Items to be placed in a FAQ

[Berge20]

Please toss out some items that people would view helpful in a FAQ section to be stickied at the top of the form.

I have a bunch of ideas, but please feel free to share your thoughts.

[IronDragon1]

-Current status of the bill (link to Thomas)
-Summaries of bill (cardplayer article, AGA study)
-What you can do
-History of past legislation
-google news "internet gambling" link

[Mr.K]

I doubt anything that Cardplayer has published is worth linking to.

[Zele]

Yay! Thanks Berge and Ryan.

For the FAQ, something about the ongoing WTO case and its [ir?]relevance would be good.

[DING-DONG YO]

Can we say anything about taxes? I know 2+2 doesn't want to be seen as giving tax advice or taking a stance on tax issues, but something in the sticky would sure help cut down on redundant posts.

Thanks Berge and Ryan!!

[Berge20]

Taxes are a very sticky issue - There may be some items we can put up, but I'm not sure how helpful they will be.

If there is something specific you had in mind, let me know and we can look into it.

[sublime]

only thing i am personally interested is the bills status in congress. when/if it will be voted on etc...

[Blowup Doll]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxes are a very sticky issue - There may be some items we can put up, but I'm not sure how helpful they will be.

If there is something specific you had in mind, let me know and we can look into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i would recommend putting in the following quote:

"If you have tax questions, contact a CPA who knows the laws."

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxes are a very sticky issue - There may be some items we can put up, but I'm not sure how helpful they will be.

If there is something specific you had in mind, let me know and we can look into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q: Are gambling winnings taxable, even if it's online gambling?

A: Yes.

Q: But if I don't report my gambling winnings, how would the IRS find out?

A: Just pay your taxes you weasel.

Q: Do I need to keep records of all my gambling sessions?

A: Yes.

Q: What's the definition of a session?

A: No one really knows for sure, it's never been defined in a court case.

Q: Which states don't allow gambling losses to be deducted up to amount of winnings (for non-professionals)?

A: IL, CT, IN, MA, MI, MS, OH, WV.

Q: Those states suck!

A: Yes.

[Moneyline]

I would like to see a form letter to the Senate about the online gambing bill stickied coupled with a link that would give people the mail/email addresses of their Senators. I know that form letters are inferior to individual handwritten letters, but I think by doing this we'll also get a lot more people involved.

Also, some sort of sticky post identifying which members of Congress are against an online gambling ban (the good guys) and which members will bring legislation forth to ban it (the bad guys). This will help poker players make good decisions at the voting booth in November.

[Russ Fox]

I wrote an article for the 2+2 Magazine on taxes. It's scheduled to be in the August edition.

-- Russ Fox

[MelchyBeau]

It seems many people in this forum do not understand how a bill is passed. You should add that

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems many people in this forum do not understand how a bill is passed. You should add that

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.school-house-rock.com/images/p_shbill.gif

http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems many people in this forum do not understand how a bill is passed. You should add that

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.school-house-rock.com/images/p_shbill.gif

http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! Like I said in another thread: didn't anyone watch School House Rock?

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems many people in this forum do not understand how a bill is passed. You should add that

[/ QUOTE ]

Good and well, but the part of the process people care about most right now -- what the Senate will do -- will not be covered adequately in any of these cookie cutter explanations available online (esp. the schoolhouse rock one above). People just want to know if the damn bill is going to pass or not, and they are being quite lazy and impatient in searching for their answers. We'd be doing them a disservice to tell them that the bill goes to Committee next (that's what schoolhouse says) when in fact in this particular situation that may very well not happen.

The details that matter procedurally at this point are:
-Is there a hold on the bill? What is a hold? How does one work, and will it prevent passage?

-If there isn't a hold, what might be done to move the bill forward either in the Judiciary Committee or on the Senate floor?

-On the floor, why might the bill be permitted to pass without a vote, or even any notice ahead of time? That's not the way the House did it, so why would the Senate act differently?

-What does the Senate have on its plate the remainder of the year that it needs to do, and how do those things affect the likelyhood that the Internet gambling bill will have an opportunity to pass?

-What impact will the fall elections generally have on the bill's chances for passage? What about the specific circumstances surrounding the re-election campaign of Sen. Kyl, the bill's chief proponent in the Senate?

-Is it really possible that the bill could be tacked on to an entirely unrelated bill, and signed into law without ever being voted on? (HINT: YES) Why is that possible? Is that outcome likely?

-Why is Berge20 a super-awesome moderator? (HINT: because he will answer all of these questions for you!)

