Hydra Network Fucking Me Out Of My $750! Fuck Those Broke Bastards
- Thread starter JewMoney
- Start date
You've got some explaining to do?
Is this the reason why you fucked me for $700? and tried to accuse me of sending traffic from craigslist?
Is this the reason why you fucked me for $700? and tried to accuse me of sending traffic from craigslist?
Code:
[URL="http://www.nickycakes.com/hydra-network-financial-and-legal-nightmare/"]hxxp://www.nickycakes.com/hydra-network-financial-and-legal-nightmare/[/URL]
dude, you're a frauding piece of shit.... and your tactics are years old.
fail on SO many levels
I'd suggest you keep away from MaxBounty as well. We don't want fake job traffic, from CL or elsewhere. I'd be grateful if you sent me over his info as well.
Maybe if we had a rule where guys posting shit like this had to provide proof in the first post, or get banned, these would be few and far between.
information sharing like that is not cool at all, even if it's a fraud pub
I'm interested in hearing a legitimate argument as to why a fraudulent publisher deserves protection in a case like this. We're not talking about some guy being creative with ad copy, exaggerating product performance claims, bidding on restricted keywords, or any other small-time campaign terms violations.
This is a guy who blatantly deceived surfers into signing up for a credit report rebill. This is the kind of shit that gets credit report merchants very angry. Angry enough to pull their campaigns from networks and in some cases, walk away from payment. This is the kind of fraud that has impact on legitimate publishers through lost campaigns and decreased CPA rates. This is the kind of fraud that gets credit report merchants anxious about possible investigations by the authorities.
I put this guy in the same category as publishers who use stolen credit card info to signup for rebills. Why should these types of publishers be protected? Why should they be allowed to hop from network to network unchecked damaging everyone along the way?
Taking this to an offline example - if I own a hotel and a guest comes in and completely trashes a room. Do I not have a right to tell other hotel owners in the area to blacklist this guy so they can avoid the same problem?
Anyway, I'm interesting in hearing anyone's take on this.
I definitely prefer that you weed out fraudulent pubs instead of reducing payouts for everyone.
The challenge however is how clearly you communicate terms of which traffic is acceptable or which is not. There are pubs who are willful frauds, there are ignorant dumbasses and there are some who would check 5 times before running traffic to make sure they will get paid.
As far as this particular case, we have the he-said-she-said problem. Facts are unclear and unverified and judgements are even less clear. Perhaps the industry could benefit from some sort of trusted arbitration panel, but of course setting it up and administering it would be a lot of work.
So for now instead of arbitration we have Trial by Wickedfire.
Its a double standard, pubs can post about networks not paying them but networks and advertisers cant share info about pubs who scam them.
Not quite. When a pub complains about a network here, they're forced to be pretty transparent, factual, and objective, else they get the 'fuck off' treatment like this OP did.
What happens when a network and a pub have a tiff and the network blacklists the affiliate on a private list/channel, with little or no reasoning (or proof) aside from the network claiming that the pub is a frauder?
I'm not saying either is right or wrong.
If such a fraud list were public, different story.
I guess I misread something earlier. I was commenting out of context to your response to sgtRyan. Public is certainly kosher.
I'm also saying that it's not always public in a thread like this. No worries.