PPA Update. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

TheRedRocket

08-21-2007, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PPA UPDATE:

1) The board is still packed with cronyist conflicting interests dominated by CP magazine reps and the interests of certain market players including Party Poker which tries to undermine the other market players still in the US Market

2) PPA hasn't shown much interest in neutering the forthcoming regs which should be an important mid-term fallback plan to protect the ability of its members to continue playing online while the longer term fight is waged

3) PPA still refuses to engage the posters of this forum by designating a spokesman to regularly interact with us here on 2+2 which is the largest poker community on the net/earth

4) PPA (thus far) has focused only repeal of the UIGEA without much/any focus on B&M poker at the state level which would have a synergistic effect to help online poker *especially* if they targeted a few big states like NY and TX

5) After, as likely and despite all our hopes, the pending bills in Congress fail, the PPA will say they tried and that we all need to ignore the organization's conflicted interests and shortcomings and work for the future instead of first demanding structural changes like in the board makeup

6) Summary bottom line is that the PPA still views its primary stakeholders as not its wider membership, but the existing online sites and media dependant on same for advertising

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about any of the above but as a member of the ppa it is disheartening to see how much the engineer comes up with each week towards getting online poker legalized or reducing the amount of restrictions and to only rarely be called to action by the PPA.

It seems like the weekly actions for example would not take much effort or resources and could have strong effects if pushed out to all of the PPA members.

honestly I really don't have a clue as to what the PPA actually does

DeadMoneyDad

08-21-2007, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is this serious or what? Ive [censored] had hope dashed so many gd times this year and Im in the midst of a horrid downswing so I ain't investing any emotional capital in these people until they actually start using $, employees, and volunteers to start mobilizing us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't blame any of you for doubting anything you read from me. You don't know me, and anyone can post anything they want on the 'net.

Only time will tell if the one phone call I had today resluts in the positive action we all hope for from the PPA.

What I can share is my initial concerns about the PPA squandering it's resources on a one time shot at a legislative quick fix were entirely misplaced. I was also concerned as a grassroots activist that they were missing the real power they had in their grasp.

What I had seen as inaction was perhaps careful thoughtful planning. Yes there were some opportunities lost by not capitalizing on all the hopes that we all placed on the inital rush of excitement of having a group to represent us, but all I am saying is there is hope.

All organizations go through growing pains. I can tell you from my conversation that the PPA is in it for the long haul and not being designed as a one trick pony. I come from the campaign side were we are used to hitting the ground running. Each and every day until election day is invaluable. You make sure you capitalize on every bit of momentium you can get, because you try to build a perfect organization designed to go out of business the day after the election.

Advocacy groups on the otherhand are built for, the long haul, multi-elections cycles. There are many issues involved for poker players in the U.S.. I am glad to say that the PPA seems to be building itself to address all of them.

No I am not suggesting that anyone invest a thing based on my few posts here. No I am not a shill for anyone, just another player with a passion for poker. I do not even have a paid membership in the PPA.

I can tell you that things are not as bleak as many of you feel, as I did before my conversation today.

So take from my words what you will.

Time will tell,

D$D

DrewOnTilt

08-21-2007, 11:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What I had seen as inaction was perhaps careful thoughtful planning. Yes there were some opportunities lost by not capitalizing on all the hopes that we all placed on the inital rush of excitement of having a group to represent us, but all I am saying is there is hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

CAREFUL THOUGHTFUL PLANNING? How [censored] long does it take to establish a solid lobbying plan? It's been nearly ten months since we got Fristed, and over a year and a half since trouble started brewing. How much time do they need?

We are all hard on the PPA, and with good reason. I'm underwhelmed at their efforts. All I've seen from them is the occasional email and letter campaign. That's not enough.

JPFisher55

08-21-2007, 11:36 PM

Does the PPA intend to get involved in the iMEGA case? I think that it could help and possibly solve issues such as standing of iMEGA to bring the suit. Has the PPA contacted iMEGA to explore this possibility?

Legislurker

08-21-2007, 11:58 PM

We could really use a master political site to organize this stuff.

Coy_Roy

08-22-2007, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about any of the above but as a member of the ppa it is disheartening to see how much the engineer comes up with each week towards getting online poker legalized or reducing the amount of restrictions and to only rarely be called to action by the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like you're reading my thoughts.

coachkf

08-22-2007, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

3) PPA still refuses to engage the posters of this forum by designating a spokesman to regularly interact with us here on 2+2 which is the largest poker community on the net/earth

[/ QUOTE ]

When PPA was in it's infancy before UIGEA was passed, Michael Bolcerek was active in this forum. He got repeatedly slammed by members who complained that he was a crappy spokesman, etc., and Mason M. of 2p2 even got in on the act by letting everyone know that they did not trust or support the PPA.

No wonder they don't bother coming to this forum anymore.

I'm disgruntled with the PPA like most everyone else I suppose, but I do see why they quit coming to this forum.

DeliciousBass

08-22-2007, 05:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mason M. of 2p2 even got in on the act by letting everyone know that they did not trust or support the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a side note: Mason is expected to have a statement about the UIGEA pretty soon.

Mason Malmuth

08-22-2007, 05:59 AM

I suggest that unless you can come on here with some specifics, you shjouldn't be making the type of posts that you are. It doesn't do anyone here any good to be told that the sky is going to be blue soon unless you can back this up with a few facts.

On the other hand, if you would have been a long time poster here who has built up credibility then a post like yours would be more acceptable. And again, I want to repeat that our position towards the PPA is neutral. For this to change, we need to see more changes in their board than they have currently made even though there has been movement here in the right direction.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason Malmuth

08-22-2007, 06:04 AM

I think you have clearly mis-represented what we did and our attitude towards the PPA. I believe, because of our initial work, the PPA did improve.

Also, Bolcerek was on here soliciting members/money and refused to tell us when asked how the money was being spent, who the lobbyist were, what their goals were, etc. You need to understand that we at Two Plus Two are a serious organization that is willing to spend our own money when necessary to do what's best for poker and to protect our members. We do this at no charge to you.

On a side note, even though our current position towards the PPA is neutral, I would like to see a representative of their organization come on here and answer questions in a serious and professional manner. This didn't happen before which is one of the reasons there was difficulty. But, as far as we are concerned, there is no reason it can't happen now.

Mason

Legislurker

08-22-2007, 07:06 AM

Thanks for weighing in Mason. You have had a measured, cautious approach to the PPA that I hope will bear fruit from them one day. You attempted to do the homework and background on them, and they stonewalled you. I think a lot of us would have overlooked where exactly the money went if they had organized us and acted, but they wanted secrecy and inaction. I don't know if they can interact with a forum this large easily and fluidly, but they could have a reader
here with weekly updates, at the least. Twoplustwo is the
nexus of the poker universe, and they have eschewed it, to the detriment of themselves and poker, and deserve to have to work to get back in our good graces.
I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say that my reading/posting here is relayed via IM/forum/table talk to a factor of ten or more other poker players. I've been asking
the last couple of days what it would take for the PPA to get them to act in unison with them. Of the first four people I queried, three said to get the endorsement of twoplustwo that they did not get before. More rank and file recreational people will follow in those people's footsteps.
People are willing to give time and money if they can see how its working. I realize poker player's may have the highest ratio of [censored] to angel, but we aren't unreasonable. Its not too late for the PPA to step up, but they can't get anything done online without first stepping up here with facts, transparency, and engagement.

Wynton

08-22-2007, 08:14 AM

Hey all,

I haven't been active here in months for a variety of reasons, but got my hopes up, momentarily, when I saw the title of this thread.

Now, I'm disappointed, not just in the lack of information but in discovering that the PPA has not had more of a presence here in the past few months. Last I paid attention, a number of people here had been selected as State contacts for the PPA (a position I unsuccessfully applied for). I had assumed that those people who be effective liasons between PPA and the rest of us. Are we still suffering from a lack of communication?

And I certainly can't understand why anyone would actually withhold information about the PPA's activities.

1p0kerboy

08-22-2007, 09:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, even though our current position towards the PPA is neutral, I would like to see a representative of their organization come on here and answer questions in a serious and professional manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that often the questions aren't going to come from serious, professional posters. Many of them are going to come from people like BluffThis who obviously have their own agenda.

TheEngineer

08-22-2007, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that unless you can come on here with some specifics, you shjouldn't be making the type of posts that you are. It doesn't do anyone here any good to be told that the sky is going to be blue soon unless you can back this up with a few facts.

On the other hand, if you would have been a long time poster here who has built up credibility then a post like yours would be more acceptable. And again, I want to repeat that our position towards the PPA is neutral. For this to change, we need to see more changes in their board than they have currently made even though there has been movement here in the right direction.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone,

I spoke with John Pappas for over an hour last night about various aspects of the PPA. They do have a plan. DeadMoney referred to an upcoming announcement. The announcement will happen fairly soon.

As we all know, up until now PPA has generally functioned a lobbying organization, where they work behind the scenes to influence politicians to support various legislation, and they've had some successes in this area. However, as we also know, they've not been effective in using their membership as a grassroots force. I think they're starting to understand this weakness and are working to resolve it. My conversation didn't lead me to draw anywhere near the optimistic conclusions DeadMoney did, but that's probably because I asked very specific questions about what they would do with regards to each issue we have [i.e., What are you doing about the KY elections? How? When? How about the UIGEA regs? What about the NFL letter? What about member communication? How come my posts (just one guy with a $0 budget) generate more Google returns than all of PPA’s work combined? Etc.]. What it did lead me to believe is that they’ll take some positive steps toward engaging their membership and towards facilitating the building of a grassroots organization. Time will tell if this will be more successful than in the past. I hope we’ll continue to hold them accountable, but that we’ll also look at them with as open a mind as possible. And, I hope we’ll let them know when we don’t like what we see.

As for BluffTHIS’ “PPA Update”:

1) The issues with the board are still what they are.
2) BluffTHIS is correct, the PPA isn’t lobbying to neuter the regs. I expressed my thoughts that they should, but they won’t.
3) PPA states they’d like to engage the 2p2 community, but have not yet done anything in this area. In fairness, they do respond to me whenever I ask them a question, but I can’t relay every question we have via email. A PPA presence here would help.
4) I discussed the KY gubernatorial elections with John (if Beshear wins, Kentuckians will vote on a constitutional amendment allowing poker; if Fletcher wins, he promises he’ll stop any expansion of gambling in KY). They have an interest and will make a determination. If they do, we’ll see them in action and will be able to critique their performance. If they sit this out, that would make quite the statement as well.
5) We, the PPA members, control the organization. When we don’t like something, we need to write or post on their forums demanding action. I have been, as have a few others here. I’ve seen what a few hundred dedicated folks here can accomplish, and can only imagine what could be done with 660,000. I’m still constrained to imaging, but am hopeful.
6) I think they’re sincere in wishing to improve in terms of member outreach and in grassroots effort building. Of course, sincerity and results aren’t the same thing. Time will tell.

