Should 2+2 endorse PPA?

[TheEngineer]

It seems like it's time to endorse our allies in the fight, especially as they now have 500,000 members (including many of us).

[TreyWilly]

This is long overdue, IMO

[TheEngineer]

Anyone care to share the reasons for their vote?

[JayEmm]

isnt ppa looking out for our best interests?

[NY60]

I think everyone would agree that each area of the poker community should walk in the same direction and compliment one another.

However, I do not agree that this site should have given its blind approval to an organization with transparency issues.

So I support this sites originally issued opinion, and I am grateful for its investigatory efforts.

That does not mean that I would not like to see this site express its support, I simply prefer that the endorsement come in good conscience for the greater good of our mutual efforts.

I truely believe our common goals were better served and will continue to be better served under a watchful and well informed base, and that this sites investigation should be a benchmark to be followed in the future.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not agree that this site should have given its blind approval to an organization with transparency issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, the site should have done due dilligence. A full investigation may have been overkill, but that's the site's decision. Too bad they couldn't have put 5% of that effort into rallying members against HR 4411. I can't say for sure that we could have stopped but, but it certainly would have been better than nothing. After all, this legislation is hurting book sales. Seems it would have been good for the site.

[ QUOTE ]
That does not mean that I would not like to see this site express its support, I simply prefer that the endorsement come in good conscience for the greater good of our mutual efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, the PPA had some growing pains typical of any start up. The investigation was what it was, but this is here and now. It seems the PPA is now a 500,000 person organization with a nationally recognized chair (D'Amato) and is out actively working for our interests.

[Bilgefisher]

I generally agree, but 2+2 made their stance with legitimate concerns.

I think before we push for 2+2 to work with PPA, we need to push for the PPA:
-better communication with its members. (their forums are dead and we get emails maybe once a month?)
-to be more proactive with its members. Rarely do I see the PPA organizing its members to do anything.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]

True, the site should have done due dilligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about THIS site? I can't find Mason's due diligence post, but here are a few others:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8918413&page=

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9341295&page=

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone would agree that each area of the poker community should walk in the same direction and compliment one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no, not as a blanket statement.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally agree, but 2+2 made their stance with legitimate concerns.

I think before we push for 2+2 to work with PPA, we need to push for the PPA:
-better communication with its members. (their forums are dead and we get emails maybe once a month?)
-to be more proactive with its members. Rarely do I see the PPA organizing its members to do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

These sound like things we should be helping them do, rather than expecting to have done for us.

[Bilgefisher]

I agree 100%. The problem is folks have offered to help and have simply been ignored. Don't get me wrong, I support the PPA and what its doing. I just feel they haven't fully realized their potential. 500,000 members is alot. Thats a huge number. Even if 1 in 50 were active in sending emails, letters or phone calls it would be a very loud roar.

Also communications from PPA to its members is lackluster at best. I hear 99% of legislation info from 2+2 members. I haven't even received an email from the PPA about the Barney Frank bill. An email would have generated alot more interest in this bill then presently exists. I just can't figure why they haven't tapped into their masses.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%. The problem is folks have offered to help and have simply been ignored. Don't get me wrong, I support the PPA and what its doing. I just feel they haven't fully realized their potential. 500,000 members is alot. Thats a huge number. Even if 1 in 50 were active in sending emails, letters or phone calls it would be a very loud roar.

Also communications from PPA to its members is lackluster at best. I hear 99% of legislation info from 2+2 members. I haven't even received an email from the PPA about the Barney Frank bill. An email would have generated alot more interest in this bill then presently exists. I just can't figure why they haven't tapped into their masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you as well. I wish they could communicate with their membership more effectively. Hopefully they'll ramp up to that level soon, now that they have the membership numbers. Still, as it's the only game in town, I think it's up to us to support them and to aid them where we can. Hopefully they'll mature as the year goes on.

They actually did send out an email on 5/10 asking us to support IGREA. You can view it at http://links.emessages.pokerplayersallia...4NjYS1&mt=1 (http://links.emessages.pokerplayersalliance.org/servlet/MailView?ms=NTcwNDIxS0&r=NDI0NjQxNDA4NwS2&j=ODQ4OT I4NjYS1&mt=1) .

[Jeffiner99]

What exactly do you mean by "endorse"?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly do you mean by "endorse"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you joined, the site investigated the PPA to see if they were legit. The investigators cited a number of issues and recommended that we don't support their efforts. Mason accepted their results and informed us that 2+2 didn't support the PPA. Many of us felt the issues were typical of a start-up, and thought the investigator went overboard in the report. Others felt the report itself was substandard.

Regardless of where PPA was then, it's now fairly clear that they're not a scam operation out to pocket our membership fees. Also, as they've supported IGREA, it seems they're not in the pockets of the poker sites. Therefore, I asked if 2+2 could rescind their prior determination. Mason replied by saying 2+2 is now neutral on PPA.

[iron81]

Mason has his reasons for not endorsing the PPA. If you didn't see it, he had his lawyers look into it and they found that the PPA engaged in some shady business practices.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of where PPA was then, it's now fairly clear that they're not a scam operation out to pocket our membership fees. Also, as they've supported IGREA, it seems they're not in the pockets of the poker sites. Therefore, I asked if 2+2 could rescind their prior determination. Mason replied by saying 2+2 is now neutral on PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

You should realize that the PPA of "then" is virtually the same PPA as *now*, and that virtually none here, including Mason, had serious concerns over their being scammers. The main concerns, *which still remain unaddressed/remedied* are:

1) Lack of meaningful, let alone full, transparency as to finances and their overall strategy (and again we don't expect disclosure of specific lobbying contacts that need to remain confidential);

2) A board whose makeup is not nearly diverse enough in the experience and talent that could be had, and which is *highly* subject to conflicts of interest vis a vis the business model of certain online sites and advertising media dependant upon same;

3) Their refusal, even now, to come here regularly and engage this group of poker players which is the largest concentration of same anywhere, and which collectively possesses much talent and willingness to help.



I suspect that the reason Mason is now neutral, is that he can't be postive because of the above reasons and other similar ones, and also because he accepts the view of Mr. Cabot whose communication he shared and that of many others here, that there really isn't a viable alternative.

If the PPA's board ever cares more about us, and all the other *players* in this country, instead of their vested poker site and magazine interests, then they can easily address those concerns and earn the unqualified approval of most of us and likely Mason as well I would think.

Futhermore, the main reason that those who share these concerns aren't being more vocal at this time, is the pending efforts by Rep. Frank et al., longshots as they are. If as likely, those efforts fail despite our hopes, then there will be *no* reason to continue to blindly accept the PPA's shortcomings and their arrogant refusal to remedy same.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason has his reasons for not endorsing the PPA. If you didn't see it, he had his lawyers look into it and they found that the PPA engaged in some shady business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I saw it. That's what we're talking about.

