PPA Washington Fly-In October 22nd thru 24th

[PPAdc]

I have some exciting news to report. The PPA just announced that it is hosting a Poker Policy Conference and two days of citizen advocacy in Washington D.C. The invite, which can be linked to below, was sent to PPA members who reside in the Congressional Districts of Members of Congress who serve on the House Judiciary and Financial Services Committees.

While our initial outreach is limited to those select PPA members, I do welcome all those interested in attending to plan to be in Washington. Simply send an email to the dedicated address wash-fly-in@pokerplayersalliance.org and you will receive a registration form and information about PPA hotel discounts.

I hope active members of this forum will jump at the chance of meeting with your lawmakers in Washington and participating in the other activities we have planned.

Again, more information can be found at this link:

http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=270

John A. Pappas, Executive Director
Poker Players Alliance

[Dak9885]

I sent two emails and and they were both returned by mailer-daemon.

[PPAdc]

Unfortunately we had a technical glitch that went undetected during our test. emails should be recieved now.

[Merkle]

Which Members of Congress serve on the House Judiciary and Financial Services Committees?

I'm not a PPA member yet, but things like this will make me reconsider. If my congressman is on the committee I would consider joining just to attend.

[PPAdc]

Chairman Barney Frank represents Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District. The other Democratic members of the Committee are:

Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, PA
Rep. Maxine Waters, CA
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, NY
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, IL
Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, NY
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, NC
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, NY
Rep. Julia Carson, IN
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, NY
Rep. Dennis Moore, KS
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, MA
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX
Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, NY
Rep. Joe Baca, CA
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
Rep. Brad Miller, NC
Rep. David Scott, GA
Rep. Al Green, TX
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
Rep. Melissa L. Bean, IL
Rep. Gwen Moore, WI
Rep. Lincoln Davis, TN
Rep. Albio Sires, NJ
Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
Rep. Keith Ellison, MN
Rep. Ron Klein, FL
Rep. Tim Mahoney, FL
Rep. Charles Wilson, OH
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO
Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, CT
Rep. Joe Donnelly, IN
Rep. Robert Wexler, (FL)
Rep. Jim Marshall, GA
Rep. Dan Boren, OK

Republican Members

Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL
Rep. Richard H. Baker, LA
Rep. Deborah Pryce, OH
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE
Rep. Peter King, NY
Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK
Rep. Ron Paul, TX
Rep. Paul E. Gillmor, OH
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, OH
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL
Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC
Rep. Judy Biggert, IL
Rep. Christopher Shays, CT
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Rep. Tom Feeney, FL
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX
Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, FL
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA
Rep. Stevan Pearce, NM
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX
Rep. Tom Price, GA
Rep. Geoff Davis, KY
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
Rep. John Campbell, CA
Rep. Adam Putnam, FL
Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN
Rep. Peter J. Roskam, IL

Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, MI

[1p0kerboy]

I got the e-mail.

I probably will not be able to attend (but wish I could).

What else is on the agenda?

[PPAdc]

Chairman is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI 14th) Ranking Republican is Lamar Smith (R-TX 26th)

Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th

Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd

Republican
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

[Dak9885]

Ok works now.

[PPAdc]

Obviously not everyone who wants to be active can attend the Washington Fly-In. Accordingly the PPA will be announcing -- in the coming weeks -- the components of a "virtual" Fly-In so those who cannot be in Washington will still have their voices heard. Please stay tuned.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

I believe that until these problems are addressed and more improvement is made, they will be a deterrent towards any progress, and may eventually hurt the cause of making poker more accessible to everyone.

Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]


And also ask them how it would look if one or more PPA board members who own large affiliate farms were to get indicted. I had another poster here point out to me privately that these large affiliate farms could be a prime target of the DoJ if it wants some more criminal prosecutions relating to transferring funds online from offshore sites.

Now while the actual results of such hypothetical prosecutions might actually help poker if they were favorable, it would seem to me that for the PPA to have board members under indictment would be a black mark and certainly would be spun by our opponents like FOF as equivalent to the PPA board having organized crime connections. No matter that such wouldn't be true, as spin and perception would rule the day.

Think this is farfetched? Ask Kaplan and Carruthers. And then ask yourself whether having Kaplan and Carruthers on the PPA board *right now* would be advantageous OR NOT.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup , Do you not know who they are? I don't, but I don't give a rat's a$$. specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites Do you mean large existing sites with a bunch of affiliates, or large affiliate organizations? and essentially no representtion of real poker players. I feel I am finally getting my interests represented, but then, some will argue I am not a real poker player. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I believe that until these problems are addressed and more improvement is made, I will ask you like I asked Bluff This, what is it you want them to do? It is unlikely they are going to change the board just to please you. they will be a deterrent towards any progress, and may eventually hurt the cause of making poker more accessible to everyone.

Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

Regards,

Tuff

[kitchma]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

I believe that until these problems are addressed and more improvement is made, they will be a deterrent towards any progress, and may eventually hurt the cause of making poker more accessible to everyone.

Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

PPAdc,

when will you address the issues that Mason mentions above? I don't think the questions that many on the forum have are going away. Do you?

-kitch

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]


And also ask them how it would look if one or more PPA board members who own large affiliate farms were to get indicted. I had another poster here point out to me privately that these large affiliate farms could be a prime target of the DoJ if it wants some more criminal prosecutions relating to transferring funds online from offshore sites.

Now while the actual results of such hypothetical prosecutions might actually help poker if they were favorable, it would seem to me that for the PPA to have board members under indictment would be a black mark and certainly would be spun by our opponents like FOF as equivalent to the PPA board having organized crime connections. No matter that such wouldn't be true, as spin and perception would rule the day.

