff. Makes for a night mare.

jimmyf · 01-07-2004, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

I cannot believe you are laying this on CCBill rather than the sponsors.
It's like saying that because GM makes cars that *can* go 100mph, then GM is responsible for all speeders who get into accidents... NOT the idiot drivers themselves.

Or saying that when some madman picks up a gun and shoots up a McDonald's, it's not the madman's fault, it's Smith & Wesson's fault.

The fault here lies completely and squarely on the backs of the sponsors who used it in an unethical and immoral way.
CCBill has no responsibility to be the morality police. Their responsibility is to provide processing for their clients. Period.

Rather than taking your anger out on CCBill, start calling up the scamming sponsors and bitching THEM out. THEY are the ones who took this feature and used it for scamming purposes.

yep

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf

yep

Man, ccbill couldve done so much more to prevent abuse. Like mail the affiliate when rebilling is edited.

They KNEW people where shaving like mad and they just ignored it because it would be extra work for them.

Dont you understand this?

jimmyf · 01-07-2004, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

Man, ccbill couldve done so much more to prevent abuse. Like mail the affiliate when rebilling is edited.

They KNEW people where shaving like mad and they just ignored it because it would be extra work for them.

Dont you understand this?

I understand some sponsors got caught cheating.
I don't think it is ccbill's fault, it's the asswipe webmasters that used A TOOL 2 cheat with. I'm sure ccbill didn't put this tool in there system so 10 or 20 webmasters could cheat.

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf

I understand some sponsors got caught cheating.
I don't think it is ccbill's fault, it's the asswipe webmasters that used A TOOL 2 cheat with. I'm sure ccbill didn't put this tool in there system so 10 or 20 webmasters could cheat.

I know man but they knew this has been going on for a long time already...which makes them guilty as well. How can you not agree with this?

How fucking easy is it get automatically have an email sent when that option is turned on?

jimmyf · 01-07-2004, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

I know man but they knew this has been going on for a long time already...which makes them guilty as well. How can you not agree with this?

How fucking easy is it get automatically have an email sent when that option is turned on?

Yes they could have sent an email, this I do not understand.
But putting the blame on ccbill is wrong. ccbill did not cheat the asswipe webmasters did. ccbill had TOOL in there software that I'm sure COULD be used for honest reasons. Just happens a few asswipe webmaster cheated with it.

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf

Yes they could have sent an email, this I do not understand.
But putting the blame on ccbill is wrong. ccbill did not cheat the asswipe webmasters did. ccbill had TOOL in there software that I'm sure COULD be used for honest reasons. Just happens a few asswipe webmaster cheated with it.

Ok, im gonna repeat myself one more time.
What do you think of that the fact that ccbill knew for a long time already this system is being abused yet they dont do anything about it?

RockDaddy · 01-07-2004, 08:09 AM

Better late than never. With all the recent exposures even before this, I'm glad that option is now available for affilliates to see.

Don't forget though that some CCBill sponsors still use their own link system like...
http://www.yoursponsor.com/link.php?s=site&r=YOURID
so there is still the possibility to shave.

jimmyf · 01-07-2004, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss

Ok, im gonna repeat myself one more time.
What do you think of that the fact that ccbill knew for a long time already this system is being abused yet they dont do anything about it?

I don't think ccbill went and look at each webmaster what they were doing. They the webmaster could have had it in there terms (one rebill), what is ccbill 2 do, go and check each webmasters site. What if the webmaster sign up and later turn it on. ccbill would have 2 check sites every day

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf

I don't think ccbill went and look at each webmaster what they were doing. They the webmaster could have had it in there terms (one rebill), what is ccbill 2 do, go and check each webmasters site. What if the webmaster sign up and later turn it on. ccbill would have 2 check sites every day

Oh come on, give me a fucking break. Ofcourse they cant check every site but they friggin knew this was going on. Everybody with 2 braincells knows this system would be abused. They had to notify up of the fact that that option is available and at least an email or something when a program activated it. Period. You can keep defending them but theres no way to talk this right.

strobi · 01-07-2004, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss
After all these years even they should know that people are scumbags...give them an option to cheat and people will use it.
CCbill is as guilty as the program owners using it imo.

How about a list of program that use the limited rebilling option?

Im sure there are plenty by now.

once again battuss shows his incompetence...