I don't believe the investigation proved anything "shady" was going on. Rather, they found issues typical of start-ups. That's the issue I'm trying to address.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You should realize that the PPA of "then" is virtually the same PPA as *now*,

[/ QUOTE ]

They have more members now, plus Al D'Amato. Also, I actually receive mail from them. I was saying they're learned a little and have grown a little. They could be better; don't get me wrong. I don't believe they deserve a free pass by any means. However, they are the only advocacy group we have. Hopefully they'll improve with positive support from their membership. Unity will be good here, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Lack of meaningful, let alone full, transparency as to finances and their overall strategy (and again we don't expect disclosure of specific lobbying contacts that need to remain confidential);

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was referring to when I discussed the site not being a "scam". If there's concern over the finances, there's concern over the integrity of the organization. They did post their tax forms on their web site in response to questions by us.


[ QUOTE ]
2) A board whose makeup is not nearly diverse enough in the experience and talent that could be had, and which is *highly* subject to conflicts of interest vis a vis the business model of certain online sites and advertising media dependant upon same;

[/ QUOTE ]

True, it could be better. Again, this is an area they can grow in. Hopefully we'll provide positive input to our fellow poker rights supporters.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Their refusal, even now, to come here regularly and engage this group of poker players which is the largest concentration of same anywhere, and which collectively possesses much talent and willingness to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually why I posted what I did. Why would they post here? We put investigators on them. Then, Mike Bolcerek did post here, some weren't polite to him. And, 2+2 did officially issue a negative opinion on them.

My hope is that they will post here, so there can be some cross-communication. Maybe the upgrade to "neutral" will start to help that process.

[ QUOTE ]
he accepts the view of Mr. Cabot whose communication he shared and that of many others here, that there really isn't a viable alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much where I'm coming from. We got crushed in the HR 4411 House vote, 317-93. We get little to no press coverage. Our opponents want to complete the legislative tasks as soon as feasible. With this atmosphere, it seems we'd use any tool we have, including the imperfect PPA, the imperfect IGREA, the imperfect study bill, and anything else we can do build a stong enough political movement to enable us to defend ourselves against these onslaughts against our liberties and livelihoods. Sometimes I don't believe we understand how weak our current position is. It seems some think we have luxuries of rejecting bills that meet only 90% of what we want, or of rejecting an organization that can easily mature into the organization we need at this critical time.

[ QUOTE ]
Futhermore, the main reason that those who share these concerns aren't being more vocal at this time, is the pending efforts by Rep. Frank et al., longshots as they are. If as likely, those efforts fail despite our hopes, then there will be *no* reason to continue to blindly accept the PPA's shortcomings and their arrogant refusal to remedy same

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll see. I believe Kyl and Goodlatte will reintroduce HR 4777 as soon as it's politically feasible. If that happens, we'll need the PPA, and anyone who even SEEMS like they're on our side even more than ever.

Just my humble opinion.

[Uglyowl]

If Michael Bolcarek showed half the kind of effort as Engineer does here, I would absolutely love the PPA. I am rooting hard for them, they seem to be getting better, but it seems insane to ignore the largest group of poker players on the planet.

[Dire]

I strongly disagree.

I'm not sure exactly what the PPA is doing, but it doesn't seem to be much. They've raised alot of money but where does that money go? They have major transparency issues. For all the money they've raised, I've received some generic emails, a t-shirt and and a pin from them. No phone calls (which would be much more effective at communicating urgency than form e-mails), no localized suggestions, no nothing of actual relevance. With all the money they've raised, couldn't they even potentially run a public information/relations campaign?

The PPA doesn't seem like the most competent organization. I really hope there's alot going on behind the scenes. If there's not, they have zero legitimacy. Either way, they don't yet deserve an endorsement from a site like 2+2.

EDIT: Looks like most of what I've mentioned has already been discussed. In general though, I think online poker already has enough of a negative/'shady' stigma attached to it. Given the choice of no advocacy or advocacy through a body that could potentially further that stigma through their own ineptitude, I believe it's in our best interest to choose no advocacy.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Larry:

We took the post down because we felt the PPA was making some progress in the areas where we had concern. Our position is now neutral.

Best wishes,
Mason

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If Michael Bolcarek showed half the kind of effort as Engineer does here, I would absolutely love the PPA. I am rooting hard for them, they seem to be getting better, but it seems insane to ignore the largest group of poker players on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm rooting hard for them as well. I hope we can work together to make this all happen. Divisions simply hurt any cause.

My personal concern was more the "negative" rating from the past. That makes it hard for them to work with us, and makes it hard for us to work with them to help them to improve. "Neutral" is fine, as we can work on these issues as the team we are.

Also, if they fail to perform, I believe the members can vote them out of office, right? For example, the NRA has to deliver, as they stand for reelection every two years or so. I'll read their bylaws sometime soon.

[Skallagrim]

Engineer wrote:

"We got crushed in the HR 4411 House vote, 317-93. We get little to no press coverage. Our opponents want to complete the legislative tasks as soon as feasible. With this atmosphere, it seems we'd use any tool we have, including the imperfect PPA, the imperfect IGREA, the imperfect study bill, and anything else we can do [to] build a stong enough political movement to enable us to defend ourselves against these onslaughts against our liberties and livelihoods. Sometimes I don't believe we understand how weak our current position is. It seems some think we have luxuries of rejecting bills that meet only 90% of what we want, or of rejecting an organization that can easily mature into the organization we need at this critical time."

This is the bottom line folks, we work with what we have, and if that doesn't get the job done, we work to improve what we have, or create something new.

Getting poker players to agree on anything is well near impossible. We are too individualistic to EVER have as smooth an organization as the NRA. But that must be our political model, and the PPA is as close as we've got.

Skallagrim

[Sparta45]

Obviously there are a lot of issues going around that are the reasons that 2p2 hasn't yet endorced the PPA.

Also, I would like to point out this this "poll" is inherently biased because OP refers to the PPA as "our allies". Most people are going to subconsciously answer yes by virtue of the simple fact that he is asking if we should support our allies.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]

3) Their refusal, even now, to come here regularly and engage this group of poker players which is the largest concentration of same anywhere, and which collectively possesses much talent and willingness to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is a major problem with the ppa.

the easiest way to fix it, imo, would be for them to say "we support all of the the engineer's efforts and he now has some kind of of official or quasi-official connection to the ppa." then his efforts could be lumped in with theirs and they'd look a lot better (if he wanted it, obv).

[Emperor]

If everyone who posts in Legislation forum here, would post on the PPA forum, then it would be a 10xfold improvement.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone who posts in Legislation forum here, would post on the PPA forum, then it would be a 10xfold improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's only *if* there would be some response from officials of the PPA there, including state reps. Since they won't even do that now, there's no point in posters wasting their time in the PPA forums. And since the PPA board is so heavily weighted/conflicted with representatives of CP magazine, you would be better off posting in their forums, though officials and board members of the PPA still aren't going to respond.