Think this is farfetched? Ask Kaplan and Carruthers. And then ask yourself whether having Kaplan and Carruthers on the PPA board *right now* would be advantageous OR NOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This would be the best thing to happen for online poker players. It would look great for the PPA to have a large member or board member indicted for violating the Wire Act or UIGEA for actions supporting an offshore online poker site as long as the member and the PPA vigorously fought the indictment. Then the PPA would actually being doing something useful for online poker players.
But it will never happen. The DOJ is too smart and chicken to directly take on the online poker industry.

[BluffTHIS!]

JPF,

I noted that the results of such prosecution could in fact be good for us. But the important point is how an organization with board members under cloud of indictment would look to fence-sitters in congress. My money says such an organization and its arguments wouldn't look too appealing since now such a politician not only has to justify to his/her constituents backing bills that enable some forms of gambling, but also which forms are pushed by an organization that is lead by persons being criminally prosecuted. Good luck selling that even in blue states. And again, as is genearlly true in politics, it won't be the actual facts that carry the day, but perceptions.

[whangarei]

John this sounds great! I'm definately thinking of attending. You may want to send notices like this out in an email -- I doubt most members check the news on your web site.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? This would be the best thing to happen for online poker players. It would look great for the PPA to have a large member or board member indicted for violating the Wire Act or UIGEA for actions supporting an offshore online poker site as long as the member and the PPA vigorously fought the indictment. Then the PPA would actually being doing something useful for online poker players.
But it will never happen. The DOJ is too smart and chicken to directly take on the online poker industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. That would be outstanding for us, especially as those folks wouldn't make a deal....they'd fight it out.

As for PPA, I don't think it would matter; these folks would simple leave the board once indicted. No big deal.

[TheEngineer]

I'll be attending. I'm very encouraged that PPA is doing things like this.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As for PPA, I don't think it would matter; these folks would simple leave the board once indicted. No big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


You don't think it would matter? For our foes to be able to say that board members were criminals facing prosecution and that the PPA wouldn't in the minds of the now neutral fence-sitters, be tainted even if those members resigned after the fact? I suggest that there is no reason to even risk giving such potential negative spin to our opponents because those board members could resign *NOW* if they cared more about the PPA than advancing their own finanical affiliate farm interests.

[Legislurker]

So Tuff, we are supposed to show up, spend our money, lobby, and to convince people to listen to a board with very little player interest? Sorta like Gandalf going up in Isengard to discuss deep matters with Saruman and leaving us little hobbits out here on a barrel of tabac while our "betters" hammer out a deal that may or may not screw us. I think everyone WANTS to be on board in this, just we want some more information about the piloting.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Republican Members

Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL
Rep. Richard H. Baker, LA
Rep. Deborah Pryce, OH
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE
Rep. Peter King, NY
Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK
Rep. Ron Paul, TX
Rep. Paul E. Gillmor, OH
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, OH
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL
Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC
Rep. Judy Biggert, IL
Rep. Christopher Shays, CT
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Rep. Tom Feeney, FL
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX
Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, FL
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA
Rep. Stevan Pearce, NM
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX
Rep. Tom Price, GA
Rep. Geoff Davis, KY
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
Rep. John Campbell, CA
Rep. Adam Putnam, FL
Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN
Rep. Peter J. Roskam, IL
Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, MI

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a reminder that Rep. Gilmor recently passed away in an accidental fall. While I'm sure the office of the district is still staffed until another person is elected, it may be more appropriate to not send people to that particular office.

[JPFisher55]

I think that the odds of legislation that will really improve our situation are very low. I do not support the IGREA. And it is not WTO compliant. WTO sanctions may cause Congress to exempt online gambling from the Wire Act, which I believe is the only legislation that Antiqua and the WTO would accept as complying with the WTO decision; or making all, horse racing, lottery, fantasy league, remote gaming illegal. Maybe a state could opt out if it outlawed all gambling. Yet, I do not think that we will see such legislation soon no matter what the situation.
IMO, for online poker players, litigation offers the best dramatic improvement to the present situation in the near future i.e. 12 months or less. The iMEGA case has procedural flaws so I think that the Kaplan case is a better opportunity for online poker players. These cases offer some hope.
But a direct indictment against some entity in the industry would be even more likely to lead to legal, unregulated online poker. So would an UIGEA regulation affecting online poker that someone could challenge in court. However, I do not think that these direct attacks on online poker will occur.
I am not critizing the efforts of all persons on the political/legislation front, but even they realize that without some pressure from the WTO situation such efforts will take years. And they may not much improve the present situation. But they might prevent that situation from becoming worse.
IMO the potential benefits of an indictment of a PPA member or director under the Wire Act or UIGEA which is directly related to the online poker industry outweighs its political cost.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the potential benefits of an indictment of a PPA member or director under the Wire Act or UIGEA which is directly related to the online poker industry outweighs its political cost.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. So then why don't Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson, owners of large affiliate farms and members of the PPA board, just send letters to the DoJ detailing how they make money off of players playing on offshore sites post-IUGEA, along with a final paragraph that says, "Kiss my ass and prosecute me if you dare!". If they really have the interests of the PPA above their own financial interests, shouldn't they be willing to do this and take the initiative? Perhaps some 2p2'ers here who go to the meeting in DC could ask them this.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO the potential benefits of an indictment of a PPA member or director under the Wire Act or UIGEA which is directly related to the online poker industry outweighs its political cost.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. So then why don't Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson, owners of large affiliate farms and members of the PPA board, just send letters to the DoJ detailing how they make money off of players playing on offshore sites post-IUGEA, along with a final paragraph that says, "Kiss my ass and prosecute me if you dare!". If they really have the interests of the PPA above their own financial interests, shouldn't they be willing to do this and take the initiative? Perhaps some 2p2'ers here who go to the meeting in DC could ask them this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I am pretty sure that the DOJ has threatened Cardplayer with prosecution over their .com gambling site ads. I, also, have read that Cardplayer has responded by daring the DOJ to proceed. I think that Cardplayer even filed an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the DOJ because of these threats of prosecution. But I believe that Cardplayer had to dismiss the case when the DOJ stated that Cardplayer was not the subject of an investigation or immediate prosecution.
So in short, they have dared the DOJ to prosecute and the DOJ chickened out. Heck, the DOJ must know about Epassporte. Why hasn't the DOJ indicted it and its owners. Maybe because Epassporte only serves online poker sites and its customers and not online sports betting or casino sites; or even sites with both poker and one of the other two gambling venues.
I don't blame the PPA for the actions, or lack thereof, of the DOJ.