So, I’d say I’m guardedly optimistic. They’re not contemplating anything with the energy level of what we do here, but they are looking at how to enable their members to do stuff like that within PPA. Again, time will tell. I’ll post more after the announcement.

TruePoker CEO

08-22-2007, 09:57 AM

If or when Engineer posts in this thread again, I'll read it.

I also would be interested in what an official representative of the PPA might post here, provided it is substantive.

4_2_it

08-22-2007, 10:07 AM

Engineer,

Thanks for the update. I guess one thing that still baffles me is why a lobbying organization doesn't have anyone it can designate to read and post on poker Internet message boards like 2+2. Seems like such a no-brainer to garner new members, preach to the converted and rally the troops.

oldbookguy

08-22-2007, 10:18 AM

Thanks Engineer.

I have written (never called) them and all but the last time simply received a canned response.

I did receive a reply from Pappas this last time for once concerning the Thompson letter.

I replied with many concerns that mirror yours and others.

Are we perhaps getting through to the PPA? The PPA needs to be at the least partially as active as FoF and other groups.

We shall see, I hope good things come soon.

obg

CountingMyOuts

08-22-2007, 10:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

Thanks for the update. I guess one thing that still baffles me is why a lobbying organization doesn't have anyone it can designate to read and post on poker Internet message boards like 2+2. Seems like such a no-brainer to garner new members, preach to the converted and rally the troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

tangled

08-22-2007, 11:32 AM

Why won't the PPA work to neuter the UIGEA regs? I submit it is because they are controlled by Party. Party has made it clear that they don't want other sites offering poker to the US player unless they can too.
If Party can't be here, then they don't want any site here. And the only way Party can be here is through legislation, not through soft regs workarounds.

Party's goals are similar to our goals but not identical. And with all due respect, we don't control the PPA, Party does. That is why they lack transparency, because if they opened up there books we would all be able see who is really funding them.

I support the PPA because what they want would be great for the player too, but they don't support "all" the things that would be great for the player.

Again, I support the PPA, but I refuse too be fooled by their happy spin. I try not to be a fish at the table, nor in regards to the true nature of the PPA. But I will try to keep an open mind.

hollaballa

08-22-2007, 11:42 AM

Pappas is the new president.....michael b has stepped down

Mason Malmuth

08-22-2007, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of the first four people I queried, three said to get the endorsement of twoplustwo that they did not get before.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have to clean up their board. Hopefully the new president is a step in the right direction, but I have no idea who he is. We have also made it clear that we will not endorse the PPA until Mrs Shulman is no longer a board member. But they need more fixes than just that.

Best wishes,
Mason

Wynton

08-22-2007, 01:25 PM

I hope the exciting news is not limited to a new president and new office location.

BluffTHIS!

08-22-2007, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

As for BluffTHIS’ “PPA Update”:

1) The issues with the board are still what they are.
2) BluffTHIS is correct, the PPA isn’t lobbying to neuter the regs. I expressed my thoughts that they should, but they won’t.
3) PPA states they’d like to engage the 2p2 community, but have not yet done anything in this area. In fairness, they do respond to me whenever I ask them a question, but I can’t relay every question we have via email. A PPA presence here would help.
4) I discussed the KY gubernatorial elections with John (if Beshear wins, Kentuckians will vote on a constitutional amendment allowing poker; if Fletcher wins, he promises he’ll stop any expansion of gambling in KY). They have an interest and will make a determination. If they do, we’ll see them in action and will be able to critique their performance. If they sit this out, that would make quite the statement as well.
5) We, the PPA members, control the organization. When we don’t like something, we need to write or post on their forums demanding action. I have been, as have a few others here. I’ve seen what a few hundred dedicated folks here can accomplish, and can only imagine what could be done with 660,000. I’m still constrained to imaging, but am hopeful.
6) I think they’re sincere in wishing to improve in terms of member outreach and in grassroots effort building. Of course, sincerity and results aren’t the same thing. Time will tell.

So, I’d say I’m guardedly optimistic. They’re not contemplating anything with the energy level of what we do here, but they are looking at how to enable their members to do stuff like that within PPA. Again, time will tell. I’ll post more after the announcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer,

Thanks for taking the time to talk to Mr. Pappas and report back to us here on same, and as well to specifically respond to the points I made earlier.

However although I too am "guardedly optimistic" about the overall situation, it has nothing to do with the PPA, but rather with the ongoing actions in congress, the judicial arena and the WTO. Re the PPA, all you have confirmed is that they only support a very small subset of the larger set of goals most of us here support, and largely act at the behest of the goals of the online sites and poker media, especially Party Poker. If we do end up with some favorable outcome in the legislative area, IMO it will only be 30% at best because of the PPA, and 70% despite them. And if it weren't for this 2+2 forum and the activities of its members, especially yourself at the grassroots level, the PPA wouldn't have a chance of accomplishing diddly squat.

BluffTHIS!

08-22-2007, 01:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope the exciting news is not limited to a new president and new office location.

[/ QUOTE ]

Substanceless spin is always exciting to the spinner.

BluffTHIS!

08-22-2007, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, even though our current position towards the PPA is neutral, I would like to see a representative of their organization come on here and answer questions in a serious and professional manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that often the questions aren't going to come from serious, professional posters. Many of them are going to come from people like BluffThis who obviously have their own agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

pokerBOY,

You are a huge tool. I do pose questions in a serious and professional manner, but I just do so with a healthy dose of sarcasm and overall agressiveness. I have a very good grasp of the overall situation and most of the details, including the online poker market players/economy, and various legal issues to do with same.

The plain fact of the matter is that there are some shortcomings in the PPA that are very severe and that the reason they refuse to engage us here is that they also refuse to make many substantive changes, especially involving CP mag giving up its straglehold on the board.

The ONLY reason that the PPA is worth supporting to any degree, is simply because they are currently the only game in town. But that still doesn't mean they should get a free pass from us *especially* when they don't truly represent all the goals we have. Instead they largely represent the goals and business models of certain existing online sites and advertising media.

I realize that the reason that you and many posters like you dislike my aggressive criticisms of the PPA is because you are scared of losing your livelihood if the upcoming regs have any teeth in them at all, or at least are successful in making it virtually impossible to play poker. However I too play fulltime and have those concerns as well, but probably with the difference that I can always go back to playing live, can still find a way to play online if I jump through a enough hoops, and also have enough savings that I am not going to be put in any immediate crunch.

But you and others are missing a VERY important point that Engineer confirmed from his conversation. Which is that the PPA is expending *zero* effort on neutering the regs as a mid-term fallback position. That *should* be a HUGE goal of yourself so that you can keep playing as now with some poker sites willing to take some measure of risk to spread games for US players when as likely the bills in Congress fail and we have to shift to a 3-5 year time frame to get what we want.

Instead, you and those private sites are being played for SUCKERS by Party Poker who takes contrary legal interpretations of the UIGEA than those sites in order to harm those competitors. Stars, FT and the others should wake the [censored] up on this. When those private sites get tired of being played for fools, then their support coupled with the base of posters on 2+2 could easily help start a new organization, despite all the difficulties involved. The PPA should keep that in mind.

And here's something CP magazine should keep in mind as well. Those private sites that now are being taken advantage of by the PPA's catering to Party Poker can afford to pull ALL of their advertising from CP and not suffer at all because every swinging dick who reads CP already plays or at least knows of those sites.

oldbookguy

08-22-2007, 02:24 PM

Congratulations to you, I see the PPA has put a link on their main page to your 'report card' on congress.

obg

1p0kerboy

08-22-2007, 02:42 PM

BluffThis,

I don't mind your criticisms of the PPA. In fact, I think you have a lot of valid points.

What I do mind is the frequency and magnitude of your posts with your opinions on the matter. It's just plain annoying.

And also your misguided belief that this organization should use it's resources on every little thing that every single one of its' 600,000+ members wants is ludicrous. If you want something outside of what this organization is seeking then perhaps you should start your own?

1p0kerboy

08-22-2007, 02:46 PM

Perhaps under new leadership the PPA will do some things differently.

DeadMoneyDad

08-22-2007, 03:06 PM

oldbookguy

08-22-2007, 03:14 PM

The good news is that John Pappas is asking questions, seeking answers. I know you and Engineer have had conversations and I have experienced the same via e-mail several times today.

Patience will be required as I am sure he has received a lot of input and that will need sorting out and developing a action plan will take a little time.

obg

Merkle

08-22-2007, 04:17 PM

I haven't joined the PPA yet. So far I have not seen a reason to do so. However, perhaps things are changing. I noted and appreciated what appears to be a post from somebody at PPA.

A combination of more information and evidence of actions being taken to improve our situation are what I have been waiting for.

And for the one poster, if I had the know how I would very seriously look at forming a new orginaztion. But it seems silly to re-invent the wheel if things are going to get on track.

I would like to see actions that would challenge laws or force courts to make rulings. As long as we have a reasonable chance to win. Something like deliberately playing poker online in public and having a press conference while doing so stating that online poker is a LEGAL activity. Put the ball in the DA's court to prosecute or not. Of course I want to see a defense fund in place before doing so <grin>

Tuff_Fish

08-22-2007, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't joined the PPA yet. So far I have not seen a reason to do so. However, perhaps things are changing. I noted and appreciated what appears to be a post from somebody at PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I echo what Merkle said.

My advice to PPA would be to get a full on grassroots, along with a professional, lobbying effort to support Wexler's bill. The passage of that bill would do wonders for every aspect of the poker business, B&M, online, advertising, the works.

Tuff

PS: Sorry, but I don't care about other gambling endeavors and won't waste time and effort trying to overcome the inherent difficulties of attempting to legalize online sportsbetting or casino style gambling.

That being said, if Barney Frank's bill passes, great.

T

TheEngineer

08-22-2007, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

Thanks for taking the time to talk to Mr. Pappas and report back to us here on same, and as well to specifically respond to the points I made earlier.

However although I too am "guardedly optimistic" about the overall situation, it has nothing to do with the PPA, but rather with the ongoing actions in congress, the judicial arena and the WTO. Re the PPA, all you have confirmed is that they only support a very small subset of the larger set of goals most of us here support, and largely act at the behest of the goals of the online sites and poker media, especially Party Poker. If we do end up with some favorable outcome in the legislative area, IMO it will only be 30% at best because of the PPA, and 70% despite them. And if it weren't for this 2+2 forum and the activities of its members, especially yourself at the grassroots level, the PPA wouldn't have a chance of accomplishing diddly squat.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, BluffTHIS. Now that the announcement has been made, I can be clearer. John Pappas seems to be more of a go-getter than Bolcerek was, and he wants to get the members doing more. How much more remains to be seen, but something is clearly better than nothing. As OBG noted, he’s been proactive in communicating with a few of us. I received an email from him today as well. So, the new leadership is clearly a step in the right direction.