The bottom line is that *this* forum on 2+2 is THE place to discuss these issues, and the PPA, due to an unwillingness to address serious concerns about its board makeup and practices, refuses to acknowledge same and interact with us here. And this all the more an egregious error since all here know that there are many knowlegeable attorneys and industry insiders who post here and could offer valuable advice, but advice which is *honest* and refuses to kowtow to the special interests that the PPA sees as more of its true stakeholders instead of the players they *supposedly* represent.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are going to subconsciously answer yes by virtue of the simple fact that he is asking if we should support our allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would like to point out this this "poll" is inherently biased because OP refers to the PPA as "our allies". Most people are going to subconsciously answer yes by virtue of the simple fact that he is asking if we should support our allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't intentional.

As for the results, I sure hope we're not so easily misled. Besides, the results aren't even close.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree.

I'm not sure exactly what the PPA is doing, but it doesn't seem to be much. They've raised alot of money but where does that money go? They have major transparency issues. For all the money they've raised, I've received some generic emails, a t-shirt and and a pin from them. No phone calls (which would be much more effective at communicating urgency than form e-mails), no localized suggestions, no nothing of actual relevance. With all the money they've raised, couldn't they even potentially run a public information/relations campaign?

The PPA doesn't seem like the most competent organization. I really hope there's alot going on behind the scenes. If there's not, they have zero legitimacy. Either way, they don't yet deserve an endorsement from a site like 2+2.

EDIT: Looks like most of what I've mentioned has already been discussed. In general though, I think online poker already has enough of a negative/'shady' stigma attached to it. Given the choice of no advocacy or advocacy through a body that could potentially further that stigma through their own ineptitude, I believe it's in our best interest to choose no advocacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Again, these are areas in which we can help, I think. To put my money where my mouth is, here's my email to the PPA:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm a PPA member and a strong supporter of our right to play Internet poker. I've noticed that I've not received much communication from PPA on actions I can take to advocate for online poker. As this is a critical time for us, I believe this is the time for us to take action, so I'd like to volunteer to assist with this.

I started an effort at twoplustwo.com and at BJ21.com a few months ago to advocate for online gaming. This effort consists of weekly actions. I lead the effort, but I don't dictate the items....we decide as a group, then we execute. Here are the last few:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post9946416 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9946416&an=0&page=0#Post 9946416)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post9880993 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9880993&an=0&page=0#Post 9880993)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post9697336 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9697336&an=0&page=0#Post 9697336)

We have a great bunch of players here at 2+2. The legislation forum, at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=law , has many knowledgeable and active posters. It seems we have the ideas and the initiative, but not enough people to really make things happen the way a 500,000 person organization could. Conversely, it seems PPA has lots of members willing to pitch in (if they weren't, why'd they join?), but haven't as of yet put together the plan to activate these folks. If we can get together on this, I'd wager we'd be heard loud and clear. If you want, I'd be happy to write a weekly action for email distribution to PPA (a shorter version of the action item referenced earlier). Also, I'd be happy to post it to the PPA message board and to make myself available to discuss the action plan. Are you interested? If so, please let me know.

Finally, twoplustwo.com does have a good number of members who possess much talent and who are eager to help. Will PPA consider posting on our Legislation forum on occasion? Thanks.

Regards,

TheEngineer


P.S., here's a sample letter I sent to Paulson of the Treasury Dept. This is the type of stuff we're doing. Thanks.


----------------------------------

May 15, 2007

The Honorable Henry Paulson
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask you use care when drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow.

However, the UIGEA is law, and your department is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – write regulations that address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying your department for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in Attorney General Gonzales’ last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked him for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your department as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as you draft the UIGEA regulations. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Engineer:

I have a lot of problems with your post and your email to the PPA. First off, I do want to state that Iknow your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an active poster on this forum and/or on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area and who has been posting lots of suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if you are a spokesman for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are not aware of the private communication between myself and other Two Plus Two representatives (including our attorneys), and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two in some sort of official capacity.

best wishes,
Mason

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Engineer:

I have a lot of problems with your post and your email to the PPA. First off, I do want to state that Iknow your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an active poster on this forum and/or on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area and who has been posting lots of suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if you are a spokesman for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are not aware of the private communication between myself and other Two Plus Two representatives (including our attorneys), and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two in some sort of official capacity.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

People who feel they are doing something righteous (for lack of a watered down version of the word) often over step their boundaries. If sending that letter wasn't a case of this, then posting on here that you sent the letter surely was.

2p2 will support the PPA when the owners make the decision, and it won't be influenced heavily by a select group of active posters.

[demon102]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Engineer:

I have a lot of problems with your post and your email to the PPA. First off, I do want to state that Iknow your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an active poster on this forum and/or on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area and who has been posting lots of suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if you are a spokesman for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are not aware of the private communication between myself and other Two Plus Two representatives (including our attorneys), and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two in some sort of official capacity.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

People who feel they are doing something righteous (for lack of a watered down version of the word) often over step their boundaries. If sending that letter wasn't a case of this, then posting on here that you sent the letter surely was.

2p2 will support the PPA when the owners make the decision, and it won't be influenced heavily by a select group of active posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that what u said has a 2 way street, sure 2+2 has an owner but the 2+2 community is made of of the people that participate in it more than its owners.

[w_alloy]

Mason,

While I understand your concerns, I think your whole post is extreme. Rereading Engineer's post, nowhere does he indicate or imply that he is speaking for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. Rather, he clearly states he is speaking for himself and the opinions of some poster at this site.

Also this...

[ QUOTE ]

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are not aware of the private communication between myself and other Two Plus Two representatives (including our attorneys), and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two in some sort of official capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]
...is quite nebulous. If he was in fact acting as a 2+2 LLC rep, as you kind of sort of claim, who exactly would he be confusing, and why does it matter? Who cares if a few people are being mislead about your opinions anyways (which again is a point I will not cede), when anyone who really cared about the matter would just read what you have written and would no longer be confused. And why are your attorneys so involved in this? Is there some aspect I am missing?

Also, there seems to be an air of entitlement about your post, almost as if you believe people can't speak about the majority opinions of posters who participate at 2+2 without going through you first. I would hope you do not want to give that impression.

[Mason Malmuth]

When the Engineer writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, twoplustwo.com does have a good number of members who possess much talent and who are eager to help. Will PPA consider posting on our Legislation forum on occasion? Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

It reads to me like it is coming directly from Two Plus Two. In fact, if I was to make a statement like this, it would be worded in a similar fashion.

best wishes,
Mason

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Engineer:

I have a lot of problems with your post and your email to the PPA. First off, I do want to state that Iknow your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an active poster on this forum and/or on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area and who has been posting lots of suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if you are a spokesman for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are not aware of the private communication between myself and other Two Plus Two representatives (including our attorneys), and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two in some sort of official capacity.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I reread my post and I don't see where I came across as posting as anything more than a poster here.