[BluffTHIS!]

JPF,

Then why don't those two just use that for a great membership and donation recruitment drive? They could write such a letter and post it on the PPA site. Call it the "I Dare You To Prosecute Me" campaign. Sounds a like a great opportunity to clarify the status of poker.*


*Note: Although the TP CEO, who takes the same interpretation of the IUGEA as Mrs. Shulman does in her CP articles, has posted here that the larger sites should in fact seek declaratory judgements, I believe that this could backfire. It seems better to me that they take that interpretation, but don't risk having it ruled against in court. And the main beneficiary of such a tactic would be party poker, who wins both ways, either by getting a ruling that allows them to return to the US market, or by screwing their competitors still in that market.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone,

I'm no Doyle Brunson, but I manage to eke out a living. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

All kidding aside, I am a representative of the real poker players on the PPA board. And, I have to be honest. So far, like most groups like this, John Pappas has been empowered to make the decisions. I've not seen anything to indicate that, since he took over, things we want to occur are being stifled by the board.

You all know I have no conflicts of interest here. My only interest is in getting online poker for all of us. PPA appears to be changing to do this. They've not completed the transformation, but this trip is clearly a step in the right direction, as is their move to D.C. and the promotion of Pappas. John Pappas is working tirelessly for us, and I don't say that lightly.

Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice. This is very simple...as long as I'm on the board, PPA will address the needs of the American poker-playing community, as I'll have no reason to be on the board if they do not. I have every confidence that they will, based on what I've seen over the next month.

Besides, it's not like there are twenty other organizations fighting for us. Seems we can work with PPA to help them to become the organization we want (and I've put my money where my mouth is on that count), or we can start a new organization (and I've seen no action there). But, we do need to fight our opponents. I hope you'll all come to D.C. It will be sweet meeting up with these politicians who think we're all degenerates. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

While we all welcome your addition to the board, the MSPaint pic I posted in the other thread is on point. You will be a lone voice at a table full of affiliate farm and site reps. And one furthermore that doesn't risk the interests of the affiliate farms/CP mag ever being outvoted, since they added a friendly shill to the board in advance of your joining. The issue here is that real average joe poker players, whose interests the PPA *supposedly* serves, should have more such members as yourself who constitute a much greater part, and indeed even a majority of that board.

The bottom line and real issue is that the interests of affiliate farms dominate the PPA board and are determined to keep it that way.

[Jerry D]

I don't understand all the hatred toward affiliates. You all LOVE THEM when you get your rakeback checks every month. Very hypocritical.

[BluffTHIS!]

The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

While we all welcome your addition to the board, the MSPaint pic I posted in the other thread is on point. You will be a lone voice at a table full of affiliate farm and site reps. And one furthermore that doesn't risk the interests of the affiliate farms/CP mag ever being outvoted, since they added a friendly shill to the board in advance of your joining. The issue here is that real average joe poker players, whose interests the PPA *supposedly* serves, should have more such members as yourself who constitute a much greater part, and indeed even a majority of that board.

The bottom line and real issue is that the interests of affiliate farms dominate the PPA board and are determined to keep it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point. I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice. This is very simple...as long as I'm on the board, PPA will address the needs of the American poker-playing community, as I'll have no reason to be on the board if they do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying I'll leave the board if I feel PPA isn't serving the poker community. I'm not saying I'll huff and quit the first time I get outvoted, but I am saying they have to address the needs of the poker community for me to serve.

That shouldn't be a surprise...why else would I be there? My only goal is to advance online poker in America.

Anyway, these guys have come a long way in the past couple of months, and we have a big fight next year. I hope we'll all fight for our rights through Nov. 2008 and beyond.

[MiltonFriedman]

Mason, you are a bit naive. This is NOT a PPA membership meeting or conference, it is a "bring troops to the Hill" effort.

While such issues should be advanced, it has nothing to do with this event.

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

Very good then and glad to hear you say that. In fact I would hope those other board members realize that if you were to resign, then all their assertions about representing the base membership would be seen for a total crock.

However the criticisms of the board being conflicted by interests tied to only certain narrow schemes of online poker are still relevant. As are those directed at the PPA's lack of transparency.

[MiltonFriedman]

Good for you TE. Your Board selection, and John's apparent push for membership involvement are progress in the right direction.

As for me, it is probably better that I stay away from DC, I AM a degenerate, no to mention an ass and a lot of other censored names.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, you are a bit naive. This is NOT a PPA membership meeting or conference, it is a "bring troops to the Hill" effort.

While such issues should be advanced, it has nothing to do with this event.

[/ QUOTE ]


Milton,

While that is strictly true, since the PPA refuses to substantively address those issues here (or anywhere), they then force them to be raised in other venues. The solution is for them to fully and forthrightly discuss them here. I again call for Greg Raymer, as both a PPA board member and long-time 2p2'er, to come here and address those issues.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mason, you are a bit naive. This is NOT a PPA membership meeting or conference, it is a "bring troops to the Hill" effort.

While such issues should be advanced, it has nothing to do with this event.