I agree that there are concerns that PPA represents a subset of the entire fight, but if we have 660,000 people fighting for 50% of our goals, plus the PPA lobbyists working behind the scenes, we'll improve quite a bit from where we are today. A good example is the letter that went out two weeks ago advising us to go to our congressmen's town halls during the August recess. That was Pappas' idea, and that letter received a positive response here. The plan is to work on the base with stuff like that while also working on getting more people to their currently moribund forums. And, if we want them to work on the other 50% of our goals, we shouldn’t be shy about telling them. I know I’m not.

Thanks for the compliment on our work here at 2p2. I’ve found that if I ask a lot, you’ve all risen to the challenge. I’m proud of what each and everyone here has done to stand up for his or her rights. Even when it looked impossible, many stood up on general principle and nothing else. PPA is concerned about asking too much of their members. I told John that if he asks a lot of the PPA membership, they’d likely come through as well. All they have to do is ask.

The other concerns we have with PPA, especially with their board, are what they are, and this move didn't make those go away. I guess we’ll have to wait and see…give them a chance but hold them accountable. I remain guardedly optimistic.

Mason Malmuth

08-22-2007, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
posted the information that I felt I could share. I tried to show my reasoning. I am a grassroots guy. I was really disapointed that the PPA wasn't exercising that muscle. Like any muscle it needs to be exercised.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you didn't share any information. All you did was share speculation, and from someone with no reputation as of yet for being a reliable poster, you shouldn't do that.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the board backed his apparent plans, I felt was encouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's partly why you have no credibility. I want to see major changes in the board. Getting rid of Bolcerek, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction, and I support that move, but more needs to be done.

MM

MiltonFriedman

08-22-2007, 06:52 PM

Clearly, a professional grass-roots organizer would be a plus. But I could not find anything in John's Googled credentials to indicate he has that type of background or expertise. Why are you high on him ?

There was no apparent substance in either your posts or the belated relay of a press release, which incidently had been on Gambling911 all day already.

(There is a BIG difference between fundraising from the masses and grass-roots organizing. That a professional lobbyist has co-opted the fundraising potential of the poker group is perhaps a bleak outlook, but tell me how it is inaccurate. What are the substantive plans you allude to ? This is not some great secret I hope.)
Is there some substantive plan for action NOW or are we looking at someone devoted to building a well-paying warchest ?

By the way, is the Dittus Group now or still on the PPA payroll ?

Milton Friedman

TheEngineer

08-22-2007, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Congratulations to you, I see the PPA has put a link on their main page to your 'report card' on congress.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. They also gave me a page for the action items, at https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=234 , which is linked the home page as well. I control the content remotely and it updates automatically. Sweet.

TheRedRocket

08-22-2007, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Congratulations to you, I see the PPA has put a link on their main page to your 'report card' on congress.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. They also gave me a page for the action items, at https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=234 , which is linked the home page as well. I control the content remotely and it updates automatically. Sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]

good start but what I would really like to see is you being able to send on behalf of the PPA mass emails to its members alerting them to various actions they could take. I would imagine that say 10,000 people emailing the NFL and its sponsors, or requesting light regulations would have a powerful effect, seems well worth it.

maybe if we sent emails to the PPA it would move them in the direction of allowing this.

TheEngineer

08-22-2007, 10:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
good start but what I would really like to see is you being able to send on behalf of the PPA mass emails to its members alerting them to various actions they could take. I would imagine that say 10,000 people emailing the NFL and its sponsors, or requesting light regulations would have a powerful effect, seems well worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and I've been discussing this with them for the past four months or so. We'll start with this and see where we can go from here.

[ QUOTE ]
maybe if we sent emails to the PPA it would move them in the direction of allowing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good idea.

CPOSteve

08-22-2007, 10:55 PM

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it.

The single most important, and easiest, thing that EVERYBODY (of legal age) can do to help the fight is VOTE!

Part of every elected official's calculus on the importance of an issue is how many VOTERS care about it. Not how many people who are eligible to vote care, but how many people who ALWAYS vote care.
The November off-year elections are coming up. Off-year elections aren't very sexy (no Congressmen, no President, etc.), but they're important for two reasons. First, those town councilmen are the next generation Congressmen. Second, you are establishing a record of actually caring by voting. The next time you write or call your Congressman, that will matter. The next time the PPA lobbies Congress they can throw around some impressive voting stats.
Ask yourself this. Why is the AARP so powerful? Answer. An incredibly high percentage of their membership actually bothers to vote.

Register now, vote early and often in November.

'Nuff said.

Steve

oldbookguy

08-23-2007, 07:59 AM

Yes, this is what is needed by Action alert and I communicated the same to Pappas in my e-mails as well.

obg

Erik W

08-23-2007, 11:34 AM

"CP magazine reps"

So why do they have so much powerI I thought this was about playing poker and legalize it and not printing magazines. Have CP invested millions of $ into this? I am sure they have not.

[ QUOTE ]
CAREFUL THOUGHTFUL PLANNING? How [censored] long does it take to establish a solid lobbying plan? It's been nearly ten months since we got Fristed, and over a year and a half since trouble started brewing. How much time do they need?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems more like a pissing contest where every player wants everything and noone is happy with less. This cannot be in the interest of poker.

Just wash everything away and put up a few ideas and thos who supports them are in and the others can go and cry somewhere else.

Something like this.

1. Work towards legalizing online poker.
2. Work towards every players right to withdraw and deposit money online.

I have not been in any organisation that combats heavily in it and that accomplished anything.

This is a David against Goliat war and if David just [censored] himself over and over by himself Goliat can rest assured he'll win without even putting up a struggle.

Maybe they should rename pokerplayersalliance to something more suitable like major poker industry interests allaiance.

The politicians could not care less about the poker industry, if they do care they care for the poker players.

Erik W

08-23-2007, 11:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
more changes in their board

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is on their board anyway?
Where interests do they have in the poker "industry".

CountingMyOuts

08-23-2007, 12:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"CP magazine reps"

So why do they have so much power? I I thought this was about playing poker and legalize it and not printing magazines. Have CP invested millions of $ into this? I am sure they have not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of us who paid for membership into the PPA invested the money for them and CP reaps (or attempts to) the benefits.

They should not be on the board of the PPA, IMHO.

DeadMoneyDad

08-23-2007, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
posted the information that I felt I could share. I tried to show my reasoning. I am a grassroots guy. I was really disapointed that the PPA wasn't exercising that muscle. Like any muscle it needs to be exercised.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you didn't share any information. All you did was share speculation, and from someone with no reputation as of yet for being a reliable poster, you shouldn't do that.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the board backed his apparent plans, I felt was encouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's partly why you have no credibility. I want to see major changes in the board. Getting rid of Bolcerek, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction, and I support that move, but more needs to be done.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Like many others I started with very high hopes for the PPA when it was formed and started signing up players. Then like many others my confidence sunk to near zero.

In my conversation with John, I learned of some of the details of his plans and "vision" for the furute direction of the PPA. He did not tell me this conversation was off the record, but that there were some major anouncements comming. I did not nor do I feel it's my place to make those anouncements nor share those plans myself in my words with my understanding of his vision. We've all played the grapevine game and know how easliy things can get misunderstood. The internet only magnifies those communication issues.

PPA is in a transition phase now. The move to D.C. is a good one in my opinion. The future plans of John's to better utilize the power of a grassroots group, along the lines of efforts I have been part of that were sucessful was part of my reason for hope. My other major concern was it had seemed to me that the PPA was setting itself up as a short term organization with a single goal.

No I did not inquire as to what all those future goals are nor what order they would be addressed. I was just heartened by the fact that many of the follow on issues will have a chance.

Many of the comments here and on the PPA's forum gave the impression that no one at the PPA was even aware of the discontent felt by it's membership. I found John to be aware of the issues and willing to have begun to take the steps to address them.

The compisition of the board concerns me less than the fact that at least now they are willing to make the changes and back the plans and visions of a person that appears to be making the correct changes. The decision to change top personel and move a headquarters may seem trivial, but having be involved in such things in the past I can tell you is no small matter.

Yes the PPA, IMO, dug itself a hole with it's initial efforts. Yes there are many problems and issues to be resolved. Yes I may be overly optomistic in my outlook for the future.

I was told a long time ago that changing the direction of a large organization was a lot like changing the direction of a very large ship, you do not reverse course in a few feet nor in minutes. All I can say in that regard is we have a new captian he has the wheel hard over, and IMO, steering towards the propper course.

Time will tell if we end up on the rocks or in the port of the promised land.

D$D

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The compisition of the board concerns me less than the fact that at least now they are willing to make the changes and back the plans and visions of a person that appears to be making the correct changes. The decision to change top personel and move a headquarters may seem trivial, but having be involved in such things in the past I can tell you is no small matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote provides more reason that you have *zero* credibility here. *Everything* depends upon the board and its makeup, and the executive director is but a paid employee of that board tasked to carry out what the *board* gives him to do, and NOT what the wider membership wishes.

The board currently consists, besides Sen. D'Amato, of 4 persons connected with CP mag (two of whom are a "couple"), and 3 professional players with connections to various online sites. One person from each of those two categories would be fine, but not the PPA board consisting entirely of *certain* industry interests. The board needs to look more like and represent Joe American Player. It needs to have a wider range of individuals with *more relevant* expertise in the law and politics and running grassroots organizations.

This forum has witnessed since its inception last year on 2+2, a progression of n00b accounts created for the purpose of shilling/spinning who *say/claim* they have certain experience or inside knowledge, but which claims can't even be vouched for by *any* long time posters here. Your DMD account is merely another such example. GTFO.

oldbookguy

08-23-2007, 02:00 PM

With this in mind, a brief bio of my experience:

1. Following an election debacle in a city vote similar to Florida where many votes, mine included, were not counted, I met with the Sec. States office, presented a plan to fix the problem. At the next state session the plan was presented AND adopted with no changes and garnered near 100% in each house, 100% in committees.
2. Seeking to change our local government from a mayor / council to a professional City Manager form, I went door to door gathering signatures and had placed on the ballot to form a city charter Board to present a ‘new’ plan to the citizens. After being adopted by the council, there were going to be less than ten who objected at the final public hearing. Meeting with each, all objections were withdrawn; we have a new form of government.
3. I served as a member, treasurer and chairman of the Historic Landmarks Commission, a Governmental Organization.
4. I served as a member and later president of the Library, a NGC.
5. I am co-chairman (though I am retired) of the Downtown Merchants Association, a NGC.
6. et al

obg

DeadMoneyDad

08-23-2007, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This forum has witnessed since its inception last year on 2+2, a progression of n00b accounts created for the purpose of shilling/spinning who *say/claim* they have certain experience or inside knowledge, but which claims can't even be vouched for by *any* long time posters here. Your DMD account is merely another such example. GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I joined 2+2 after buying the HoH series. I haven't posted much, but have read a good many threads. I can understand if some members have felt burned by the actions of others in the past.

I was "invited" here to express my opinions, by a poster who saw my posts in the PPA forum. I expressed them, expalined my background including the lack of any offical connection with the PPA, and my reluctance to speak for others.