I sent PPA a letter retracting my offer.

I don't understand the lack of openness that you articulated, but I don't know how you expect us to know this. As I can't know what I don't know, I'll back off from my advocacy postions here.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

While I understand your concerns, I think your whole post is extreme. Rereading Engineer's post, nowhere does he indicate or imply that he is speaking for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. Rather, he clearly states he is speaking for himself and the opinions of some poster at this site.

Also this...

[ QUOTE ]

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are not aware of the private communication between myself and other Two Plus Two representatives (including our attorneys), and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two in some sort of official capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]
...is quite nebulous. If he was in fact acting as a 2+2 LLC rep, as you kind of sort of claim, who exactly would he be confusing, and why does it matter? Who cares if a few people are being mislead about your opinions anyways (which again is a point I will not cede), when anyone who really cared about the matter would just read what you have written and would no longer be confused. And why are your attorneys so involved in this? Is there some aspect I am missing?

Also, there seems to be an air of entitlement about your post, almost as if you believe people can't speak about the majority opinions of posters who participate at 2+2 without going through you first. I would hope you do not want to give that impression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you know PPA is on double-secret probation? I didn't either, but I guess I was supposed to.

Well, at least Mason finally responded to some of our efforts. I was hoping he'd find time for a one-sentence endorsement of the earlier stuff, but I suppose we'll settle for this.

Good luck guys. It was a pleasure working with all of you. We got some good stuff done.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
When the Engineer writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, twoplustwo.com does have a good number of members who possess much talent and who are eager to help. Will PPA consider posting on our Legislation forum on occasion? Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

It reads to me like it is coming directly from Two Plus Two. In fact, if I was to make a statement like this, it would be worded in a similar fashion.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I was posting in response to concerns listed by people here.

The members here aren't mind readers. Please inform everyone when PPA is off your double-secret probation, so we can actually work on fighting our opponents instead of each other. After all, it's not intuitively obvious to anyone here that you'd have ANY reason for ongoing legal actions with PPA. You've certainly not shared any info on this.

As an aside, this does explain, to a degree, why PPA doesn't post here or work with us.

Cheers,

TE

[Skallagrim]

Dear Engineer:

DONT GO, PLEASE. MM's post had a small legitimacy, in his eyes you were not clear enough that you do not represent 2+2. I thought it was pretty clear, but I dont have his agenda.

The agenda I have is the same as yours: legal online poker.

Of all the poker forums out there, 2+2 is the best, at least in terms of intelligent and motivated participants.

You do represent the PARTICIPANTS here (at least most of us) and in my mind the participants here are more important than the owners.

You have done goood work here, Engineer, and I would hate to see it stop over this.

Dear Mason Malmuth:

Ok, I can see why you want to be on top of who speaks for your company. But the tone of your post was way overboard. Even a small perusing of Engineer's posts makes it clear he never tried to speak for 2+2LLC. A simple nice post to the effect of: "We respect Engineer's efforts and right to use this board to organize and motivate, but we must be clear that his activities are not endorsed by 2+2 publishing" would have done the trick without denigrating Engineer.

Skallagrim

[govman6767]

Please Lock this thread before MORE people like ENG. leave and we lose people who can actually post.

I do not wish to become the leader of the poker movement by default.

Besides I heard a rumor that if and when Mason switches from neutral to supporting the PPA it's going to take his lawyer 3x as long to come out with the statement this time.

Before I get flamed I just bought tough hold em games today so don't ban me.

[Emperor]

Hi Mason:

I have a lot of problems with your post and tone to The Engineer. First off, I do want to state that I know your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an owner of this forum and/or a moderator of content on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area. even though you haven't been posting many suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be discouraging the community from sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if it represents the community of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are separate from the community, and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two community in some sort of official capacity. You don't. You represent the ownership of the site.

best wishes,
Emperor

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
When the Engineer writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, twoplustwo.com does have a good number of members who possess much talent and who are eager to help. Will PPA consider posting on our Legislation forum on occasion? Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

It reads to me like it is coming directly from Two Plus Two. In fact, if I was to make a statement like this, it would be worded in a similar fashion.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Herein lies the problem. You see yourself as representing the community in an official fashion. You represent the ownership, not the community.

I would hope that your communication to the PPA would define your position, not confuse it.

I think The Engineer's post was exceptional, and your perception flawed.


If the community of 2+2 wants to endorse the PPA, the community does not need the ownership's permission. Just like if the ownership of 2+2 wants to endorse The PPA, then it does not need to ask the member's permission.

best wishes,
Emperor

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason:

I have a lot of problems with your post and tone to The Engineer. First off, I do want to state that I know your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an owner of this forum and/or a moderator of content on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area. even though you haven't been posting many suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be discouraging the community from sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if it represents the community of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are separate from the community, and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two community in some sort of official capacity. You don't. You represent the ownership of the site.

best wishes,
Emperor

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

[Dunkman]

It's hard enough trying to fight to save online poker in the U.S. without the official support of 2p2, since a lot of people who post here are turned off by a lack of 2p2 support. I understand your reasons for being hesitant to support the PPA, although I disagree with them. However, to not get involved with this issue at all seems short-sighted at best and borders on negligence. Companies get involved to lobby for their interests all the time, and I promise if online poker in the U.S. is banned then 2p2 in it's current form will cease to exist.

Mason, you went overboard in attacking Eng, a person who is probably doing almost as much as anyone in this country to try and save online poker in the U.S...and indirectly save your company. A PM to him would have served the same purpose, and he could have gone about clarifying his position here without being called out and humiliated by the owner of the site. It is your right to not support the PPA, and equally your right to not get involved. However, is there any way that you could stop doing stuff that hurts the efforts to save online gambling? This is the latest in a growing list of things you've done that are actually hampering the effort, and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I promise if online poker in the U.S. is banned then 2p2 in it's current form will cease to exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is wildly inaccurate...

[Mat Sklansky]

I'm going to jump in and try to help clarify.

Mason may correct me, but this is how i see it:

The goal of the ppa is essentially to keep online poker accessible; maybe even make it legal and regulated by the US.

We absolutely support that goal. We are most certainly not telling people that they should ignore the ppa and refuse to join. However, given the lack of information available to us about the ppa, we feel that it would be irresponsible of us to encourage or recommend that people join.

We ask you to make that decision on your own.

As far as Mason's post to Engineer and his tone, you guys will just have to take my word. Mason's message was quite friendly. It took me about a year seeing him everyday before I realized that not only did he not hate me. He actually likes me. I think.

Believe me, he wasn't attacking. We have been advised by our attorney many many times to be certain that it could not be perceived that Two Plus Two Publishing LLC is involved with anything we or he feels might be risky in any way.

Even I think it's a bit too paranoid sometimes. But I'm just an employee. In Mason's shoes with all he needs to protect, I would move with the same caution.