Dirty F · 01-07-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strobi

once again battuss shows his incompetence...

How is this incompetence shitstain. Tell me now or stfu. Im tired of people like you attacking me just like that. They scream, yell, point fingers but can never back anything up.

Ofcourse youre next reply is gonna be something offtopic or another attack instead of explaining your words.

And what about the again part? Tell me more about my incompetence...im highly interested.

01-07-2004, 04:23 AM	#1
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	CCbill shouldve known better, stupid asswipers. After all these years even they should know that people are scumbags...give them an option to cheat and people will use it. CCbill is as guilty as the program owners using it imo. How about a list of program that use the limited rebilling option? Im sure there are plenty by now.

01-07-2004, 04:24 AM	#3
liquidmoe Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NY Posts: 4,994	But its actually good because they publicly display that information. If a program chooses to shave you see it up front clear as day, so it actually helps to reveal a few shavers that would have just gone a different route in my opinion. As long as that information is publicly viewable I dont see this as a bad action at all. __________________ Take Luck!

01-07-2004, 04:32 AM	#9
justsexxx Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 13,723	Well it might could HAVE been used legit. FOr example when program owners want to pay 80% first 3 months. And then 0%. Or something like that...I mean that your car CAN drive 300 KM/h doesn't mean you HAVE to... Andre __________________ Questions? ICQ: 125184542

01-07-2004, 04:58 AM	#23
chodadog Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 9,736	I agree. I mean, i read a thread a while ago when i think corvett was explaining the benefits of the bonuses, and different payout structures, but it was very alarming to see that someone could simply whack in a shave without any bonuses. Looked like a huge oversight, and you'd be a fool to think that a lot of affiliate programs haven't been using it. Hell, everyone knew this information was going to be available to affiliates, and something like 13 sponsors have already been found to be shaving affiliates with the feature. Makes you wonder how many were doing it prior to this. Yeah, different payout structures. That's great, but they should have had a system in place to prevent people from simply ending rebills prematurely like that. Especially since most of these programs are pushing the "earn for the life of the customer" bullshit. __________________ 26 + 6 = 1

01-07-2004, 06:53 AM	#36
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	CCBill should've made it public from the start. Simple as that. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

01-07-2004, 04:26 AM	#5
flashfire ICQ 1 6 7 8 5 3 4 9 2 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,098	Agreed! lets stick together on this one

01-07-2004, 04:28 AM	#7
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	CCbill made it possible. Making this possible + money hungry idiots is as 1 + 1 = 2 And im pretty sure ccbill can count.

01-07-2004, 04:37 AM	#12
Petr Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 502	This option is obviously for webmasters paying 100% on the first sale and 0% on others. This way you can easily run a pay-per-signup (not recurring) program with CCBill.

01-07-2004, 04:49 AM	#17
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	If people want to pay out 90% for 3 months and then stop the rebilling or something then ccbilll shouldve offered it on a case by case basis not just give everyone the option....thats as stupid as it can be.

01-07-2004, 04:50 AM	#18
Calvinguy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: European Union Posts: 1,752	That rebill option has been available since day one. If you were making in the past so will you tomorrow

01-07-2004, 05:01 AM	#25
spooky181 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: back of beyond Posts: 2,951	Verotel has always emailed affiliates if a program owner switched off the rebilling option. Any affiliate that has ever promoted a Verotel program has never been shaved, no if's no but's...

01-07-2004, 05:49 AM	#35
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	cough

01-07-2004, 06:58 AM	#38
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	has ccbill made any statement yet about 'programming glitches' I bet they are trying to come up with a good way to handle that. Im sure some of these bigger unethical sponsors are super pissed at them for letting the cat out of the bag. On one hand it would make sense for ccbill to make up some bogus error story, because otherwise a few of these clients busines is going to turn to shit and that means no more 15% of their sales. On the other hand, its going to smell like total bullshit. major dillema for them __________________ Ever notice that pretty much everything added to the Constitution after the original was a mistake.

01-07-2004, 08:09 AM	#46
RockDaddy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 750	Better late than never. With all the recent exposures even before this, I'm glad that option is now available for affilliates to see. Don't forget though that some CCBill sponsors still use their own link system like... http://www.yoursponsor.com/link.php?s=site&r=YOURID so there is still the possibility to shave.