[/ QUOTE ]


Milton,

While that is strictly true, since the PPA refuses to substantively address those issues here (or anywhere), they then force them to be raised in other venues. The solution is for them to fully and forthrightly discuss them here. I again call for Greg Raymer, as both a PPA board member and long-time 2p2'er, to come here and address those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear for a fact that the PPA considers 50 people at this "rally" a success. Are you kidding me?

Give me one pro for a few hours and I can put him or her in venue with all the crap to have a nice little 500 person crowd of enthusiastic poker players 80% ~ 90% of whom had never heard of the PPA before I told some of them. I don't have to be Karl Rove to pull this off, damn near any day of the week and twice as many on a weekend!

Come on are we really setting the bar that low?

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mason, you are a bit naive. This is NOT a PPA membership meeting or conference, it is a "bring troops to the Hill" effort.

While such issues should be advanced, it has nothing to do with this event.

[/ QUOTE ]


Milton,

While that is strictly true, since the PPA refuses to substantively address those issues here (or anywhere), they then force them to be raised in other venues. The solution is for them to fully and forthrightly discuss them here. I again call for Greg Raymer, as both a PPA board member and long-time 2p2'er, to come here and address those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear for a fact that the PPA considers 50 people at this "rally" a success. Are you kidding me?

Give me one pro for a few hours and I can put him or her in venue with all the crap to have a nice little 500 person crowd of enthusiastic poker players 80% ~ 90% of whom had never heard of the PPA before I told some of them. I don't have to be Karl Rove to pull this off, damn near any day of the week and twice as many on a weekend!

Come on are we really setting the bar that low?

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has set a number. My example was hypothetical The numbers we've discussed are higher.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mason, you are a bit naive. This is NOT a PPA membership meeting or conference, it is a "bring troops to the Hill" effort.

While such issues should be advanced, it has nothing to do with this event.

[/ QUOTE ]


Milton,

While that is strictly true, since the PPA refuses to substantively address those issues here (or anywhere), they then force them to be raised in other venues. The solution is for them to fully and forthrightly discuss them here. I again call for Greg Raymer, as both a PPA board member and long-time 2p2'er, to come here and address those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear for a fact that the PPA considers 50 people at this "rally" a success. Are you kidding me?

Give me one pro for a few hours and I can put him or her in venue with all the crap to have a nice little 500 person crowd of enthusiastic poker players 80% ~ 90% of whom had never heard of the PPA before I told some of them. I don't have to be Karl Rove to pull this off, damn near any day of the week and twice as many on a weekend!

Come on are we really setting the bar that low?

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has set a number. My example was hypothetical The numbers we've discussed are higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank god! Let me know if you want any of my free help or any of my contacts.

D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
So Tuff, ........ ..Sorta like Gandalf going up in Isengard to discuss deep matters with Saruman and leaving us little hobbits out here on a barrel of tabac while our "betters" hammer out a deal that may or may not screw us....

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh..?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Tuff

[JPFisher55]

I think that the online poker rooms have not filed an Action for Declaratory Judgment because they may not have standing to file such litigation. The DOJ has not prosecuted any entity involved in the online poker industry. Also, no regs affecting the online poker industry have been issued pursuant to the UIGEA. Skall has explained this situation in prior posts better than I can.
I do wonder if the PPA could assist in either the iMEGA or Kaplan case, but maybe they cannot do anything that will make a difference. So I have no issue with the PPA or its board. I just do not think that they will make a difference in the near term. But I appreciate their efforts and those of TheEngineer and DeadMoneyDad.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bluff and Everyone Else:

There's something I want to make clear here which I think a few of you may misunderstand. It's that we want the PPA to be an effective organization that does a great job in defending the rights and needs of poker players everywhere. (This is why we are allowing them some access here.)

But for the PPA to be effective, in my opinion, there needs to be some improvements, and the lack of progress in this area should, again in my opinion, hold the PPA back from accomplishing its stated goals.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally I think I get it. Bluff doesn't like the PPA because it was founded by folks who stand to benefit from any success the PPA might have.

And, I can only conclude that he feels that any such benefit is going to harm his interests in some way.

Bluff, please explain exactly how you are harmed by affiliates advancing their "narrow interests". I am also curious as to how the PPA can simultaneously promote legal poker for themselves and oppose legal poker for others.

I have a lot to learn here. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bluff and Everyone Else:

There's something I want to make clear here which I think a few of you may misunderstand. It's that we want the PPA to be an effective organization that does a great job in defending the rights and needs of poker players everywhere. (This is why we are allowing them some access here.)

But for the PPA to be effective, in my opinion, there needs to be some improvements, Specifics please. I honestly do not know what the PPA has done, or is doing, that is causing such anguish in some folks' hearts. and the lack of progress in this area should, again in my opinion, hold the PPA back from accomplishing its stated goals.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Engineer:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

When making my post, I assumed that you are not a board member. As far as I can tell, there was never any announcement on the PPA website that you were named to the board, and on their board member page you're not yet listed. Is this accurate or are you now officially on their board?

Best wishes,
mason

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Engineer:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

When making my post, I assumed that you are not a board member. As far as I can tell, there was never any announcement on the PPA website that you were named to the board, and on their board member page you're not yet listed. Is this accurate or are you now officially on their board?

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

My comment about myself was tongue-in-cheek, of course. I didn't think you were including me in your description of the board.

I'm not yet officially on the board. It seems inevitable, as it's been announced. I'll mention it here once it's official.

Cheers,

TE

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff, please explain exactly how you are harmed by affiliates advancing their "narrow interests". I am also curious as to how the PPA can simultaneously promote legal poker for themselves and oppose legal poker for others.