If Mason takes issue with anything I've posted, you'll all see his response.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
We have been advised by our attorney many many times to be certain that it could not be perceived that Two Plus Two Publishing LLC is involved with anything we or he feels might be risky in any way.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is fine.

However, Two Plus Two LLC has officially stated numerous times that they don't want to have anything to do with lobbying, politics, and legislation.

This leaves it up to the forum community to lead, direct, and communicate on those things.

Examples:

Many Pokersite CEO's/reps post on these forums at the request of the community, even though Two plus Two LLC doesn't specifically endorse any of them.

I could invite Ron Paul or some other political candidate to post on these forums, it wouldn't mean Two Plus Two LLC is endorsing that particular candidate.

Two Plus Two LLC accepts advertising dollars from many different advertisers, however they don't ask the community for permission.

What Two plus Two LLC does, and what the forum community does, is two separate and different things.

Do the owners/mods of Two plus Two need to make sure that no liability is incurred? ABSOLUTELY. However, I don't see how The Engineer's post crosses into that territory at all.

I do see how Mason has misconstrued the forum community's voice for the voice of Two Plus Two LLC, but that isn't accurate.

Best Wishes,

Emperor

[Sniper]

Emp,

Mason's post was entirely consistent with his previous statements on issues such as this.

Eng's post read like he was speaking for 2+2, Mason pointed it out (nothing more, as far as I know). Unless there is more to this, Eng overreacted.

That said, overreaction to stuff is fairly common around here... and it would be a shame to lose Eng as a poster over this possible misunderstanding.

Hopefully, Mat has already sent Eng a PM...

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer and all,

I think many of you are too thin-skinned for the internet. While Mason as the owner of this site, with his sometimes quick to see offense where none is intended mindset, and somewhat gruff or matter-of-fact tone, can seem to be quelching debate, that really isn't so. Mason is only trying to insure accuracy of communications so that outsiders to these boards aren't left with any confusion as to whom the wording of a letter refers to, as to users of this site and/or its owners.

Also this whole "people weren't polite to the PPA prez" stuff in a similar vein is total BS. Politics, including internal politics of a group or party that shares agreement on more than they disagree, involves vigourous debate, some of which isn't "polite". This isn't tea-room chit-chat. And refusing to continue to participate is a just an excuse for something else, whatever it may be.

It should be further noted, that despite the fact Mason feels, rightly IMO, that 2+2 shouldn't positively endorse the PPA unless they make further changes, he still allows an unfettered debate to take place here on all issues, including his own stance on the PPA. And as well, over time he and the other admins (the "reds"), have shown a willingness to endure an awful lot of very personal abuse, and not just that related to their opinions, strategy or otherwise, on substantive matters.


And I have one more thing to say to all those who in their fear of the legislative climate we find ourselves in, are willing to totally ignore the shortcomings of the PPA. And that is that instead of blaming those of us, including Mason, who have expressed these concerns about the PPA, you should instead be laying a lot of the blame at the feet of Cardplayer Magazine. They have conflicted interests with the business models of certain online poker sites whose advertising revenue they depend upon, control a disproporionate number of votes on the PPA board, and totally have refused to acknowledge this and make changes. So if you want to see all of us posters here firmly back the PPA, then mount a campaign to get CP to allow substantive organizational changes and give up their control of the PPA board. It is all of the players who *should* be the primary stakeholders of the PPA, and NOT vested online and B&M publishing interests.

[Skallagrim]

Actually, it is the members of the PPA who should be deciding what the PPA does or does not do.

The criticisms of the influence of cardplayer (and sites) on the PPA board are valid, but hardly significant. It takes capital, both human and monetary, to get an org like the PPA up and running. Were it not for these influences, there would have been no capital, and no org. The NRA began pretty much the same way (with lots of help from gun manufacturers).

I appreciate Mason's (2+2's) willingness to allow an awful lot of free speech here. Its attracted the most and the best poker posters on the internet. I am sure, however, that that has some benefit economically to 2+2LLC. Does that economic benefit mean he really is not a friend of free speech? No. I apply the same logic to the PPA situation: for all their bumbling and self-serving, the PPA supports me being able to play legal online poker, and has had some impact in helping me preserve that ability.

All that said and done, Engineer worked way too hard, IN THE INTERSTS OF ALL OF US WHO SUPPORT LEGAL POKER, to be subject to what could easily be taken as an attack on his credibility (falsely claiming to represent 2+2), when all that was required was a simple statement of clarification.

Skallagrim

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
All that said and done, Engineer worked way too hard, IN THE INTERSTS OF ALL OF US WHO SUPPORT LEGAL POKER, to be subject to what could easily be taken as an attack on his credibility (falsely claiming to represent 2+2), when all that was required was a simple statement of clarification.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think it is clear that Mason didn't attack his credibility, for he said:

"First off, I do want to state that Iknow your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty"

and

"You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an active poster on this forum and/or on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area and who has been posting lots of suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if you are a spokesman for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area"

Note the words "as if" in the last quote. He never accused Engineer of attempting to portray himself as an official rep of 2+2, and stated that he believed Engineer's good intentions while not liking his specific wording in that proposed email.

I hope Engineer recognizes this and does indeed return.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The criticisms of the influence of cardplayer (and sites) on the PPA board are valid, but hardly significant. It takes capital, both human and monetary, to get an org like the PPA up and running. Were it not for these influences, there would have been no capital, and no org. The NRA began pretty much the same way (with lots of help from gun manufacturers).

[/ QUOTE ]


I wanted to address this point separately from my response above to the other part of your post. It does indeed take money to run an organization. But that organization also has the ability to take what it can get with as little obligation as possible to vested interests, while seeking a better fundraising paradigm. The PPA has been very short-sighted in a free one-time fee model, instead of an ongoing dues model along with other fundraising activities on local levels.

And note that it is really the online sites and magazines who are the ones more in need of the PPA than we are. So they shouldn't be allowed to negotiate a stronger position in the organization that isn't reflective of that reality.

Also this issue of vested interests is *very* significant. For the majority of us here, even those of us including myself who both play fulltime and primarily online, have a much larger set of goals than do those vested interests. Most of us wish for an equal focus on B&M poker expansion at the local level, not only so as to increase our options to play, but also in fact to provide a synergy to help get expansion of online poker, both intra-state and with international access. We simply can't afford to allow ourselves and our other goals to be dictated by the business models of current online sites.

[Dunkman]

When I read "that is something you are not" I only really see one way to take it...but alas I'm not gonna drone on further with this. I've already made an ass of myself once in this thread.