Given the "warm" welcome given new posters I can see why some might not stick around. I come from a sales background before getting mixed up in politics, so I have a pretty thick skin. I'll stick around and try to do my part, both here and with the PPA.

Time will tell if my optomism or your pessimism deserve the credibility.

Have a nice day, /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

D$D

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 02:05 PM

obg,

You don't seem to be a shill for the PPA. But if you did, note that despite that bio, which I am sure is accurate, it is not vouched for by another long time poster here. So DMD can pony up whatever resume he wishes, but without verification its worthless. And furthermore, even if he outed his RW identity, it is clear that he is just here to spin for the board of the PPA who refuses to make changes in the composition of same that would result in CP and the sites not having control.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Time will tell if my optomism or your pessimism deserve the credibility.

Have a nice day, /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep spinning your BS. Long time readers of this forum should have nrog come to mind when reading your posts. I got severely criticized by the scaredy cats here in the run up to the UIGEA who were so desparate that they were willing to fall for any scam, and *poof* right after soliciting funds here and on P5s and the UIGEA passed, they *vanished*. My track record in this and other forums in spotting lying BS and scams is very good.

Edited to add: if you're not some kind of shill then you are just an incredibly stupid n00b who has very little knowledge of all the issues here and is being used a tool by others with an agenda to positively spin the PPA to deflect attention from its shortcomings. So you're either a liar or a fool.

Uglyowl

08-23-2007, 03:49 PM

Come on man, lighten up Bluffthis. He has never asked for money or anything, there is a big difference him and NROG to date.

If he is in the fight with us, so be it and he can help. Aside from his underestimating the importance of the board, he has seemed reasonable to me. We are not experts on the subject on here, but trying our best we can.

MiltonFriedman

08-23-2007, 03:49 PM

This rates a loud, "Fu*kin' A".
You may yet turn that ship around before it hits the iceberg.
Great news.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Come on man, lighten up Bluffthis. He has never asked for money or anything, there is a big difference him and NROG to date.

If he is in the fight with us, so be it and he can help. Aside from his underestimating the importance of the board, he has seemed reasonable to me. We are not experts on the subject on here, but trying our best we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owl,

The reason I am being so hard on him is that his posts here are just more of the same "happy spin" that another poster labeled it earlier, and from a total unknown. And my point about his either being disingenuous or being grossly ignorant in regards to his statement about not caring about the board composition is a very relevant one. I know nothing of Mr. Pappas the new exec director, and he might be a great guy. But as I said, he is still just pursuing the goals that the unchanged board has chosen. Goals which represent certain poker industry interests and not the wider range that the membership of the PPA has.

I'm not going to play nice with anyone here who puts lipstick on a pig and tries to tell me it's the prom queen.

whangarei

08-23-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I come from a sales background before getting mixed up in politics, so I have a pretty thick skin. I'll stick around and try to do my part, both here and with the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear D$D. Please ignore Bluff. I've enjoyed reading your posts so far, and Bluff's reaction is an extreme form of the anti-new poster bias that is common here. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Good to hear D$D. Please ignore Bluff and Mason. I've enjoyed reading your posts so far, and Bluff's and Mason's reaction is an extreme form of the anti-new poster bias that is common here regarding new gimmick accounts whose statements and person aren't vouched for. Looking forward to hearing more happy spin from the PPA board that is run by CP magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

DeadMoneyDad

08-23-2007, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you're either a liar or a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I maybe a fool, only time will tell. It seems to me if the board is backing the organizational efforts of a true grassroots building effort to protect the interests of all poker players, then I don't care about the assumed motovations you assign to the board members.

I don't expect any organization I get involved with to give me 100% of what I want. To expect to get your own way all the time is a notion you usually give up around age 4.

All lobbing groups have to file certain documents with the federal government, as do non-profit groups. I would suggest to you if the board membership is that important to you, you find out how to change it. I'm happy to work with-in the existing system/framework provided up and until it doesn't work.

There are two perhaps three groups currently organized that suport on-line poker in some shape or form. Currently only one that I know of is mainly focused on a fight that IMO can be won. For all of it's faults, past and present, real and imagined, the PPA offers currently the best hope. Again MY OPINION.

In time you maybe right and holding that opinion might turn out to be foolish.

But I take offense to being called a liar. I've made no untrue assertions, asked nothing from anyone, just expressed an opinion that there is more hope for the PPA now than there was previously.

I'm sorry if you feel your scam dector is so highly tuned that you can spot a scam where none can possible exist. Yes I have less than 20 posts here, that no more makes me a fool or liar than a 1,000 posts makes you omnipotent or the sole beacon of truth.

But then again the old adage of; "aurguing on the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics........" Does come to mind here.

D$D

MiltonFriedman

08-23-2007, 04:26 PM

"I'm not going to play nice with anyone here who puts lipstick on a pig and tries to tell me it's the prom queen'

You get a choice of movie allusions in response:

" You've got a purty mouth". OR

"Can it swing from a web ? No it can't. It's a pig."

All kidding aside, I agree with you. HOWEVER, I do think that access for The Engineer to their website IS a plus.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 04:39 PM

DMD,

The reason I used the word "liar" is because I believe that is an entirely appropriate label for someone who is just pushing PR and ignoring glaring problems. Note however the second option is that you're just a fool. In that case I apologize.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All kidding aside, I agree with you. HOWEVER, I do think that access for The Engineer to their website IS a plus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Milton,

I agree it is a plus. As in fact is the PPA moving its HQ to DC. However it still remains that no matter how effective the PPA is or becomes in mobilizing grassroots support, if that effort is misapplied or not applied to the fuller set of goals most of us here and in the membership of the PPA have, then not only is it less likely to succeed, but also has betrayed the trust of the membership.

I very much would like to see the PPA succeed. But it hasn't shown any real willingness to make core changes needed at the board level and regarding its goals. So I am not going to leave "happy spin" unchallenged in this forum.

MiltonFriedman

08-23-2007, 04:48 PM

No problem ....but Americans will always line up to kiss the pig, and feel good about themselves for doing so, because they are not really asked to do anything.

(I thought the original post was truly NROGish, totally devoid of substance, the press release was not any better, really.)

MiltonFriedman

08-23-2007, 04:57 PM

CP was among the earliest PPA backers.

What you joined was THEIR organization, you GAVE them your money ...... but real political action would involve something more than jumping at an "easy out"; 'click & pay" politics is ineffective. Learn at least that from this experience.

You want to do something effective ???? Read Engineer's Action plans and act on it, you, yourself.

Skallagrim

08-23-2007, 04:58 PM

Bluff, a liar is someone who purposely hides the truth. Noting that the PPA has made some changes and hoping those changes are a sign of a new direction for the PPA hardly qualifies as a lie.

And your pointing out that the PPA has a biased board and has been far less effective than we would like is very appropriate.

Your apparent belief that because of the membership of the board they are scheming to be ineffective in a manner that would only benefit certain online sites and US gambling interests sounds a lot like a conspiracy story. Like all conspiracy stories you may be right. Then again you may be wrong. They may well be people who (like me) want online poker to be clearly legal and are just not very good at getting it done. In my life experience ineptitude has explained far more things than conspiracies.

Only time can tell whether it is the optimist or the pessimist who truly is a fool.

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

XChamp

08-23-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The anger seems pretty warrantless at this point.

MiltonFriedman

08-23-2007, 05:32 PM

I think the anger comes from being asked once again to kiss a pig. This has been going on for well over a year and is just plain tiresome. True, the PPA is a better looking pig than NROG was, but it still can't swing from a web yet.

TheRedRocket

08-23-2007, 05:35 PM

Have you guys ever kissed a pig? It's not that bad.

MiltonFriedman

08-23-2007, 05:50 PM

I'll defer to your expertise on that one.

Uglyowl

08-23-2007, 06:10 PM

D$D as far as we know is not an employee of PPA, so he shouldn't get bashed for their shortcomings. I give D$D credit since he knew of the PPA leadership change before any of us. Regardless of what you think of the PPA, having someone who knows what is going is a good thing.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your apparent belief that because of the membership of the board they are scheming to be ineffective in a manner that would only benefit certain online sites and US gambling interests sounds a lot like a conspiracy story. Like all conspiracy stories you may be right. Then again you may be wrong. They may well be people who (like me) want online poker to be clearly legal and are just not very good at getting it done. In my life experience ineptitude has explained far more things than conspiracies.

Only time can tell whether it is the optimist or the pessimist who truly is a fool.

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

First let me note as I have in the past, that I do not believe the PPA is a scam to make money. They clearly are not. Nor do I believe the board is "scheming to be ineffective". Rather that board generally lacks the competence such a board should have in order to be effective.

But when talking about effectiveness, the question is, regarding what goals. Here I do believe that they are scheming, namely to further the goals of certain poker sites and the media dependant on their advertising. That this is so is very plain and seen by the fact that they do not endorse a broader range of goals not only with respect to online poker, but in regards to B&M poker as well. And they clearly in the past have adpoted the Party Poker spin line of the UIGEA outlawing sites offering poker now, contrary to the interests of the privately held concerns. The TruePoker CEO has articulated the legal reasoning of those private sites very well here.

And why wouldn't anyone see a conspiracy of some sorts with a board dominated by CP and filled out by online sites, and with no members of the wider membership like state coordinators, not to mention outsiders with relevant experience in other areas?

As far as my angry tone, Milton has explained that well. Part of PR spin of any nature, whether personal, corporate or political, is asserting either an untruth or halftruth, and then just keep repeating same instead of answering substative criticisms. That repetitive spin, whether by the same poster, or an endless progression of n00b accounts is just the same old BS. Also note that I don't make an endless series of threads to bash the PPA although I have made a few in the past. But I won't sit by while their spinners do engage in a regular plan of making non-substantive spin posts. If they stop the "happy spin" then I'll stop as well.

BluffTHIS!

08-23-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
D$D as far as we know is not an employee of PPA, so he shouldn't get bashed for their shortcomings. I give D$D credit since he knew of the PPA leadership change before any of us. Regardless of what you think of the PPA, having someone who knows what is going is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

"as far as we know"

And as far as we know he is. At the best he is just someone without enough knowledge of the issues and who is very gullible in passing on "insider info". And just how damn good is it when all we get "advance" knowledge of is some PR spin? This was clearly all just calculated to give some buzz to relatively less important issues, while ignoring those that are most important.

Tuff_Fish

08-23-2007, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff, a liar is someone who purposely hides the truth. Noting that the PPA has made some changes and hoping those changes are a sign of a new direction for the PPA hardly qualifies as a lie.

And your pointing out that the PPA has a biased board and has been far less effective than we would like is very appropriate.

Your apparent belief that because of the membership of the board they are scheming to be ineffective in a manner that would only benefit certain online sites and US gambling interests sounds a lot like a conspiracy story. Like all conspiracy stories you may be right. Then again you may be wrong. They may well be people who (like me) want online poker to be clearly legal and are just not very good at getting it done. In my life experience ineptitude has explained far more things than conspiracies.

Only time can tell whether it is the optimist or the pessimist who truly is a fool.

