PPA or new org???

[addictontilt]

Everyone -

Fantastic job on the goals thread, and the info and debate that has been going on. Its very impressive. I have to say that within the last few days, some things have been happening with the PPA that impress me, I still think the lack of transparency, and the spotty communication is troubling, but I also think they have come a long way.

This leads me to believe that it may be time, to take the pulse of the forum, and see where we stand, before we commit too much more to this new org thing.

Vote for what you want to do

[1p0kerboy]

I figure it can't hurt to sign up with the PPA.

If you're worried about mismanagement of funds it costs $0.

The more members the PPA gets the bigger voice they have in Congress. Maybe we can find a way to address our concerns to them.

[SlapPappy]

If you start a new organization I will definitely support you. I will keep an eye on the PPA too. People can join both obviously.

What's the harm in having two organizations? People can just go to whatever organizaton they like best or both. Maybe if you do start a new organization Michael Bolcerek would meet with you, which would better open up the communication lines between Michael and PPA members.

[yeahright]

you can still do both. Sign up for the PPA and still start something else if you want.

[Eaglesfan1]

Well I don't really see how anyone can vote for the new organization considering it hasn't even been formed yet. Until the new organization is formed and we see what it can actually do for us, I have to go with the PPA. How do we know the new org won't be worse than the PPA?

Though with that said if a new organization forms I will be a member of both. If it can help us out even a little bit, I'm in.

[addictontilt]

eagles -

it was more of a question to determine, if we still want to proceed, or get behind the PPA.

That is what I meant

[va1halla]

[ QUOTE ]
you can still do both. Sign up for the PPA and still start something else if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Eaglesfan1]

oh I see, well my answer would be to get behind both. =)

[Wynton]

I see no reason not to start a new organization, while at the same time hoping that the PPA will make it unnecessary.

In my mind, the jury is out on the PPA. I still want to hear the PPA's promised response to the letter from Mason's attorneys. And I want to see what happens when they pick their state representatives - as they were planning to announce in late January. Maybe their answers and conduct in the coming weeks will convince me a new organization is unnecessary.

But in the meantime, I see no harm in preparing for the considerable possibility that people will remain dissatisfied with the PPA in the next month or so. At worst, we will all have learned something in the process.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]

I still want to hear the PPA's promised response to the letter from Mason's attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Promised response? Don't hold your breath on that. I know a mod or someone on 2+2 said the PPA said they were going to provide a response, but I think whoever that person was had some bad info.

I'm 99.9% sure the PPA won't be addressing the issue on 2+2. If there is any response, it won't be on 2+2 is my guess.

I can promise for the next 3 months, the PPA is going to be working their butt off in DC trying to save us all. Their probably not going to waste time responding to a letter full of so many holes it's not even worth addressing.

Michael Bolcerek posted on pocket fives today explaining a few things and noting how they are working hard, and obviously the claims of them being a fraud are hurtful, but the fight will continue.

They've made joining free, what else can you do to make people think you're not stealing from them? Obviously funding has to come from somewhere, so maybe some of you should be thankful someone is stepping up to cover your ass.

and as several people have mentioned a thousand times...MAYBE THERE IS A SPECIFIC REASON they aren't willing to disclose certain things (which they don't have to do).

The PPA is quoted in the Washington Post, on Bloombarg, on CNBC, etc ,etc. They are working hard in our efforts.

What's more important, satisfying some nits on 2+2 by posting financial information or making sure the lobbying efforts of the PPA aren't compromised because they receive a lot of funding from business that are viewed as illegal by the US???????????

If you want to see how much money they've given to lobbying efforts, that's public info.

You really don't need to know much else.

Do you think the NRA just posts financial records whenever it's demanded? Nope, and they have good reason.

Someone needs to go over to the NRA and spend a couple days ranting and raving how they demand to see some financial information. You wouldn't get too far.

One of the biggest fights to save poker is to overcome the ignorance of the constituency.

Man, I am about over it, I can tell you that.

[Wynton]

My recollection is that Berge said he spoke with Bolcerek personally and was expressly told that the PPA would be issuing a response. Indeed, he was told (if my memory is correct) that they wanted to take some time to issue a responsible, thorough response. If Bolcerek does an about face now and blows this community off, I personally will consider it a bad sign and reason not to trust PPA representations in the future.

[ubercuber]

I really think we should give PPA more love before we can reasonably expect them to give a crap what we think. The anti PPA sentiment is very strong here and they, IMO, definitely have bigger battles to fight. I sincerely hope they are fighting, and I increasingly suspect that they are doing what they can

I think the support of 2+2 Publishing is a different story though and should be pursued as long as they deem it attainable.

I voted PPA but I still think a new org is a good idea... I should catch up on the goals thread, but ideally a new org would seek to compliment the efforts of PPA and not undermine or compete with PPA. Just because this site is being responsible and thorough instead of blindly backing them, doesn't mean we have to take the same approach. As individuals we can support PPA, cost free, and cross our fingers... WHILE endeavoring to launch plan B, and we don't have to worry about a reflection on our long term image.

We could probably use a "Lets all commit to getting 5 PPA members and post here when done thread".
I thought about just starting one instead of recommending one, but didn't... not sure which forum is appropriate. I'll watch for it and post when I hit my five. Let's throw PPA a some free support.