I did wanna clarify what I said earlier. First, I do think it reasonable to assume that the majority of 2p2's business is derived from online poker. Secondly, I think I was too critical of Mason's take on the legislation (not that he cares, I just wanted to apologize.) He can do whatever he likes, it's his company. It just seems whenever he does get involved here it's something negative, but that may be my perception more than reality, I don't know.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems whenever he does get involved here it's something negative, but that may be my perception more than reality, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's also my perception, FWIW.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It just seems whenever he does get involved here it's something negative, but that may be my perception more than reality, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's also my perception, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are likely not reading enough of his posts. The perception is easy enough to correct, simply click on his name and then "show all user's posts"... and read thru his last 200 posts.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It just seems whenever he does get involved here it's something negative, but that may be my perception more than reality, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's also my perception, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are likely not reading enough of his posts. The perception is easy enough to correct, simply click on his name and then "show all user's posts"... and read thru his last 200 posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your condescension isn't necessary, Sniper. I am confident in my opinion as it stands, and have held it for quite a while.

Mostly, it's irrelevant how Mason comes off. His work and influence on poker speaks for itself.

In this case, though, I stated it because I don't think posters such as Dunkman should back off just because the heavy hitters come out every time someone mentions anything positive about the PPA.

[Victor]

lol engineer is such a whiny beeyatch. good riddance i say tho i doubt he actually leaves.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
lol engineer is such a whiny beeyatch. good riddance i say tho i doubt he actually leaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank god you finally came to troll the thread, I was beginning to think you didn't care.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
People who feel they are doing something righteous (for lack of a watered down version of the word) often over step their boundaries. If sending that letter wasn't a case of this, then posting on here that you sent the letter surely was.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO! Righteous my ass. It's called "volunteering", [censored]! In case you didn't know, it's the opposite of "what's PPA/2+2/Mason doing FOR me?" And, I posted my letter to encourage others to volunteer as well.

[ QUOTE ]
2p2 will support the PPA when the owners make the decision, and it won't be influenced heavily by a select group of active posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

So. Let them. We as individuals don't require 2+2's permission to work with anyone.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Engineer:

DONT GO, PLEASE. MM's post had a small legitimacy, in his eyes you were not clear enough that you do not represent 2+2. I thought it was pretty clear, but I dont have his agenda.

The agenda I have is the same as yours: legal online poker.

Of all the poker forums out there, 2+2 is the best, at least in terms of intelligent and motivated participants.

You do represent the PARTICIPANTS here (at least most of us) and in my mind the participants here are more important than the owners.

You have done goood work here, Engineer, and I would hate to see it stop over this.

Dear Mason Malmuth:

Ok, I can see why you want to be on top of who speaks for your company. But the tone of your post was way overboard. Even a small perusing of Engineer's posts makes it clear he never tried to speak for 2+2LLC. A simple nice post to the effect of: "We respect Engineer's efforts and right to use this board to organize and motivate, but we must be clear that his activities are not endorsed by 2+2 publishing" would have done the trick without denigrating Engineer.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Skallagrim,

I appreciate the kind words, and I've enjoyed working this with you. The truth is that the owners of the site and I don't appear to see eye-to-eye, and that's fine. They own it, not me.

Think of it this way. Imagine you're heading a project at work. Management never expressed any interest in your project or encouraged anyone to join your "team", despite you asking for this. You manage to find a few like-minded people to work with you and things are going well. Suddenly, management pops into your meeting out of nowhere, corrects you IN FRONT OF YOUR TEAM as if you're an eight-year old, with condescending phrases like "you need to understand", "you need to be careful", etc. How effective would you be in leading the effort? After all, Mason chose to not PM me. He did it in the open for a reason, and I had no trouble understanding it.

Well, the only difference between that situation I described and what happened here is that at least I get paid if it happens at work (which it wouldn't).

I'm going to take a couple of weeks off to focus on my poker game. I need a break anyway. After that, I'll resume posting, either here or on the PPA site.

Keep up the fight!

Cheers,

TE

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason:

I have a lot of problems with your post and tone to The Engineer. First off, I do want to state that I know your intentions are good, but I still have difficulty.

You need to understand that it is fine to identify yourself as someone who is an owner of this forum and/or a moderator of content on www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com) in general, and it is also fine to identify yourself as someone who wants to be active in this area. even though you haven't been posting many suggestions on our Poker Legislation forum. But you should not be discouraging the community from sending the PPA (or anyone for that matter) an email/letter which reads as if it represents the community of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. That is something that you are not, and you need to be careful in this area.

Part of the reason that you need to be careful in this area is that you are separate from the community, and what you may write or say may (and probably will) throw confusion in that area especially if it appears that you are representing Two Plus Two community in some sort of official capacity. You don't. You represent the ownership of the site.

best wishes,
Emperor

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I promise if online poker in the U.S. is banned then 2p2 in it's current form will cease to exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is wildly inaccurate...

[/ QUOTE ]

It may or may not be. Pi Yee Press reported that their poker book sales dropped significantly, including King Yao's good book.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, Mat has already sent Eng a PM...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Nothing from 2+2. Not expecting anything.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many of you are too thin-skinned for the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh...okay. I'd quit my job if my boss spoke to me that way in front of others, so I guess I'd too thin skinned for work, too.

Thanks for the input.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
lol engineer is such a whiny beeyatch. good riddance i say tho i doubt he actually leaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] off, [censored]. You came here the day before IGREA was introduced specifically to ask people to NOT FIGHT BACK!! WTF! I was polite to you, then you called me a retard, so I called you on it. You don't like it....tough [censored].

As for your comments, I'd love to hear you say that when you weren't hiding behind your keyboard. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheEngineer]

That's it for me for a while. Thanks to everyone who posted kind words about me and what I tried to lead.

Keep up the fight!

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I promise if online poker in the U.S. is banned then 2p2 in it's current form will cease to exist.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This statement is wildly inaccurate...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It may or may not be. Pi Yee Press reported that their poker book sales dropped significantly, including King Yao's good book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sales of all limit hold 'em books are off from what they once were. But in terms of book publishing in general, the best ones are still selling fairly well. The big demand is now in the no limit area.

Second, Pi Yee Press is a small player in this area of poker book publishing. I think King Yao's book is their only poker book, so Pi Yee is not a good measure no matter what their poker book sales might be.

As for us, we've been around in approximately this form for just over 20 years. I suspect we'll be here a few more. And if not, I've worked hard enough and will enjoy my retirement.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Emp,

Mason's post was entirely consistent with his previous statements on issues such as this.

Eng's post read like he was speaking for 2+2, Mason pointed it out (nothing more, as far as I know). Unless there is more to this, Eng overreacted.

That said, overreaction to stuff is fairly common around here... and it would be a shame to lose Eng as a poster over this possible misunderstanding.

Hopefully, Mat has already sent Eng a PM...

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is, that if every member of 2+2 decided to invite some group/person/entity to join in the discussion at 2+2, then there isn't a whole lot that Mason can do or should do to prevent this. Members of the community don't represent the ownership, and the ownership may or may NOT represent the community. In this case, Two plus Two publishing has been VERY adamant about staying out of the lobbying/politics/legislation arena. So Mason doesn't really represent the community here, like he might when it comes to dealer training or something he participates in discussions about.