I have a lot to learn here. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]


TF,

I think you are have demonstrated in this forum not only that you are very obtuse, but also that you like to make lots of sarcastic and simplistic replies when you haven't in fact studied in depth all the facets of the various issues that we discuss here. However although I have explained this countless times, including in threads where you have participated, I will do so again.

When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve, it is true that those who have a narrower range *might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals. But when they do so in a manner that not just omits those other goals, but in a way that is also at variance with same, then they do in fact harm us. And furthermore they even harm us as to the goals we do agree on because by not working on and promoting that larger range, they forgo the positive synergy that the broader range has (raise the awareness of B&M poker for example and you raise awareness of all forms of poker).

But there are two simple and easy ways to look at this. Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in. And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

And secondly, by packing the board with those narrow interests, they can allow our opponents to paint the PPA as an organization that only represents those interests, mostly foreign and offshore, instead of average *american players*. Which then can severely harm the chances for success on even that smaller range of overlapping goals.

The fact that you and many others are not even willing to acknowledge the validity of these points that are being raised in criticism of the PPA here, even if you don't weight them the same as myself and others do, speaks to a lack of good judgment on your part, perhaps driven by fear which prompts you to be a sucker and uncritically accept any help that comes along no matter if it really doesn't end up helping as much as you hope, and in fact runs the risk of actually harming your goals.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]


TF,

I think you are have demonstrated ....... However although I have explained this countless times, including in threads where you have participated, I will do so again.

When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve,


"Our" goals:

Legal US facing poker sites on which we can play without harassment, and on which we enjoy a measure of protection regarding honesty and safety of funds.

Sites where we can freely transfer funds on and off.

Sites that are free to advertise and have promotions the very same way the lotteries and horse tracks can.

These are actually a pretty narrow range of goals methinks.


it is true that those who have a narrower range

Please explain how the PPA's goals are more narrow than "Ours".

Are they advocating only selected groups be allowed to have a poker site? (One would presume "their group")

That only certain localities be allowed to have a license?

That only certain players be allowed to play?

That some sort of restriction be put on advertising or promotions?

I am only guessing here. To my knowledge you have never been specific about any of your grievances except that you loath the PPA Board.



*might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals. But when they do so in a manner that not just omits those other goals, which goals are they omitting? but in a way that is also at variance with same, then they do in fact harm us. And furthermore they even harm us as to the goals we do agree on because by not working on and promoting that larger range, which of our "larger range of goals" are they not addressing? Bear in mind they have finite resources. You seem to think you have some special claim to their time and money. they forgo the positive synergy that the broader range has (raise the awareness of B&M poker for example and you raise awareness of all forms of poker). Unless one just got back from Mars, I suspect anybody who has a farthing of interest knows all about B&M poker rooms.

But there are two simple and easy ways to look at this. Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in. Example of what they are trying to do, or failing to do, in this area that displeases you. And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

And secondly, by packing the board with those narrow interests, they can allow our opponents to paint the PPA as an organization that only represents those interests, mostly foreign and offshore, instead of average *american players*. Which then can severely harm the chances for success on even that smaller range of overlapping goals.

The fact that you and many others are not even willing to acknowledge the validity of these points that are being raised in criticism of the PPA here, even if you don't weight them the same as myself and others do, speaks to a lack of good judgment on your part, perhaps driven by fear which prompts you to be a sucker and uncritically accept any help that comes along no matter if it really doesn't end up helping as much as you hope, and in fact runs the risk of actually harming your goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of words here, but I'm not too sure you said very much. As angry as you seem to be at the PPA, you should be able to spit out your grievances in 40 words or less.

Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

So in other words you are just trolling this forum and won't respond substantively to posters who respond substantively to you?

Short enough for you?

[2easy]

Not trying to be confrontational, but I too have often wondered what specifics have transpired, or you expect to inevitably transpire, for you to be as concerned as you show yourself to be.

And I thought that Tuff's list of goals would seem to be reasonably accurate and acceptable.

So, I too am curious as to what specific actions go against the goals he stated, and to whom these subterfuges are attributable.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TF,

So in other words you are just trolling this forum and won't respond substantively to posters who respond substantively to you?

Short enough for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do have one comment about TF's position. His CA initiative very likely shuts out affiliates, yet PPA gives him front-page links on their web site, plus John Pappas has personally discussed the initiative with him.

I was actually quite curious how PPA would handle TF's proposal on a number of levels....I'm happy with their level of advocacy, and I think TF is as well (I can't speak for him, of course).

[1p0kerboy]

When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve, it is true that those who have a narrower range *might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals.

<font color="blue"> Do we really have a wider range of goals? It kind of seems to me like we are all fighting for the same thing. Can you explain further what you mean by this? </font>

Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in.

<font color="blue"> This is a pretty big assumption to make. Besides that, what makes you think they could do this, even if they wanted to?</font>

And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

<font color="blue"> When I give money to any charity or special interest group, I often do the little bit of research it takes (like reading the PPA's website) to find out what that particular company's priorities are. We all know what the PPA's priorities are. They say so on their website. I get the sense that you are trying to say that the PPA's best interest isn't that of ours as recreational players. That's a lie. </font>

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

I do have one comment about TF's position. His CA initiative very likely shuts out affiliates, yet PPA gives him front-page links on their web site, plus John Pappas has personally discussed the initiative with him.

I was actually quite curious how PPA would handle TF's proposal on a number of levels....I'm happy with their level of advocacy, and I think TF is as well (I can't speak for him, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly happy to have a link on the PPA website, thanks John.

I believe that the PPA realizes that genuinely legal online poker with free access, easy funding, and the right to advertise would create poker boom part II. This is a rising tide that would lift all boats, online, B&amp;M, big tournaments like a 25,000 entrant WSOP, magazines, affiliates, poker forums, books, etc, etc, etc.