[demon102]

I havent gotten much info on what the PPA is doing lately except that article about a new bill by GAMBLING911 or what ever they are called. Can someone provide some links to what else they have been doing? I like the idea of having 2 orgs to really put the pressure on lawmakers, I am a member of PPA but def. feel like I have no clue what they are doing.

[Milagro]

[ QUOTE ]
If Bolcerek does an about face now and blows this community off, I personally will consider it a bad sign and reason not to trust PPA representations in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
My recollection is that Berge said he spoke with Bolcerek personally and was expressly told that the PPA would be issuing a response. Indeed, he was told (if my memory is correct) that they wanted to take some time to issue a responsible, thorough response. If Bolcerek does an about face now and blows this community off, I personally will consider it a bad sign and reason not to trust PPA representations in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

My recollection was that he wanted to respond but was running it past the lawyers (and his board) first. Mike may want to but he represents an organisation and has to act for that and with legal/pr advice.

I'd be surprised if he responded but I am sure he wants to.

[ekdikeo]

All the E-Mail I've sent to PPA is replied back to with "We will review this. Your message will also be reviewed by the President of the PPA." It's not quite a form letter, as it changes format slightly each time, but it's basically the same.

Does the President of the PPA really have time to review all email that isn't personally directed towards him?

yeahright, when are you -ever- going to post why we should take you with anything less than a grain of salt?

[Wynton]

Let me add that, while I think the PPA has been ineffective at communicating on the grass roots level, that does not necessarily mean that I think they should be replaced. Rather, it may simply mean that a different organization is necessary to fill the gap. Indeed, a separate organization may actually help PPA by relieving it of that obligation, and allowing it to focus on the inside Washington lobbying game.

As I've said repeatedly, through one vehicle or another, it is important that we supplement whatever lobbying is happening with a grass-roots effort. It would be nice if PPA could operate on that level as well; but if it cannot or will not, then a new, additional organization is needed.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My recollection is that Berge said he spoke with Bolcerek personally and was expressly told that the PPA would be issuing a response. Indeed, he was told (if my memory is correct) that they wanted to take some time to issue a responsible, thorough response. If Bolcerek does an about face now and blows this community off, I personally will consider it a bad sign and reason not to trust PPA representations in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

My recollection was that he wanted to respond but was running it past the lawyers (and his board) first. Mike may want to but he represents an organisation and has to act for that and with legal/pr advice.

I'd be surprised if he responded but I am sure he wants to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then he should take the simple step of issuing that kind of statement. It would be better than nothing. Most of us here aren't really interested in whether the PPA meets all the technical lobbying requirements; we just want to know that we're not being totally ignored.

[addictontilt]

shameless bump for votes

[addictontilt]

more shameless bumping for votes....next thing I'll be kissing babies

[ekdikeo]

no baby eating, addict.

unsurprisingly i rather agree with wynton on all points.

i also wonder why it is every post i've tried to call out 'yeahright' on, i can't recall ever getting a reply from him.

[firstyearclay]

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason not to start a new organization, while at the same time hoping that the PPA will make it unnecessary.

In my mind, the jury is out on the PPA. I still want to hear the PPA's promised response to the letter from Mason's attorneys. And I want to see what happens when they pick their state representatives - as they were planning to announce in late January. Maybe their answers and conduct in the coming weeks will convince me a new organization is unnecessary.

But in the meantime, I see no harm in preparing for the considerable possibility that people will remain dissatisfied with the PPA in the next month or so. At worst, we will all have learned something in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]



Why doesn't this [censored] organization respond to this thread?

Why don't they come clean and come face to face with the people that make them an organization?

Can't we help?

Can't we see the blueprint to fixing this [censored] (or at least what you think the blueprint should be)?

What the [censored] is going on here?

[Richas]

"waaah waaah" (some ugly git just kissed me for votes)

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't this [censored] organization respond to this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]


The PPA are a bit busy now and finding the appropriate way to respond to the stickied hatchet job is problematic from a pr point of view, any engagement on this just gives ammunition to the opponents of poker. As an organisation they also have to agree a public response, it's not like you an I just posting what we think.

[BluffTHIS!]

Richas,

Just to make your interests in all this a little more clear past what we have previously discussed with a UK citizen such as yourself rightly believing that what happens in the US impacts on poker/online gaming globally, I would like to ask you whether you work for or have an investment or other financial interest in party poker, poker stars or another gaming company based in the UK or a crown dependancy, or in some company indirectly involved in online gaming like neteller?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
"waaah waaah" (some ugly git just kissed me for votes)

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't this [censored] organization respond to this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]


The PPA are a bit busy now and finding the appropriate way to respond to the stickied hatchet job is problematic from a pr point of view, any engagement on this just gives ammunition to the opponents of poker. As an organisation they also have to agree a public response, it's not like you an I just posting what we think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richas... it appears that there is indeed some communication going on (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8918002)

[Sniper]

Bluff, looks like the polling is coming in a tie... any thoughts on the latest rash of voting ties on the forum?

[BluffTHIS!]

Looks like 2+2 is deeply divided as is our nation /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.