Mason didn't just comment, he insinuated that what The Engineer had done is not acceptable. In my opinion, not only is it acceptable, but it was requested by the community in the poll that was posted. Mason does not control what the community endorses, He only controls what the ownership endorses and makes sure the content on the forum does not lead to liability.

If 100K members of 2+2 decide to "officialy endorse" one entity or 100,000 entities, I don't see how Two Plus Two Publishing, or its ownership can be held liable.

Now, could this lead to some Anarchy where BluffThis doesn't like the PPA, and so he decides to send the PPA a letter that reads opposite of The Engineers? Sure.. but that is his perogative.. I don't see how Mason has anything to do with the community's endorsement of anything though.

Oh btw, I have been posting almost as long as Mason on this forum. It is nice that he has made enough to retire, but many of us haven't including myself. So I really need The Engineer to be successful in what he is trying to do, so that one day I might retire like Mason.

Best Wishes

Emperor

[Victor]

"So I really need The Engineer to be successful in what he is trying to do, so that one day I might retire like Mason."

would it be considered ironic if online poker was legalized and taxes the [censored] out of to the point it wasnt profitable to play?

[NoChance]

[ QUOTE ]

would it be considered ironic if online poker was legalized and taxes the [censored] out of to the point it wasnt profitable to play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. This is a realistic possibility.

[Victor]

man i guess i just suck at literary devices then.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

would it be considered ironic if online poker was legalized and taxes the [censored] out of to the point it wasnt profitable to play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. This is a realistic possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Right now it is being taxed at 100% in some states, ie it is illegal like heroin.

If they make it legal and tax it at 50%, I will continue to play at the same websites that are paying 0% tax now. Pokerstars and Full-Tilt for example. Should these sites decide to pay the licensing fee and the insane taxes, then I'll move to WSEX. I am pretty sure Jay isn't going to be sending the US government a freaking dime after they locked him up illegally.

"Buying" bootleg poker is a whole lot easier than buying bootleg cigs for example.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

would it be considered ironic if online poker was legalized and taxes the [censored] out of to the point it wasnt profitable to play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. This is a realistic possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Right now it is being taxed at 100% in some states, ie it is illegal like heroin.

If they make it legal and tax it at 50%, I will continue to play at the same websites that are paying 0% tax now. Pokerstars and Full-Tilt for example. Should these sites decide to pay the licensing fee and the insane taxes, then I'll move to WSEX. I am pretty sure Jay isn't going to be sending the US government a freaking dime after they locked him up illegally.

"Buying" bootleg poker is a whole lot easier than buying bootleg cigs for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post highlights a common misunderstanding, and a problem with Engineer's advocacy. The PPA is aware of this problem as well, but hasn't discussed how they will address it yet because players won't like what they have to say.
States have always retained control of gambling, the Federal government has no say in the matter until it crosses state lines, and even then the individual state's laws govern the terms of what is permitted. A carve out is impossible, but a law permitting states to provide internet based gambling facilities across state lines provided there is a compact between the states is the only compromise that stands a chance of winning. This is the same formula currently used for Horse Racing and State Lotteries (think Powerball). The downside is that each state must conform their gambling laws and taxation rules with each other state in the compact, a process that can take as long as a decade as we have seen with Powerball. Using this scenario we might see the same brand managing poker for the states of Nevada and Florida for example, however these players wouldn't be allowed to play with one another except for the tables where Florida resident's betting limits are restricted - provided of course a compact between the states exist.

We will never see the freedom we had returned to us, the future is bleak and filled with taxation and regulation even if there is a "carve out" approved at the federal level.

[Skallagrim]

I might agree with *TT*'s predictions (but quibble with some of his legal interpertations) but for 2 things. First, once government gets a taste of the revenue they wont want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Second, his thoughts completely ignore the impact of FOREIGN competition. The WTO thing is going very badly for the US and it will force this issue to go one way or the other: either no internet gambling of any kind in the US, or a market, even if restricted in some ways, where offshore sites must be allowed to compete.
Skallagrim

[Victor]

"First, once government gets a taste of the revenue they wont want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. "

i dont think gov works this way. local and state politicians want to make a positive difference. they want better roads, better schools, new sports stadiums, parks and trails, and community programs. unfortunately the funding is lacking. historically, they have raised taxes and the easiest place to raise taxes is on tobacco and alcohol. i dont have hard numbers and im too lazy to look it up but i know cigs went up .25c recently and can remember at least 2 other tax raises there.

its vvvvvvvvvv easy to raise taxes on cigs. most ppl dont smoke and most ppl want better schools. well, whats to stop that from happening in gambling. i think it would quite presumptious to think the gov actually understands (or even cares) how gambling and rake works. see pbobs politician friend.

what the gov does realize and is completely correct, is that ppl are degens and enough WILL play an atrociously unbeatable game if its provided. look at gov slots. look at the fckn lottery. its very possible that the gov can tax the [censored] out of poker and make it unbeatable and still make more money.

still, its the gov nature to squeeze as much revenue as possible and it is completely against the gov nature to ever admit they were wrong and to redress errors. soooooo, some hot shot up and comer decides that he wants to run for higher office and puts forth a bill to raise taxes on gambling in your city/state and fund schools with the revenue. now u cant play poker profitably. hell, mebbe ppl even stop playing and the gov loses money. do you think the politician that staked his career is gonna admit that he fcked up and cost the state money?

at this point im undecided but im very close to being against this bill. i simply do not want to be a the mercy of an often incompetent, corrupt, enterprise that does not care about a pro online gamblers well-being.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I might agree with *TT*'s predictions (but quibble with some of his legal interpertations) but for 2 things. First, once government gets a taste of the revenue they wont want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Second, his thoughts completely ignore the impact of FOREIGN competition. The WTO thing is going very badly for the US and it will force this issue to go one way or the other: willing to acceopt thjeeither no internet gambling of any kind in the US, or a market, even if restricted in some ways, where offshore sites must be allowed to compete.
Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I left the WTO issue out of the conversation because nobody yet knows of the results of todays actions. Its still a huge variable, and it seems as if by removing gambling from GATS the US feels that they can negotiate it's way out of this mess (I am not arguing that they will, only that it seems to be the Gov's position).

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post highlights a common misunderstanding, and a problem with Engineer's advocacy. The PPA is aware of this problem as well, but hasn't discussed how they will address it yet because players won't like what they have to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

Won't a good percentage of players be unhappy that PPA has NOT said much about the problem, once those players learn more?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post [taxes so high that the game isn't profitable to play] highlights a common misunderstanding, and a problem with Engineer's advocacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree taxes can be a big problem. If taxes of a reasonable amount are on corporate profits, I personally think we'll be okay. If government plans to rake the pot, we need to fight such provisions vigorously, IMHO. I opposed Tuff_Fish's initial CA initiative for that exact reason.