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said...

Tuff

DeadMoneyDad

08-24-2007, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
DMD,

The reason I used the word "liar" is because I believe that is an entirely appropriate label for someone who is just pushing PR and ignoring glaring problems. Note however the second option is that you're just a fool. In that case I apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having given this whole thread some thought, I'm pretty sure there is not much to be gained until there is more news. I do see how you can rack up an impressive post count by beating a dead horse to mush. That is not my intention.

I'm not quite sure I fully understand Bluffthis' intentions.

If this is the reception an individual gets after being invited to participate in this forum on this issue, I feel for the poor bastard given the job as the PPA's on-line communication representitive. He or she is looking at a wondeful reception.

Full disclosure:
Living in the Washington D.C. area, having some experience in grassroots political efforts, some experience in the Federal Government, being a poker lover, and having the ability to donate some time I called John's office about a month ago to see if he wanted any volunteer help. Not knowing the changes the PPA was going under I was a little shocked it took a few weeks of trying to get through. My past work organizing volunteers my #1 rules is you always respond to offers of help as quick as possible.

John and I spent some time on the phone, discussed a few of my concerns and he shared some of his visions for the PPA. In some detail he explained how he plans on implementing these changes. I renewed my offer to help, as my enthuasium had wained a little in the delay, but it was re-newed by our conversation.

I have no job offer from the PPA, John hasn't even accepted my offer to volunteer, all I have is a vague offer of "doing lunch" when he returns to D.C.. Other than his willingness to talk to a n00b like me, take a little time to address past issues that I brought up and explain how he plans on addressing them in the future, I don't know him from Adam.

However having been in sales and having spent some time with politicians my own BS detector is not only well tuned but under damn near constant use. Is it infaliable? Of course not! Did I do a little checking up on John, Washington is afterall a small town, yes of course.

As I've said before only time will tell,

D$D

whangarei

08-24-2007, 05:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good to hear D$D. Please ignore Bluff and Mason. I've enjoyed reading your posts so far, and Bluff's and Mason's reaction is an extreme form of the anti-new poster bias that is common here regarding new gimmick accounts whose statements and person aren't vouched for. Looking forward to hearing more happy spin from the PPA board that is run by CP magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

You forget that Mason et. al. yawned as we were being Fristed? I don't know the whole dynamics about CP and the PPA board, but I do know that CP has always been a vocal supporter of our right to play online poker.

Legislurker

08-24-2007, 08:32 AM

Your first rule Dad is what leaves our mouths hanging down to the floor when we think of the PPA. MASSIVE INEPTITUDE. They squandered cadres of willing activists and skilled, intelligent, educated help. If they had cared, we could have had thousands upon thousands of people in DC within a month of UIGEA. We could have impacted 06 elections in a documentable, scary way. We could shut down Congressional switchboards every week. Make the DC Post Office hire more employees. But the PPA has chosen to be a nonetity. Sorta the way Card Player was/is a useless rag with one useful article every two years. Its there, it has money. We are here. We don't have millions. We could be millions(or hundreds of thousands). Thats why so many of us are angry, discontented, and downright distrustful of the PPA. Youre not the only skilled, experienced political hand at 2p2(and other forums). The PPA has ignored and turned down dozens of great people who would love to help fight the good fight.
Saying give them time borders on insulting the patience of the long-suffering here.

1p0kerboy

08-24-2007, 09:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure I fully understand Bluffthis' intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS! is nothing but a troll. Just ignore him. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=forum&Number=11747624&Sea rchpage=1&Main=11747379&Words=%2Bcouldn%27t+%2Bpos t&topic=&Search=true#Post11747624)

1p0kerboy

08-24-2007, 09:52 AM

And then he wonders why people don't want to come on this message board.

oldbookguy

08-24-2007, 10:26 AM

UNDERSTANDING OUR OPPOSITION –
What The PPA and US are up Against

Part One – The Action of Plan of Gods Warriors

Let me say, I am not trolling for the PPA, this is being sent to them as well.

I watched the last in a series last night titled GODS WARRIORS, The Christians on CNN.

Scary and very informative as well with interviews by many who run these groups and how they actually operate and with a member of congress and WHY they listen.

The PPA leadership needs to tune in over the weekend and really pay attention during the replay.

So, here is how they do things.
1. There is a full time person who does nothing but watch legislation and trolls the news reports. As SOON as anything hits anywhere, they are on it drafting a letter and placing it on the site and a copy sent to members of congress.
2. Twice a week, yes, twice, an action alert is sent to ALL members with a link to the latest alert(s) posted.
3. Congress then will receive literally TENS of Thousands of letters EACH week from the group and they have a great cross communication with other groups and this is coordinated.

Following this segment, there was an interview with a congressman. In this he acknowledge they, the religious right as well as the liberal left each only account for 10 percent of the actual population eligible to vote, the other 80, moderates from both parties.

So, why listen. He explained it in simple terms; they make noise and LOTS of it, having spokes people sending OFFICAL press releases to major newspapers.

Now, though each is only 10 percent, they vote, nearly 100 percent of them.

The 80 percent, less than 30 percent of them vote.

The Christian alliance profiled has a mailing list of 1.4 MILLION people. So, they are sending 2.8 MILLION e-mails per week. Do the math. If only 10% respond that is 280,000 e-mails to congress and the newspapers they target each week.

This is what we are up against.

Part Two later – The Organization Set-Up

obg

DeadMoneyDad

08-24-2007, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your first rule Dad is what leaves our mouths hanging down to the floor when we think of the PPA. MASSIVE INEPTITUDE... ...The PPA has ignored and turned down dozens of great people who would love to help fight the good fight.

Saying give them time borders on insulting the patience of the long-suffering here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully agree with you critism of the PAST actions of the PPA. I do not know but feel they thought they could simply lobby the Hill for a good piece of legislation. All of their past actions suport this assumption.

We know and now it seems they know this apporach just isn't going to work. Any half decent political hack who wasn't a for hire lobbist could have told them it wasn't going to work.

Give them time? What do you have to loose? Like most any cause if you think their actions are worth taking part in you do so, if not you don't.

Just to be clear I think that it was quite possible to have easily have brought positive change for on-line players long before now. Any half decent political hand knows how to build an organization from scratch with almost no momentum and shakier causes/issues with little or no money.

The PPA initally suffered from an embarasment of momentum, riches, and it's board perhaps was filled with a "rightious cause." All dangerious things in politics to start with. In politics you build the best organizations, IMO, lean and mean used to fighting with and making the most out of every dollar and opportunity.

Please don't get me wrong I was one of the truly disaffected, disapointed, dispirited. That is why I started making calls to the PPA and John, if nothing else to offer my free advice and free help.

When I heard of the upcomming changes and John's plans, that had been aparently approved by the board since they were being acted upon, my outlook for the PPA changed.

No we are not at the promised land, I'm not even sure we can see it from here, but I do feel at least they are currently using the map I would choose.

There are some good things going on that IMO are worth suporting, and I plan on doing what I can to help the effort. That is a personal decision I guess we each have to make. I will not presume to tell anyone else what they should do with their time and efforts. Given that the PPA has make mistakes in the past, and I'm sure make more in the future, all I can hope is that like in poker it makes fewer of them in the future and less than it's opponents.

D$D

TheEngineer

08-31-2007, 11:54 PM

The PokerNews Interview: John Pappas
by Steve Horton, PokerNews

The Poker Players Alliance is the first really serious effort at a political membership group for poker players. Launched in 2005, it's designed to take the fight for poker freedom directly to Washington and politicians. The PPA has had positive support from around the poker world and is endorsed by major players. Though the organization was not able to prevent the UIGEA from happening, the PPA is doing everything it can to undo the damage. To this end, it has recently packed up and moved to Washington DC; promoted John Pappas, formerly vice president of government affairs, to executive director, and, earlier this year, signed on former senator Alfonse D'Amato as its chairman. Here's a conversation with the aforementioned executive director, Pappas, and his leadership vision for this important group in poker politics.

PokerNews: Tell us a little about the Poker Players Alliance and its purpose.

John Pappas: Well, the Poker Players Alliance is a non-profit membership organization comprised of online and offline poker players. Essentially our membership has joined together to speak with one voice, promote the game, to insure its integrity and protect the right of people to play poker.

We have near 700,000 members nationwide, all spread out throughout the country. Our ultimate goal is to clarify federal laws, and state laws when necessary, to insure that poker players have a secure, safe, regulated place to play poker.

PN: One of your goals is at least a million members; is that correct?

JP: It is. Our goal by the end of the year is to reach a million members. We are optimistic that we can still reach that goal. We are engaging in some new and creative ways to partner with a bunch of different affiliated poker organizations, et cetera, in order to raise awareness and recruit members.

PN: How did you come to be associated with the PPA originally?

JP: I was a consultant when the PPA was first formed in the summer of 2005. They brought out a PR firm in Washington DC to help them, and it happened to be the first I was working at. I was the lead on the account, and have basically been with the organization since its inception.

PN: How are your duties different as executive director from when you were vice president of government affairs?

JP: Well, I'll be overseeing and managing the overall operations of the organization rather than strictly looking at the lobbying activities, lobbying and grassroots – so that's the real difference. This goes everywhere from member communications to board member relations to recruitment of new members – kind of being a more public face for the organization when appropriate, when Sen. D'Amato's not available, et cetera.

PN: Will you be doing things differently than Michael Bolcerek did as president?

JP: I wouldn't say I'm approaching things differently, but I'm putting the focus on things where I think there needs to be a focus. I think we need to beef up our grassroots efforts, and I think there needs to be a better line of communication with our membership. And then also, I really see the value of aligning the PPA with so many in the community that are already established. The poker community can help build awareness to our organization. So those are the areas that I'm going to really focus on for the next several months. And of course, we have a really serious fight here in Washington that we're working on as well. We'll working on a couple fronts.

The reason for relocating the organization to DC was so that we could concentrate these efforts in one place rather than being bifurcated.

PN: There are four separate pieces of federal legislation involving poker. How can the PPA divide its resources enough to support all four, and do any of them seem to have a greater chance of success at this point?

JP: Well, to be clear, there's really only one piece of legislation that's specific to poker and games of skill. That is the Wexler bill, and that is the bill that the PPA promised to deliver to its members. As soon as the UIGEA passed in the dark of night last year, we were going to get an exemption. And that's exactly what the Skill Game Protection Act, HR 2610, introduced by Robert Wexler, seeks to do. So that is the only bill that's specific to poker.

The other – probably the best vehicle for movement at this point in time is the Barney Frank bill, and that is HR 2406. It look at not just poker, but all forms of Internet gaming. It creates a license and regulatory regime for Internet gaming to become a legal, U.S. regulated industry. I think that's a very positive development, and it also opens the door for potential taxation of the industry, which can reap in the billions of dollars annually to the federal government.

