The only distinction in the screenshot you've shared is that they explicitly mention you can't 'buy' the top position among recommended casinos. Naturally, ofcourse that would be the case otherwise it would undermine and expose their entire Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) operation.
While they can't openly 'buy' their position, it doesn't mean that Casino Guru doesn't operate in a manner that indirectly protects high-traffic and revenue-generating referral links. In my view, it involves selectively handling certain complaints and reviews to maintain a balanced casino profile, including those like Cloudbet
You can try to reframe the 'affiliate' arrangement any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they are essentially on casinos' payrolls through referral links. This was a point you seemed uncertain about just a few posts ago, yet I've been highlighting it from the beginning.
How... exactly earning from referral link [of which it's been repetitively explained to you what this "revenue" most likely are for] made them on casinos' payroll? I am somewhat sure if you're willing to put it in writing that you'll handle all of their expenses, they'll agree to drop the referral link right on that second. The links are there not because they're under the casinos's payroll, they have to use the referral links to make sure they can foot the bill on their "mission" to help customers to be well mediated and get the best available [and tested] knowledge about casinos for free. Again, it doesn't make them affiliated with the casinos as in being their subsidiary, related-to, or being employed. It's simply their way to provide service without asking the users to pay them. Using your same argument, though, can we say wikipedia is affiliated and on several thousands of people's payroll? Because they annually open themselves for "coffee" donation?
But, as you're so hell bent [understandably, because this is the only basis of your accusation] on the payroll idea, let's amuse your idea for a second, let's
suppose they are protecting casinos because they got paid [again, this is just to entertain an idea, not the actual situation] don't you agree that, naturally, it would also be on their best interest to not undermining and exposing their entire "shady" ADR operation by dropping cloudbet like a hot potato, to ensure the longevity of these "shady" business?
Especially since they're not that big of a casino. I mean... have you look at casinos that CG facilitates as an ADR and under their review? I won't pretend I have the data, but I'm sure there are plenty of casinos there, and judging from the gambling threads in this forum [or from this board only], there are many bigger "employer" that generates revenue that dwarfed cloudbet's. I honestly don't think cloudbet even on their top 20 referral-revenue.
From business perspective, this is not ideal.
And let's stop beating around the bush, this is not we [or me] being uncertain of what, this is us telling you that you made a strawman argument from the very beginning. You insist on something that's completely wrong just to validate your baseless accusation. We are all open for cases that have substantial proof, we oversee cases on neutral ground and don't take sides as we are not benefited from any side [you certainly won't accuse us of being on CG's payroll... oh wait, you did], but so far, you seemed have a very weak evidences, and the very one you provide [the referral link, or affiliation, if you prefer it that way] is already explained and "debunked".
If you have more to add, please provide them here with the backing evidences, we are more than happy to clear it for you.