I don't agree that this is a problem with my prior advocacy effort, as IGREA contains no provisions for a government rake. Also, my advocacy here was based mostly on generating political momentum. HR 4777 was some nasty stuff for us...we're best off keeping that at bay. As for the DOJ, these guys are some real zealots. Hopefully some sanity will return to that department with the next administration.

[ QUOTE ]
States have always retained control of gambling, the Federal States have always retained control of gambling, the Federal government has no say in the matter until it crosses state lines, and even then the individual state's laws govern the terms of what is permitted. A carve out is impossible, but a law permitting states to provide internet based gambling facilities across state lines provided there is a compact between the states is the only compromise that stands a chance of winning. This is the same formula currently used for Horse Racing and State Lotteries (think Powerball). The downside is that each state must conform their gambling laws and taxation rules with each other state in the compact, a process that can take as long as a decade as we have seen with Powerball. Using this scenario we might see the same brand managing poker for the states of Nevada and Florida for example, however these players wouldn't be allowed to play with one another except for the tables where Florida resident's betting limits are restricted - provided of course a compact between the states exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, this is where the IGREA has its greatest strength. States have been conditioned to expect gambling to generate profits for the state, so they EXPECT huge taxes. With the feds, something reasonable in terms of taxation with the added benefit of being handed to the states as free cash on a silver platter could clear out the interstate and other red tape.

Finally, if the taxes are corporate, I THINK (I don't know....speculation only) you'd see poker come out okay. They have too much B&M competition to get too excessive on the rake, and non-US sites will still be accessible to us. Besides, many sites could offer poker as a loss leader like WSEX and make up the taxes and profits on the casino games.

[questions]

I always find in these discussions that there is an unspoken concept that citizens can do nothing in the face of government greed. That is, when taxes rise, "well, that's just the way it is - nothing you can do." Being a man of many "questions", I ask myself, "why not? Why can't I demand lower taxes and spending?" Of course, I can, but one of the problems with people today is that they feel powerless and don't get off the couch or contact the public SERVANTS who were elected to serve THEM, not the other way around. If people aren't going to tell their legislators what they want them to do, then yes, government will probably grow larger, consuming more money, raising taxes, and then not only will online poker die, but lots of things will (if the power to tax is the power to destroy).

[JPFisher55]

Too many people feed off of big government and big taxes.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, Mat has already sent Eng a PM...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Nothing from 2+2. Not expecting anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mat has since sent me a PM. Thanks Mat.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, Mat has already sent Eng a PM...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Nothing from 2+2. Not expecting anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mat has since sent me a PM. Thanks Mat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx Mat /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Tarheel]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Seems to me that Mason made a simple request regarding his business, and that should be respected. I doubt Mason sends many PM's and him giving an explanation of his position does not constitute as talking down to anyone.

That said, we all appreciate your efforts Engineer. I've been following your action plans since they started and continue to do so. This however is the 2nd time i've seen you blow up at very minor things. Your letter to the PPA could have simply been resent with the added caveat that you "in no way represent the management nor the official position of TwoPlusTwo Publishing". I realize that you are passionate about this, but remaining professional in discussion will get you a lot further. I am with you though Engineer, so let's get back on track!!

[Sparta45]

[ QUOTE ]
I always find in these discussions that there is an unspoken concept that citizens can do nothing in the face of government greed. That is, when taxes rise, "well, that's just the way it is - nothing you can do." Being a man of many "questions", I ask myself, "why not? Why can't I demand lower taxes and spending?" Of course, I can, but one of the problems with people today is that they feel powerless and don't get off the couch or contact the public SERVANTS who were elected to serve THEM, not the other way around. If people aren't going to tell their legislators what they want them to do, then yes, government will probably grow larger, consuming more money, raising taxes, and then not only will online poker die, but lots of things will (if the power to tax is the power to destroy).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you in theory....however, in reality, I have probably sent 12 to 15 letters to various "public servants" over the past 12 months or so. Exactly "one" has responded to me at all. And that was a form letter.

Unfortunately, it just seems that unless you are part of a huge lobby group with lots of $$$ or unless you happen to be very well connected, your voice isn't going to be heard.

[Dunkman]

My experience has been that elected representatives do indeed respond to communication from their constituents.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you in theory....however, in reality, I have probably sent 12 to 15 letters to various "public servants" over the past 12 months or so. Exactly "one" has responded to me at all. And that was a form letter.

Unfortunately, it just seems that unless you are part of a huge lobby group with lots of $$$ or unless you happen to be very well connected, your voice isn't going to be heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barney Frank mentioned that these politicians do keep track of their constituents' comments, so I think it's important that we keep writing. As for your experiences, typically you'll hear back only from your own congressman and senators. The others may (or may not....I know Rep. Frank and Rep. Paul do read them) read them, but I believe they cannot send mail outside their district (rep) or state (senator), at least for free (it's called "franking"....postage-free mail to constituents).

I hope we'll all continue writing and calling. Our opponents sure are.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
"First, once government gets a taste of the revenue they wont want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. "

i dont think gov works this way. local and state politicians want to make a positive difference. they want better roads, better schools, new sports stadiums, parks and trails, and community programs. unfortunately the funding is lacking. historically, they have raised taxes and the easiest place to raise taxes is on tobacco and alcohol. i dont have hard numbers and im too lazy to look it up but i know cigs went up .25c recently and can remember at least 2 other tax raises there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with your concerns at all. However, I don't think doing nothing is viable, either. Our opponents are committed to putting us out of business. I thought this quesiton was important enough to start a new thread, so I did, at Future of Online Poker in the USA (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10532519&an=0&page=0#Pos t10532519) .

[seemorenuts]

We should first examine the role of poker in our culture for the next 500 years from the perspective of our governments. Opinions such as Kurt Vonnegut's would be helpful here too--(but he died April 11th, 2007).

If players could organize and be patient re delayed gratification, a set up that would not involve taxes can be trivially set up--nominially no cash changes hands, it would be via networked computers, whether people are face-to-face or not (I realize this sounds terribly redundant/obvious but it's not).

Poker certainly has its place in education.
Placed in its appropriate context children should benefit from learning the logic and beauty that the game provides.

All of the above should be considered in the efforts to keep poker alive, but it is realistic to accept that it will evolve within our culture over time.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
We should first examine the role of poker in our culture for the next 500 years from the perspective of our governments. Opinions such as Kurt Vonnegut's would be helpful here too--(but he died April 11th, 2007).

If players could organize and be patient re delayed gratification, a set up that would not involve taxes can be trivially set up--nominially no cash changes hands, it would be via networked computers, whether people are face-to-face or not (I realize this sounds terribly redundant/obvious but it's not).

Poker certainly has its place in education.
Placed in its appropriate context children should benefit from learning the logic and beauty that the game provides.

All of the above should be considered in the efforts to keep poker alive, but it is realistic to accept that it will evolve within our culture over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure this is irrelevant considering in 43 years the Messiah returns to rule for the next 1000 years. My understanding is that we will be doing much more important things during those years other than playing poker.