The other two bills – one is a tax bill, which could be, essentially – if the Barney Frank bill, or the Wexler bill, amended, ever became law, the tax bill would eventually become part of that, as kind of the revenue component to it. And then the fourth bill is Shelley Berkley's bill, which looks at a study for Internet gaming. We support Shelley's bill, but we believe it's the most conservative of the approaches, because it does not seek to legalize or clarify the laws, it only says to Congress that we should study the issue.

PN: Are there any presidential candidates that would create a more positive environment for poker, and are there any that would definitely make it more hostile?

JP: Well, one would only have to look at Ron Paul, who's a cosponsor of the Barney Frank bill and is running for President. Now, I think his presidency is a long shot. The PPA is not in a position, nor will it be endorsing any presidential candidates. I think the real goal here is to continue to educate all sitting members of Congress and those running for public office that there is a true and growing poker constituency out there and that they vote, and that their rights and opinions must be taken with the same weight as someone who is pro-Second Amendment, or pro-environment, or any other issue.

PN: Other than joining the PPA, what can poker players do as citizens to help fully legalize poker, especially online poker?

JP: Of course, them joining the PPA, contributing to the PPA and getting their friends to join and contribute is the first step, but it's not just about that. It's about talking about this issue with members of Congress given the opportunity, either by using the tools that we provide on our website, letter writing – it gives you all the information about your members of Congress. You can get the phone numbers and addresses and set up meetings, and try to seek out who your members of Congress are, when they're back home in their districts, and meet with them.

It's also about talking with other friends and neighbors and letting them know that this is an issue out there, and that it's not just about poker; it's about freedom. I think we've fallen into a trap of making people believe that this is just about poker players. This is really a freedom issue; it's about freedom of the Internet, and it's been the greatest assault, I believe, on the Internet that we've seen thus far. I think once we start broadening this issue, we're going to get more support for it. Members of Congress and elected officials will realize that this isn't just about poker – this is about freedom.

Author Contact Info: Steve Horton, PokerNews
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/8/pokernews-interview-john-pappas.htm

Legislurker

09-01-2007, 10:29 AM

When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

DeadMoneyDad

09-01-2007, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I would think by the first week of November, you should have a good feel for the new direction being taken.

The move to D.C. that was just anounced does mean some more lost time, as even office space is an issue. I imagine John will also be adding some new people, as many of the people in S.F. are not going to move. John has taken and has some very concrete ideas of how to accomplish the changes he envisions.

I say November because to have any real impact for future sessions of Congress, the PPA is going to have to show it can exercise it's grassroots muscle, and be effective. The KY Gov.'s race, IMO, will be the key. We do not have to make gambling a major issue, it already is the signature issue. A very visible effort in KY, sets the PPA up to be a factor for the whole next election cycle. It is a good place to work out the kinks of any new grassroots organizational and communication plans. Test out various uses of existing ideas and experiement with new ones.

Given that "our" candidate is ahead in the polls, and the issue ripe for us, it seems like a no brainer.

I would say if you don't see a major effort in KY then we are looking at a much longer fight than most of us would like to see.

D$D

TheEngineer

09-01-2007, 10:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you have me on ignore, but I'll reply for the benefit of the other folks reading.

I've spoken with John Pappas three times. I believe he means what he says in the article.

When will we know? I'd say in three weeks or so.

Tuff_Fish

09-01-2007, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he is completely serious. I recently spoke with John for nearly an hour. I have a much better feel for what they have in mind.

And so much for them not communicating. I don't want to hear anymore of that nonsense. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

What you see in this interview is what they have in mind.

Working at the federal level is tough. You have to plan your actions carefully, and there are a million cross currents running at once.

My $20 is on it's way.

Tuff

Legislurker

09-01-2007, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you have me on ignore, but I'll reply for the benefit of the other folks reading.

I've spoken with John Pappas three times. I believe he means what he says in the article.

When will we know? I'd say in three weeks or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um I put from on ignore.

TheEngineer

09-01-2007, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you have me on ignore, but I'll reply for the benefit of the other folks reading.

I've spoken with John Pappas three times. I believe he means what he says in the article.

When will we know? I'd say in three weeks or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um I put from on ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, okay. You accidently addressed the ignore note to me, in response to my post earlier this morning. As it wasn't a "quick reply" (my post wasn't the last one), I wasn't sure what to think. I thought it seemed odd.

Cheers.

Legislurker

09-01-2007, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When will we know if its just fluff or serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I would think by the first week of November, you should have a good feel for the new direction being taken.

The move to D.C. that was just anounced does mean some more lost time, as even office space is an issue. I imagine John will also be adding some new people, as many of the people in S.F. are not going to move. John has taken and has some very concrete ideas of how to accomplish the changes he envisions.

I say November because to have any real impact for future sessions of Congress, the PPA is going to have to show it can exercise it's grassroots muscle, and be effective. The KY Gov.'s race, IMO, will be the key. We do not have to make gambling a major issue, it already is the signature issue. A very visible effort in KY, sets the PPA up to be a factor for the whole next election cycle. It is a good place to work out the kinks of any new grassroots organizational and communication plans. Test out various uses of existing ideas and experiement with new ones.

Given that "our" candidate is ahead in the polls, and the issue ripe for us, it seems like a no brainer.

I would say if you don't see a major effort in KY then we are looking at a much longer fight than most of us would like to see.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

If they did $1million worth of advertizing, organizing, and calling, then followed it up with a phone call, letter write, media reach-out, we would have 10k people and $2million back in two weeks. The untapped energy and outrage is there. We don't een have to all vote the same way. If we are only 2-3% of the electorate, the waves of that with friends/family (I assume you guys lobby your friends/family to call/write as well) will quickly signal to politicians to get this resolved and out of the way. I don't think the Republicans/FoF can replicate the gay marriage 04 miracle. A lot of secular homophobes went to the polls then and voted against the Dems over that. Gambling just isn't that electric an issue with "crossover appeal".

Kentucky- I think, as well as most people, that the Reps are a lost cause with the current candidate. Gambling is a last-ditch gamble. The problem might be getting credit for the victory. Maybe it translates into candidates not being afraid to be pro-gaming. I HAD hoped the Nevada primary would give us an indication, but its being diluted every day by moved up primaries. We need to sell the jobs issue(UNION jobs, as much as I LOATHE unions) to the Dems, and the education money to the Teacher's union, and that we can deliver a McConnel's head on a platter. That will be tough as states don't oust powerful Senators often, but I think we can swing 2% to Party's candidate if we get poker back. I just hope he is burning up the phones to someone at the DNC, saying you want white male voters 18-35?

Kentucky may also be important to us for morale. When I talk to more casual people on IMs they say they wrote and did all the could, and nothing to show for it. Most people think its doomed. We need inertia, badly. Maybe if Kaplan gets off. Gonzales left, but thats not rallying the troops.

Tuff- Nonsense about not communicating? Hello, McFly, your
reputation is around your untied shoelaces. The onus is squarely on the PPA. I want a damn email every day, an update every week, and I want to see his ass on TV and in the paper. I want a full page ad in USAToday for membership. I want to hear him on Savage Nation or Rush. I want FoF to demonize him as a corrupter of youth. I want to be asked to participate in massive action. Im happy things are moving, but it doesn't take much or many people. This is an issue that can be handled, lobbied for, and done with, fast. Oh, and uhm, while he is at it, get Mason's endorsement. Until I hear from them as a rank and file guy and that endorsement comes, the PPA is still an opaque, uncommunicative pipedream.

Tuff_Fish

09-01-2007, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

Tuff-

...........I want .........I want ...........I want .........I want .......... I want ............I want .
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how many people care what you want.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Tuff

MiltonFriedman

09-02-2007, 11:00 AM

While I wish the pro-gambling guy in KY luck, I cannot sse that as the KEY area where poker players or their purported representatives should be active .... If the gambling guy loses, then so what ? It is not like we are the AGA or a Ky racetrack interest. If the gambling guy wins, poker would not get the credit anyway.

I am glad that PPA has new offices in DC, now they are "Inside The Beltway". So, how come they ignore the peending regulations ?

Online Poker was hit with legislation last year. The opportunity to lessen the impact OR exempt poker from pending legislation remains teh single MOST immediate area for action.

Christ Almighty, we just had a lawsuit rule that "contests" are not gambling precisely because neither the sponsor or players are betting or wagering.

There is a HUGE loophole in the UIGEA where a company that is not betting or wagering is NOT covered. Is there ANY effort to sway the pending regs to exempt poker tournaments, as the sponsor is not betting or wagering, just paying a prize and collecting a fee. (I personally would argue that NO poker site is betting or wagering.)

No, we are supposed to get frothed up about the PPA because a new guy, who is ALSO an old guy, has shifted his position within the organization. Pappas moved from being a paid consultant to Executive Director. So what ? The Emperor has no new clothes .... was he responsible or influential under the "old" PPA ?

Tuff_Fish

09-02-2007, 12:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
Christ Almighty, we just had a lawsuit rule that "contests" are not gambling precisely because neither the sponsor or players are betting or wagering.

There is a HUGE loophole in the UIGEA where a company that is not betting or wagering is NOT covered. Is there ANY effort to sway the pending regs to exempt poker tournaments, as the sponsor is not betting or wagering, just paying a prize and collecting a fee. (I personally would argue that NO poker site is betting or wagering.)
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Milton, I have a plan for you.

Get a poker software company to spot you some software. Get some servers, set up a poker site in a form you think has the best chance of passing muster with the courts, and go for it.

I will be the first to sign up. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Tuff

TheEngineer

09-02-2007, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While I wish the pro-gambling guy in KY luck, I cannot sse that as the KEY area where poker players or their purported representatives should be active .... If the gambling guy loses, then so what ? It is not like we are the AGA or a Ky racetrack interest. If the gambling guy wins, poker would not get the credit anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's key because it sets the tone for '08. If gaming wins in a red state, it significantly weakens the FoF folks, as it exposes the fact that they can't deliver the votes they claim they can. And, as we're in the lead, it's a great dry run for us, like a tune-up fight.

And, we do have a dog in this hunt. You can bet the NRA would be involved if one candidate for governor wanted to ban guns and the other wanted to allow them. It's our issue. And, if Beshear wins, we may get poker in Kentucky (if we get gaming, we get poker). If he loses, we won't for the next four years. How's that not the concern of the PPA?

The bottom line is that I asked our community for opinions, and we decided 58-0 to support it. See 2007 Kentucky Governor’s Race – Awesome opportunity for us!!! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11555229&an=0&page=0#Pos t11555229). Once the votes were in, I asked PPA to take this on, as requested by us. It appears they will enter this race, per our request. I think that's a good thing...they listened to us.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there ANY effort to sway the pending regs to exempt poker tournaments, as the sponsor is not betting or wagering, just paying a prize and collecting a fee. (I personally would argue that NO poker site is betting or wagering.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There's a big thread on it.

[ QUOTE ]
No, we are supposed to get frothed up about the PPA because a new guy, who is ALSO an old guy, has shifted his position within the organization. Pappas moved from being a paid consultant to Executive Director. So what ? The Emperor has no new clothes .... was he responsible or influential under the "old" PPA ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pappas' old job was to lobby Congress. He was successful in that. The failures were elsewhere. As for Pappas, I don't think we're supposed to get "frothed up". I think we can be a bit encouraged by the progress, but we should look for results, just as always.