[Berge20]

Ok, I think we've probably got enough to get me started. Will put toghter something and get it apporoved asap.

[Bilgefisher]

I know Tax info is a tricky thing for 2+2 to have in FAQ, but maybe some links to posts on the info. (with a disclaimer)

[Berge20]

I'll see what they'll allow.

Have a draft FAQ to them (pretty basic), so hope to have it up today and then we can build on it from there.

[Berge20]

Still trying to get some approval. FYI

[AKQJ10]

I'm of the pretty strong opinion that all FAQs should be wiki articles or at least wikiish in nature. Maybe they need to be closely monitored so that "Why don't you go [censored] yourself?" doesn't make it into the FAQ, but in general there needs to be a facility to submit FAQs that doesn't involve a single authority figure approving FAQs "when he gets around to it."

Furthermore, having a single authority figure discourages people from making tiny incremental changes to grammar and spelling, because that's considered insulting to the authority figure. I mean, if I find a typo in a 2+2 "sticky thread" I'm not going to play "grammar police," but I would do it without a thought on a wiki page.

I can see how a hybrid solution with several moderators taking new FAQs live on an intra-day basis would be a compromise (that's why I said wikiish, see http://www.rubyholic.com/ for an example of what I would consider a wiki-like site with a pretty fixed format). That said, even a low-traffic wiki like Poker Wiki is pretty good about getting the spam out of there quickly.

For an example of how we made an FAQ into a wiki page, see http://poker.wikia.com/wiki/Beginners_FAQ

[Berge20]

I wouldnt mind that type of FAQ, but the bottom line is 2+2 authorities review every sticky request I make and give their time constraints it isn't possible to make changes on a daily basis w/o it becoming a huge annoyance.

Certainly updating and adding items is my intention, so as it goes up I will be happy to take feedback and suggestions so we can make it better and run those ideas up the chain.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
constraints it isn't possible to make changes on a daily basis w/o it becoming a huge annoyance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Twoplustwo, the company, has a high vested interest in this bill as it will relate directly to book sales, website visits, etc. to really get annoyed I would think.

[Mark L]

it would be most helpful if someone could write a summary of whats going on and how it will affect us. i've been trying to catch up on things but am a little dark in some areas.

[Mr.K]

Berge20- What about a sticky that is dedicated only to "What is the pending business in the Senate?" I promise to keep the thread updated, and others might be able to do as well, since I think several people that post in here regularly speak with people who work on the Hill.

The point of this sticky would NOT be political dialogue or advocacy. Instead, it would be a quick reference for what the Senate has scheduled in the hours/days ahead. We will likely not ever have a 100% clear schedule as far as whether the Internet gambling bill will come up in the Senate, so the next best thing is to make knowledge available about what IS scheduled. The presence of one item generally excludes consideration of another -- or so my logic goes for this suggestion.

Let me know if this sounds worthwhile.

For example, if this thread were running right now, I'd post that the Senate voted this morning 86-12 to invoke cloture (cut off debate) on the motion to proceed to a bill to permit oil and gas drilling in certain sections of the Gulf of Mexico. What this means is that the Senate will debate, for up to 30 hours but probably less, the question of "should we have a full debate on this bill." They're having a debate as to whether to have more debate -- goofy, I know.

The Senate will likely vote tomorrow night to continue this debate, and due to some Democratic opposition, will probably have to take another cloture vote on the actual drilling bill itself next week. By the time all the shenanigans are done, the bill will likely pass next Tuesday or so.

[Berge20]

I'll see what we can do Mr. K - I'm having enough trouble getting a static sticky approved. Something rolling like that might be more difficult.

Will advise.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Berge20- What about a sticky that is dedicated only to "What is the pending business in the Senate?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it proves to be too difficult to set up on this message board, you can always create an article (with a title something like "Pending Senate bills") at PokerWiki (http://poker.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page).

I know I drive everyone crazy with my wikiadvocacy, but they're really useful for addressing a certain class of problem: Keeping a flexible site with information that's subject to sudden change, but where that info is still "correct" at any given time (in other words, where it's not that everyone has opinion with equal validity and merit, but where we're all editing one set of information to keep it up to date). It's worked great with items like "games spread" by such-and-such cardroom. I see pending business before the Senate as much the same thing: There's no reason to wade through an old thread of business that used to be pending, but you also need multiple people to keep it up to date.

Anyway, just my thoughts, worth every cent you're paying for them no doubt.

[bent96]

congrats on modship berge.

[Berge20]

Thanks - I think everyone is in Vegas or something, hence the FAQ delay. Why am I not there?