I am still puzzled that some smart politicos have not recognized that it would also have the potential to generate some much appreciated (not necessarily much needed) revenue. And it could be done without ruinous taxation rates. The golden goose principle would be in play. Let the goose lay a modest egg everyday, and the goose will lay forever.

Tuff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve, it is true that those who have a narrower range *might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals.

<font color="blue"> Do we really have a wider range of goals? It kind of seems to me like we are all fighting for the same thing. Can you explain further what you mean by this? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Well to some degree there seems we (thePPA or poker players) face some political infighting ourselves. The total gaming folks who we agree with in opposition to the UIGEA seem convinced from both posts here and on their sites that the PPA and on-line poker players are willing to throw them under the buss for a poker only anti-UIGEA deal.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in.

<font color="blue"> This is a pretty big assumption to make. Besides that, what makes you think they could do this, even if they wanted to?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the concern of who might get to offer on-line poker as a result of the collective poker world effort to change the UIGEA on-line poker world. The unanswered question seems to be would in the name of a future deal either those that stayed in the US market or those that stayed out of the US market be given preferential treatment in the name of a deal. That is if the deal came down to at, ball crushing time, banning any poker site that "violated/flaunted" UIGEA i.e. FT &amp; PS, would the PPA take the deal. I have no idea what Chris Fersuson's financial stake is in FT except he endorses FT as does Howard Letterer. My thought was since they were on the PPA board this was unlikely. Greg Raymer has a deal with PS and is on the board. I am not up on the exact list of the pros who have endorsed or have deals with PP but I don't see any of the ones I know on the PPA board.

So even in the on-line poker community we have our own politics. Should Party and the others who for a variety of reasons followed the spirit of the UIGEA or gave up on US players, depending on your point of view, be given dominace in any final backroom deal to get a UIGEA carve out for on-line poker?

[ QUOTE ]
And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

<font color="blue"> When I give money to any charity or special interest group, I often do the little bit of research it takes (like reading the PPA's website) to find out what that particular company's priorities are. We all know what the PPA's priorities are. They say so on their website. I get the sense that you are trying to say that the PPA's best interest isn't that of ours as recreational players. That's a lie. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the crux of the question of the PPA board make up issue. If you take the position that getting a poker carve-out for the UIGEA for on-line poker but it banned FT and PS or severly limited their entry into the US market how would the PPA given it's board make up turn down such a deal or expend member resources to protect the "hidden" agenda of the known board members.

Of course Bluff can speak for himself but this is my take on the issue of board make up issue. There are other questions as well but these seem the most obvious.

D$D

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that most "affiliates" are also players right? I'm a rakeback and general poker affiliate, but I was a player long before that. What's funny is since my site is over 50% non-USA, I could still make a fine living without USA players. But I'm on this forum every day because I play poker, and I don't want to be told not to.

In my opinion, poker players, poker affiliates/marketers and poker sites all have the same goal. Legalized online poker. I'd also say most share the same motivation, that being 'making money from the online poker industry', though I'm sure there are some politically active losing players out there as well.

Why fight amongst ourselves? Is there some hidden motivation that makes an affiliate's desire to see online poker legalized, slimey?

[TheEngineer]

Everyone,

Let's get a show of hands. Who's participating in the flyover?

[Uglyowl]

I am unable to attend due to work obligations, but am very very interested in the "virtual fly in".

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone,

Let's get a show of hands. Who's participating in the flyover?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fly-in? Fly-over is a derogatory term for the area between LA and NY...... /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that most "affiliates" are also players right? I'm a rakeback and general poker affiliate, but I was a player long before that. What's funny is since my site is over 50% non-USA, I could still make a fine living without USA players. But I'm on this forum every day because I play poker, and I don't want to be told not to.

In my opinion, poker players, poker affiliates/marketers and poker sites all have the same goal. Legalized online poker. I'd also say most share the same motivation, that being 'making money from the online poker industry', though I'm sure there are some politically active losing players out there as well.

Why fight amongst ourselves? Is there some hidden motivation that makes an affiliate's desire to see online poker legalized, slimey?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't see giving 100% committment to an organization wholly UNACCOUNTABLE to its constituency. If we form a group it is NOT a one-off to legalize online play. As a PLAYER with no affiliate links I want all poker legal. Home poker, local club poker, internet poker, and poker anywhere that follows the law and pays taxes. Affiliates do NOT want legal home poker or local poker clubs. Right there is a big conflict of interest. As for how they would shape the onlien environment, I do not know, but Im sure Bluff has an idea of what they want. If the PPA is going to be of the players, by the players, and for the players, it needs a radical retooling. If push came to shove on a decision, who makes it? Who vets it? Who decides who OUR NAMES are behind? Its not a fight so much as a REASONABLE request in exchange for our money and grassroots effort. If they are in our interest, let more of our interests in ,and show where the money comes from, where its spent, and how leadership will be determined.

[Mason Malmuth]

There's nothing wrong in being an affiliate. In fact, we have similar ads here. But I don't think you should be a PPA board member.

Best wishes,
Mason

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Affiliates do NOT want legal home poker or local poker clubs. Right there is a big conflict of interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument seems to fall flat on it's face in a simple look at the current state of the "poker world". The increase in poker's popularity has "lifted all boats". No where in all of my discussions with John, or anyone in any way connected to poker has anyone with 1/2 a brain not understood that legal poker helps all aspects of the poker world. I even spoke to a B&amp;M in Indiana about getting information to their KY players. While the poker room employee thought the GM might not want the increased competition from new casinos in KY, the GM understood his parent organization would indeed likely grow with such an expansion. He even said he'd have to talk to the employee as more casinos meant more chances for that employee to move up in their organization.

While it seems natural for everyone to assume that everyone else is out to use whatever position or power one or the other might have to screw everyone over, and your personal life experience might re-inforce that feeling, not everyone operates from this perspective.