I did exchange a few emails with him yesterday....he's a HUGE improvement over Bolcerek. Let's just see how think look by the end of the month. Then we'll have a much clearer picture.

DeadMoneyDad

09-02-2007, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While I wish the pro-gambling guy in KY luck, I cannot sse that as the KEY area where poker players or their purported representatives should be active ....

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA's past lobbing efforts failed IMO because they did not have a visible real force behind their position. Yes they might represent intrests shared by enough people to make a difference, but they had show absolutely no "ownership or control" of that group.

KY is key for a number of reasons.

1. It's an off year, not mid-cycle election.
2. It's a single state-wide race.
3. Gambling is already an issue, if not the signature issue.
4. Geographically it couldn't be much better suited.

The PPA is currently undergoing a change of direction. John says he is committed to an effective grassroots organization.

If there wasn't a race like the KY race, the PPA would have to find something similar to test out it's organizational and operational plans! It would have to try to force the poker issue to some sort of promonence in the race.

This is the reason I stated we will know for sure how effective the PPA is going to be in the '08 cycle and beyond by it's efforts in KY. The timing, political, and geographic factors couldn't be more ideal!

Geographically KY couldn't be more ideal. We're in the opponets backyard, the bible belt! Seven surounding states, 14 states with-in an easy drive!

Clear you schedules poker players. Plan on committing at least a weekend day or the weekend in KY in the next 8 weeks or so. If the PPA isn't going to use KY as a training ground and get ready for a few selected primary fights in the spring, it might as well fold up shop.

Besides KY is beautiful this time of year!

D$D

DeadMoneyDad

09-02-2007, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I am glad that PPA has new offices in DC, now they are "Inside The Beltway". So, how come they ignore the peending regulations ?

Online Poker was hit with legislation last year. The opportunity to lessen the impact OR exempt poker from pending legislation remains teh single MOST immediate area for action.

Christ Almighty, we just had a lawsuit rule that "contests" are not gambling precisely because neither the sponsor or players are betting or wagering.

There is a HUGE loophole in the UIGEA where a company that is not betting or wagering is NOT covered. Is there ANY effort to sway the pending regs to exempt poker tournaments, as the sponsor is not betting or wagering, just paying a prize and collecting a fee. (I personally would argue that NO poker site is betting or wagering.)

No, we are supposed to get frothed up about the PPA because a new guy, who is ALSO an old guy, has shifted his position within the organization. Pappas moved from being a paid consultant to Executive Director. So what ? The Emperor has no new clothes .... was he responsible or influential under the "old" PPA ?

[/ QUOTE ]

To effectively affect a rule or reg you have to have a group that demands respect.

In the interests of full discloure, I have sat in many meetings where rules and regs were crafted. As well as the meeting where the political appointees discussed the political ramifications of almost every word of a reg and how it might affect this or that up comming race. I was once stupid enough to take on the job of being the poor schmuck who got their name and office phone listed in the Federal Register. I had to coordinate a response to and track every phone call, piece of mail, and e-mails.

So there are two parts of a reg fight. The best way to fight it is the backdoor when the reg is written. Getting a change is harder during the comment period because the language has already been tested and most arguements that can be made discussed and semi-prepared responses created.

I'll tell you from experience that well placed wispers before hand go much further than piles of paper after a reg is written.

If you don't have an effective organization all you can do is shout after the fact.

You can put the horse before the cart, and occasionally you might get to where you want to go, but you look really silly when you get there..........

D$D

JPFisher55

09-02-2007, 03:45 PM

I'm not sure that the Regs will hurt our position. They can confer legal standing to sue on online poker players, online poker sites and others who do not have standing at present. Standing is the biggest weakness in the iMEGA case.
My only disappointment with the PPA is that they are not supporting the ongoing litigation against the DOJ, but I hope they are lobbying some members of Congress about the WTO situation.

Legislurker

09-02-2007, 04:27 PM

What is the PPA's position on lawsuits? I see no reason why the PPA doesnt fund 100 disparate lawsuits in every federal jurisdiction, maybe some in states. Playing nice and supine is not an option. We should hit the DoJ hard where its weak. Litigation takes bodies and $. They are short on bodies, and I doubt they get Congress to vote in a gambling war fund. I don't think a defeat here or there matters as much as a win will. The PPA should be recruiting plaintiffs NOW. Use people like Skall who would work cheap and put together single issue, bare bones cases for single people. Hell, bog down the state courts if we can, though thats a tougher fight. If we have success in Kentucky, and can claim some hand in it, then We should have a goal of filing a lawsuit a day from Thanksgiving to Easter.

MiltonFriedman

09-02-2007, 04:34 PM

You voluteering to join a lawsuit as a named plaintiff ? How about iMEGA's lawsuit ?

You seem pretty eager for everyone else to stand up as a Civil plaintiff or criminal defendant, how about you ?

The iMEGA initial problem is that they have no individual plaintiffs who were enjoying prefectly legal activities who were screwed by eh chilling impact of UIGEA on those activities. Such as a Party Affiliate, a Party player, and a PStars player who used Firepay .... you qualify or volunteer ?

MiltonFriedman

09-02-2007, 04:35 PM

Okay, i'll shut up.

MiltonFriedman

09-02-2007, 04:46 PM

Okay, i'll keep you posted

Legislurker

09-02-2007, 05:33 PM

Im not volunteering or not volunteering. But I think it would be a +EV for the PPA to offer a certain amount of $ or legal expertise to people willing to sue the Feds. With some garuntee of support in the case, yes Id sue. And I will probably pay $ to join iMega this week. Im not sure if that qualifies me to join the suit or whatnot. Im getting an opinion from someone on what they are likely to do with my information. I sincerely doubt my name and $20 will matter to iMega. How would I get them standing in NJ when I live
quite a few states away? I would like them to come out and say on the link that they need people to join the suit for standing, and Im sure 100 of us would step forward. THe will to sue isnt lacking, its the means and the organization.

JPFisher55

09-02-2007, 08:17 PM

If I thought that I had any standing, then I would volunteer. But until some regulations come out that restrict online poker in some manner, I don't know who has standing.
However, the PPA could research the matter, maybe file an amicus brief in the iMEGA case and the Carruthers/Kaplan case and assist in states like Washington that have actually banned internet gambling. A Washington attorney has already filed a lawsuit challenging its law; standing may be a problem for him. Couldn't the PPA assist him?

Legislurker

09-02-2007, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I thought that I had any standing, then I would volunteer. But until some regulations come out that restrict online poker in some manner, I don't know who has standing.
However, the PPA could research the matter, maybe file an amicus brief in the iMEGA case and the Carruthers/Kaplan case and assist in states like Washington that have actually banned internet gambling. A Washington attorney has already filed a lawsuit challenging its law; standing may be a problem for him. Couldn't the PPA assist him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, you elucidate better than I do, Im the entertaining rant guy.

coachkf

09-03-2007, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have clearly mis-represented what we did and our attitude towards the PPA. I believe, because of our initial work, the PPA did improve.

Also, Bolcerek was on here soliciting members/money and refused to tell us when asked how the money was being spent, who the lobbyist were, what their goals were, etc. You need to understand that we at Two Plus Two are a serious organization that is willing to spend our own money when necessary to do what's best for poker and to protect our members. We do this at no charge to you.

On a side note, even though our current position towards the PPA is neutral, I would like to see a representative of their organization come on here and answer questions in a serious and professional manner. This didn't happen before which is one of the reasons there was difficulty. But, as far as we are concerned, there is no reason it can't happen now.

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't prove it, obviously, but if you had polled this legislation forum when the PPA was posting here, I believe the overwhelming opinion would have been that 2p2 held a negative view of the PPA, not neutral.

I think it's very safe to say that PPA has attempted to engage this forum in the past and were met with ridicule and mistrust. Not saying those aren't justified. End result was their going elsewhere though, to places that were more accepting.

I'd love to see them have a rep over here too, answering questions. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes though. Their resume would need to include "responds well to endless criticism in a positive manner."

Legislurker

09-03-2007, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have clearly mis-represented what we did and our attitude towards the PPA. I believe, because of our initial work, the PPA did improve.

Also, Bolcerek was on here soliciting members/money and refused to tell us when asked how the money was being spent, who the lobbyist were, what their goals were, etc. You need to understand that we at Two Plus Two are a serious organization that is willing to spend our own money when necessary to do what's best for poker and to protect our members. We do this at no charge to you.

On a side note, even though our current position towards the PPA is neutral, I would like to see a representative of their organization come on here and answer questions in a serious and professional manner. This didn't happen before which is one of the reasons there was difficulty. But, as far as we are concerned, there is no reason it can't happen now.

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't prove it, obviously, but if you had polled this legislation forum when the PPA was posting here, I believe the overwhelming opinion would have been that 2p2 held a negative view of the PPA, not neutral.

I think it's very safe to say that PPA has attempted to engage this forum in the past and were met with ridicule and mistrust. Not saying those aren't justified. End result was their going elsewhere though, to places that were more accepting.

I'd love to see them have a rep over here too, answering questions. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes though. Their resume would need to include "responds well to endless criticism in a positive manner."

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see, the POKER PLAYER'S ALLIANCE refuses to talk with players. Refuses to reveal its funding, activities, officers, and methods. Oh yeah, and does nothing but hang out at SF bars on our dime. We don't want to criticize but when we see nothing but obfuscation and inaction, wtf do you expect? We want to not be negative, we want to be active and positive. But the PPA hitched its wagon to a non player base.

Tuff_Fish

09-03-2007, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
Take a deep breath.
.
.

Lets see, the POKER PLAYER'S ALLIANCE refuses to talk with players. They talked to me. Refuses to reveal its funding, $20 x 600,000? activities, I think John laid out their activities reasonably well in interview. officers, Well, you know who the president is. and methods. Uh, behind the scenes lobbying and trying to get our point heard by those who might help us?

..

..

Wierd rant follows..
.

Oh yeah, and does nothing but hang out at SF bars on our dime. We don't want to criticize but when we see nothing but obfuscation and inaction, wtf do you expect? We want to not be negative, we want to be active and positive. But the PPA hitched its wagon to a non player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what you want unless it is a personal briefing every day by John Pappas.

Tuff

Legislurker

09-03-2007, 04:37 PM

Exactly what I said I wanted. Get Mason's endorsement. Be open. Be active grassroots-wise. Get Mason's endorsement. The fact it hasn't come yet means they obviously haven't changed their ways enough. I said I want to be approached as a RANK and FILE member on a regular basis with what is going on. I think fact and prevailing opinion(here) is that behind the scenes lobbying is not enough and that we need mobilization and organization first. Im not ranting, Im laying out why I and I think many others are wholly dissatisfied with the PPA. Come clean and transparent, and start actually working with you hundreds of thousands(supposedly) members to make noise. Get Mason's endorsement.

