New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Discussing in public is always a easy way to solve problems
Not if it's complex, like this one
I plan to come back to this and reread more thoroughly. I'm still confused from the impression I got which is maturity occurring after 45 days (which is beyond the charge back period from Paypal I assume). And if orders have not been paid for - then it wouldn't reach maturity and thus need to be paid by the referral system. Maybe I'm missing something at the moment.
yeah, in general the period for claims in paypal is 180 days. at least for most countries. so it can't be related to that but I'd say it's more a middle ground.
if payment is done after a few days and people are using the service normally for 30 days or so, I guess the most crap is weeded out already before that.
so 45 days for maturity seems a good approach to me.
however it is also claimed, that there was a bug or error in the system which made even unpaid referrals reach that maturity stage and be due for payout dispite no money ever earned from it.
If there was abuse or not is something only the two parties could know, I guess the whole topic is not really worth it over a few bucks. but hey, at least some entertainment...
Thanks for clarifying that @Falzo, I didn't realize PP claims were allowed for 180 days (that's a huge window!!!). If there was a bug on the system side of things, that should be fixed and the payment adjusted. That way, both parties still win (assuming the hosting company got a few legit customers and the referrer got the correct payout due for legit customers).
It does make for an interesting read!
If there's a bug, the provider needs to identify which orders are affected by the bug and deduct the referral income for these orders.
It's unreasonable for withhold payout for all orders just because some orders are invalid.
Unless the evil affman violated a written rule such as self-referral, whether the new signups have abuse shouldn't affect the referral income.
Affman has no control over the behavior of their signups.
I put afflink on my website and I don't even know who clicked it and whether they are doing bad things.
I side with the host on this one.
OP smells.
the end is nigh
I don't know the providers response is kinda sus for me at this point