D$D

[Legislurker]

I don't trust them to not drop the ball IF there was some kind of online presence established. How many of those new, eager converts are going to like it when they find out the people signing them up for this Alliance only want them to click thru their website? The fervor sort of goes sour in your mouth when you find out who is calling the shots and that players will never be capable of calling the shots in the PPA.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't trust them to not drop the ball IF there was some kind of online presence established. How many of those new, eager converts are going to like it when they find out the people signing them up for this Alliance only want them to click thru their website? The fervor sort of goes sour in your mouth when you find out who is calling the shots and that players will never be capable of calling the shots in the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Alabama rifle owner doesn't call the shots for the NRA. He/she is mainly interested in the NRA keeping their ownership rights intact.

Should the NRA suddenly start opposing pistol ownership in favor of rifle owners, there would be hell to pay. The NRA leadership knows this, The rifle owners know this, and likewise, I suspect the PPA knows it must help everyone if it hopes to be a successful organization.

Why is everyone here so distrustful. If the PPA has a goal of legalization/regulation/legislative "blessing" online poker in order to somehow benefit the founders.. so what. The NRA was not founded by carriage makers. They do great things for gun owners, but I am sure a lot of their support comes from gun manufacturers.

I suggest that, unless somebody has a more substantive beef with the PPA than the fact that they have affiliates and poker magazine publishers on their board, that everyone chill a bit.

Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that, unless somebody has a more substantive beef with the PPA than the fact that they have affiliates and poker magazine publishers on their board, that everyone chill a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]


They are substantive beefs despite your assertions to the contrary. Any organization controlled by middlemen/derivative business interests who benefit from only certain narrow business models of online poker isn't going to work vigorously for promotion/legalization of all forms of poker, a couple recent too-little-too-late efforts/assertions notwithstanding.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
Any organization controlled by middlemen/derivative business interests who benefit from only certain narrow business models of online poker isn't going to work vigorously for promotion/legalization of all forms of poker.....
.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have to be a "narrow business model" that benefits the members of the PPA board? Why could they not benefit just as much from a "wide business model"?

Which forms of poker is the PPA not working vigorously for promotion/legalization of?

Sigh....

Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

Which forms of poker is the PPA not working vigorously for promotion/legalization of?

Sigh....

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]



Sigh...... You just don't [censored] listen do you?


1) Outside of the very recent effort Engineer got them to work on in Kentucky, what have they done for B&amp;M poker? Answer = NOTHING. And this is despite the fact that a casino measure has been up in Texas this year where poker needed a voice. This is a long-term effort since it requires constitutional change in many states.

2) What have they done to promote intra-state online poker? Answer = NOTHING.

3) What have they done to promote the legal posture of the sites still in the US market that online poker, outside of a handful of states, is *still legal*. Answer = NOTHING. In fact they ran an ad earlier in the year touting the contrary legal interpretation at the behest of party poker and their *affiliate farms*.

4) What have they done in the judicial arena, which according to some knowledgeable attorneys here may offer the best hope for online poker in the short to mid-term? Answer = NOTHING. However the new exec dir did say he was willing to aid *if asked* (i.e. still doing nothing pro-active).

5) What has the PPA done to neuter the regs as a fallback to protect our ability to continue to play if the current bills fail as likely? Answer = NOTHING. However the PPAdc did say they are working on it (which means now that he's here but that the organization led by the current board wasted the past year when it really mattered).



Now just parrot your usual line about how all that doesn't matter and we should be tickled pink to have a board with conflicted interests.


And note the following as well. Even if you and others don't think (because of your poor judgment) that there's something wrong with the current board makeup, many posters here do. So why in hell wouldn't you advocate that some of those board members resign and be replaced with more people like Engineer so the vast majority could be much more positive about the PPA?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't trust them to not drop the ball IF there was some kind of online presence established. How many of those new, eager converts are going to like it when they find out the people signing them up for this Alliance only want them to click thru their website? The fervor sort of goes sour in your mouth when you find out who is calling the shots and that players will never be capable of calling the shots in the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

You all know me, if I'm not trying to get into the middle of a political fight, I'm looking to make a buck. If I can make a buck in a political fight I am at my happiest!

For about 30 seconds while thinking of ways to help the PPA raise money, I thought RAKEBACK program! But another 30 seconds of thought and of course I realized that it would create more problems that it would solve.

The PPA has been very smart, IMPO, about how it handles what it puts up on it's website. They seem to have a very controled and politically smart policy of communications.

By this I mean they encourage anyone who wants to to have a link to the PPA, but they are very controled about what you can link to from their site. They'll take all the promotion they can get but don't promote anyone.

This is another reason I have been less concerned about the board issue. Yes it would be natrual for anyone one individual on that board to try and use their position to help themselves. But from every action I've looked at, including the ones they haven't taken(including some of my own suggestions), I've concluded that the board acting together has always followed both the letter and the complete spirit of the PPA mission statement.

If I learned one thing in the political trenches it is this; the biggest nighmare with volunteers is that everyone of them at some point goes to the campaign manager or high level staff with what they are sure is the "magic phrase, commercial idea, or perfect come-back" that they are positive will destroy the opposition or reserect a dead candidate. Yes some of them are quite brilliant and well thought out, but they don't fit into the overall campaign strategy. Having been on both sides of that campaign desk or phone call, how you handle these "Karl Rove" suggestions is very difficult. Here you have a live or die committed supporter who you have to "manage". Telling them no and not loosing an ounce of their passion is one of the hardest talents to learn and one of the more valuable IMPO.

We as Americans love to create consparicy theories for when the seemingly logical thing doesn't happen, it just seems to be our nature.

IMPO the PPA has looked at every reasonable offer of support and every manner of strategic advice and fully considered everyone. Each time they have come to a decision that is fully in the best interests of all poker players.