Cactus Jack

09-03-2007, 05:25 PM

I took the PPA to task on my radio show. I can't figure out why they have never bothered to recruit players in card rooms. Truthfully, there are a lot of things that the PPA has either done wrong, not done, or could have done better. It started out trying to be Macy's through garage sales. There has been little professional about it.

Getting support from 2+2 would go a long way. Getting support from the AARP would be better. Getting an agreement with the DNC would be best of all.

Are any of those things going to happen?

Legislurker

09-03-2007, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I took the PPA to task on my radio show. I can't figure out why they have never bothered to recruit players in card rooms. Truthfully, there are a lot of things that the PPA has either done wrong, not done, or could have done better. It started out trying to be Macy's through garage sales. There has been little professional about it.

Getting support from 2+2 would go a long way. Getting support from the AARP would be better. Getting an agreement with the DNC would be best of all.

Are any of those things going to happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Thats been a pet idea of mine a long time. Recruit in the card rooms. Recruit in the bar leagues. The AARP is a good idea. Im not sure their view on this at all. Would be a good approach. The DNC we may have problems. A lot of higher ups in the Dems are just as whacky far out religious types as the Republicans, but we should be there. I think thats a battle we could win for support. The PPA should not stop at internet poker. At one point they had the stated goal of making all home games everywhere legal. After that who knows? Stopping anti-competitive rake-upping behavior from the rooms. But how ca they go hat in hand to beg for endorsements when they can't even get the most important poker constituency out there, 2p2, to endorse them.

Mason Malmuth

09-04-2007, 02:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's very safe to say that PPA has attempted to engage this forum in the past and were met with ridicule and mistrust. Not saying those aren't justified. End result was their going elsewhere though, to places that were more accepting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. We had our attorney's report posted here for several months and it was very negative. We only took it down after we saw some improvements.

As to whether there are places more accepting or not, it doesn't really matter. This is where most people on the Internet who are interested in this subject come to exchange information.

If the PPA has an official representative come on here who is willing to engage in legitimate dialogue, something that Bolcerek refused to do, then I and Mat Sklansky, along with our moderators, will make sure they are treated in a professional manner.

Mason Malmuth

coachkf

09-04-2007, 03:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's very safe to say that PPA has attempted to engage this forum in the past and were met with ridicule and mistrust. Not saying those aren't justified. End result was their going elsewhere though, to places that were more accepting.

[/ QUOTE ]
...
As to whether there are places more accepting or not, it doesn't really matter. This is where most people on the Internet who are interested in this subject come to exchange information.

...

Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, then we've really got no hope. Except for infrequent upheavals brought on by major events (UIGEA, Neteller, etc.), this particular subforum stays pretty dormant.

Thankfully there are many other places where folks are talking on this topic. 2p2 is just one of many I frequent, though I do consider this the best place by far to keep up to speed.

It's my humble opinion that PPA does not feel it needs 2p2 support. If they needed it, they wouldn't have deserted this forum.

Shook the dust off their feet and moved on, I suppose.

Hock_

09-04-2007, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
exempt poker tournaments, as the sponsor is not betting or wagering,

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, or many of the others lately, but I want to point out that the limitation in the quoted sentence to tournaments is unnecessary and counterproductive. Maybe this point has been made before, but just in case it hasn't this is really important:

The point -- which was actually made to me by a former colleague of mine who just happens to have been an Assistant US Attorney General -- is that poker sites do not "accept wagers". Unlike sports bookies, poker sites do not take one side of a wager such that their profit depends on the outcome of the game. Poker sites simply charge a fee for use of their services, completely independent of the outcome of any hand.

Like I said, sorry if this is redundant.

Cactus Jack

09-04-2007, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's very safe to say that PPA has attempted to engage this forum in the past and were met with ridicule and mistrust. Not saying those aren't justified. End result was their going elsewhere though, to places that were more accepting.

[/ QUOTE ]
...
As to whether there are places more accepting or not, it doesn't really matter. This is where most people on the Internet who are interested in this subject come to exchange information.

...

Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, then we've really got no hope. Except for infrequent upheavals brought on by major events (UIGEA, Neteller, etc.), this particular subforum stays pretty dormant.

Thankfully there are many other places where folks are talking on this topic. 2p2 is just one of many I frequent, though I do consider this the best place by far to keep up to speed.

It's my humble opinion that PPA does not feel it needs 2p2 support. If they needed it, they wouldn't have deserted this forum.

Shook the dust off their feet and moved on, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, and I don't doubt that it is, then there's another mistake Bolcerek made. The PPA doesn't need 2+2, only the people here. As Mason said, who is more dedicated to playing poker than 2+2 members? How many more intelligent, educated and well-read?

Many of us thought the PPA was a joke, in the beginning. Like Blutarsky shouting let's go and running off, then looking back when no one followed. Perhaps they're moving in the right direction, now. A gigantic step in that would be a small but important step. Being here.

Cactus Jack

09-04-2007, 01:11 PM

Hock, if this is the case, and I completely agree with the reasoning, then Party and others made a huge miscalculation when they left the US. Given that no poker sites have been targeted, it lends credence to the argument.

I thought the whole UIGEA targeted poker because of its high profile. It would appear I was wr--, wro--, er, incorrect.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftops? Perhaps it's all the local busts of poker rooms on a local level? Simply, nobody knows where the lines are or should be drawn.

DeadMoneyDad

09-04-2007, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

As to whether there are places more accepting or not, it doesn't really matter. This is where most people on the Internet who are interested in this subject come to exchange information.

Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

I spent some time this morning browsing other poker forums. But I am limited to the various information about the forum that each is willing to publically publish.

The usual information easily availible is number of registered users, mamimum number of users on-line at once, number of posts, numbers of replies. Some sites are fairly easy to spot as backwaters from the dates on the posts and replies.

I am not looking for a fight, but information to support the suggestion that the PPA have at least one offical spokesman/woman who spends part of their time communicating on-line somewhere other than their own site. After all most 1/2 of US poker players, from various published estimates, have played on-line.

From the numbers readily availible, 2+2 is certainly in the top 10 in traffic, but doesn't have the most registered members. 2+2 doesn't hold the distinction of having the most people using the site at the same time or during a 24 hour time frame.

Yes 2+2 is one of the few with a sub forum dedicated to legislation, and IMO, one of the best and most active in that regard, that I've found in a little looking. But it seems there is no real one stop or major stop in poker information on-line, even just in the poker forum world.

Feel free to lambast me as usual, in this instance that's what I'm looking for, a good solid arguement that 2+2 is at the top of the list of sources of poker information. This would suport the arguement that if past PPA members have made the decision to avoid, then perhaps that decision should be re-visited.

Looking for a hole to crawl into,

D$D

JPFisher55

09-04-2007, 03:32 PM

D$D, since I am not that bothered by PPA's not having a direct presence on this board, could you just ask Mr. Pappas the questions that I had. At least, you will satisfy one person's curiousity.

Legislurker

09-04-2007, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As to whether there are places more accepting or not, it doesn't really matter. This is where most people on the Internet who are interested in this subject come to exchange information.

Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

I spent some time this morning browsing other poker forums. But I am limited to the various information about the forum that each is willing to publically publish.

The usual information easily availible is number of registered users, mamimum number of users on-line at once, number of posts, numbers of replies. Some sites are fairly easy to spot as backwaters from the dates on the posts and replies.

I am not looking for a fight, but information to support the suggestion that the PPA have at least one offical spokesman/woman who spends part of their time communicating on-line somewhere other than their own site. After all most 1/2 of US poker players, from various published estimates, have played on-line.

From the numbers readily availible, 2+2 is certainly in the top 10 in traffic, but doesn't have the most registered members. 2+2 doesn't hold the distinction of having the most people using the site at the same time or during a 24 hour time frame.

Yes 2+2 is one of the few with a sub forum dedicated to legislation, and IMO, one of the best and most active in that regard, that I've found in a little looking. But it seems there is no real one stop or major stop in poker information on-line, even just in the poker forum world.

Feel free to lambast me as usual, in this instance that's what I'm looking for, a good solid arguement that 2+2 is at the top of the list of sources of poker information. This would suport the arguement that if past PPA members have made the decision to avoid, then perhaps that decision should be re-visited.

Looking for a hole to crawl into,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a "2p2er" at all. In fact, I used to trash this place regularly. But, every forum everywhere has links to threads from here. If you are primarily registered at one site, but look around, 2p2 is your second site. Almost every forum has a critical mass, and 2p2 reached its a long time ago. Only so many voices can be heard in one spot. Other people want to make $. Posters are paid to go places.
But everywhere 2p2 is regarded as the nexus site. Im sure if you took the top 100 posteres here, 80 of them are top 5 posters at another site. Its the ripple effect. You have respect and presences here, it spreads. I tried eariler with Bandit to plant the idea of a new site just for political poker. That site could be the PPA's but apparently they don't want it.
The PPA doesn't need 1 or 2 internet people. It needs 20.
You need to troll every forum, radio show, free poker site, pay poker site, blog, etc. Put 20 people on stipend, have them attend two or three weekly conferences with PPA full time employees, and get out there recruiting, recruiting recruiting. Then, another 50 people in card rooms recruiting. If Harrah's doesnt like players organizing, boycott the [censored]. Harrah's presence on the board via CP people is why the PPA isn't active among players. God's gospel truth.

KEW

09-04-2007, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As to whether there are places more accepting or not, it doesn't really matter. This is where most people on the Internet who are interested in this subject come to exchange information.

Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

I spent some time this morning browsing other poker forums. But I am limited to the various information about the forum that each is willing to publically publish.

The usual information easily availible is number of registered users, mamimum number of users on-line at once, number of posts, numbers of replies. Some sites are fairly easy to spot as backwaters from the dates on the posts and replies.

I am not looking for a fight, but information to support the suggestion that the PPA have at least one offical spokesman/woman who spends part of their time communicating on-line somewhere other than their own site. After all most 1/2 of US poker players, from various published estimates, have played on-line.

From the numbers readily availible, 2+2 is certainly in the top 10 in traffic, but doesn't have the most registered members. 2+2 doesn't hold the distinction of having the most people using the site at the same time or during a 24 hour time frame.

Yes 2+2 is one of the few with a sub forum dedicated to legislation, and IMO, one of the best and most active in that regard, that I've found in a little looking. But it seems there is no real one stop or major stop in poker information on-line, even just in the poker forum world.

Feel free to lambast me as usual, in this instance that's what I'm looking for, a good solid arguement that 2+2 is at the top of the list of sources of poker information. This would suport the arguement that if past PPA members have made the decision to avoid, then perhaps that decision should be re-visited.

Looking for a hole to crawl into,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not know what your looking at but pokersitescout has 2+2 ranked far and away the leader..

http://www.pokersitescout.com/PokerInfoSites.asp

The PPA ignoring the members of 2+2 by not having a constant presence here is a slap in the face to ALL poker players...

I will also note the few times I have viewed the PPA's forum they do not even seem to maintain a presence there..