You all know how critical of the PPA I was before John was appointed, and I've even had a few of my most passionaite "Karl Rove" ideas shot down. Hell I may have even burned a bridge or two in my zeal. But take it from me, as someone who has seen their fair share of backroom shady cons, I have yet to see the PPA do anything close to a hint of an action or inaction that leads me to believe that the PPA isn't doing everyting it can that isn't against the simple principals of fighting for the rights of ALL poker players.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So why in hell wouldn't you advocate that some of those board members resign and be replaced with more people like Engineer so the vast majority could be much more positive about the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply because TE is the model.

Show me one person currently on the board working against the boradest interests of all poker players and I help lead the fight to get them to resign, fired, or forcibly removed.

Show me some one like TE who with no self interest, pre-conditions, or even vague hopes of reward, who steps up and puts forward the effort to help all poker players, and unlike myself asked for nothing in return, and I'll lead the effort to put them on the board.

But show me anyone that doesn't fit this model or more so demands this or that as a condition for their support or even "netrual" stance and they can go [censor] themselves. I don't care how much power, influence, or resources they might have, real or imagined.

Simple enough?


D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why in hell wouldn't you advocate that some of those board members resign and be replaced with more people like Engineer so the vast majority could be much more positive about the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply because TE is the model.

Show me one person currently on the board working against the boradest interests of all poker players and I help lead the fight to get them to resign, fired, or forcibly removed.

Show me some one like TE who with no self interest, pre-conditions, or even vague hopes of reward, who steps up and puts forward the effort to help all poker players, and unlike myself asked for nothing in return, and I'll lead the effort to put them on the board.

But show me anyone that doesn't fit this model or more so demands this or that as a condition for their support or even "netrual" stance and they can go [censor] themselves. I don't care how much power, influence, or resources they might have, real or imagined.

Simple enough?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this? Work through the 08 election with the current board. Feb 09 have a convention in DC with all attendees who paid dues getting a vote. All current board members retain non-voting seats on the board for 2 more years. Then, nominate a president at the convention, voting board members account for 50% of the election, mailed out ballots for the other half. Show good faith to will the organization to players to decide.

[TruePoker CEO]

River City Group, a well-known gaming industry entity, has been contacting gaming companies to send representatives to join the PPA Fly-In.

[Berge20]

Let me know who is coming into town from here. Not sure if I'll be able to peel off during the day, but surely some of us can get together during one of the evenings for a few beverages.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know who is coming into town from here. Not sure if I'll be able to peel off during the day, but surely some of us can get together during one of the evenings for a few beverages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ace Jones from rounders radio seems interested in doing some shows from the event and I'm pretty sure I can help organize some poker games. These leagues around here seem desperate for a semi-known name to feature.


D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me know who is coming into town from here. Not sure if I'll be able to peel off during the day, but surely some of us can get together during one of the evenings for a few beverages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ace Jones from rounders radio seems interested in doing some shows from the event and I'm pretty sure I can help organize some poker games. These leagues around here seem desperate for a semi-known name to feature.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm lets not run any games during the get together please.
That would be a MAJOR PR fiasco should a bust occur. I wouldnt put it past the Gestappo to have someone snooping in here.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me know who is coming into town from here. Not sure if I'll be able to peel off during the day, but surely some of us can get together during one of the evenings for a few beverages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ace Jones from rounders radio seems interested in doing some shows from the event and I'm pretty sure I can help organize some poker games. These leagues around here seem desperate for a semi-known name to feature.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm lets not run any games during the get together please.
That would be a MAJOR PR fiasco should a bust occur. I wouldnt put it past the Gestappo to have someone snooping in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear any talk of games means ZERO buy-in MTT with sponsor type trash gifts, t-shirts, chip-sets, perhaps even a dinner certificate on the high-end. Whatever comfortably fits into the local laws without effort.

No cash side games.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

I would suggest someone with connections invite the ultimate Capitol Hill Poker Player, Obama himself to join any game arainged. His love for the game is well known in Washington and even bragged about on his website.

obg

[Legislurker]

Id say stage for charity event with some named people. Let Al bring his bud Howard Stern down. Maybe a couple tour guys. Raymer and Jerry Wang. If you can get Obama to show would be a coup, but any incumbent Senator or House(House member with status). Rangel might show, he enjoys poker. Im not sure about Conyers. Guys with nothing to lose because they are elected for life. Im sure it could get on TV, even if Raymer is still suing WPT. If you got press coverage of this and we had a few hundred or more people in town................Id suggest picking up some hotel tabs or flights(not mine, Ill pay if i go)IF you can parlay it into press buzz. People I've asked would go if it was free. They still are hesitant about the PPA. Seeing them actually on tv and the news would do wonders.

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing wrong in being an affiliate. In fact, we have similar ads here. But I don't think you should be a PPA board member.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[TheEngineer]

If you have not yet registered for the conference, you may wish to do to so now, so you can take advantage of the PPA-negotiated room rates at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Northwest D.C. (the deadline for the room rate is October 5th).

Also, please be sure to fill out the regisration form at https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=270 .

Thanks and see you there!

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
So Tuff, we are supposed to show up, spend our money, lobby, and to convince people to listen to a board with very little player interest? Sorta like Gandalf going up in Isengard to discuss deep matters with Saruman and leaving us little hobbits out here on a barrel of tabac while our "betters" hammer out a deal that may or may not screw us. I think everyone WANTS to be on board in this, just we want some more information about the piloting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually yes, all major lobbying organizations do this. Having constituents fly into Washington to meet with their reps. for a major lobbying effort is a very powerful action.

The texture of the board or who they represent is hardly going to matter for the fly-in. Congrats on being quoted in gambling911 BTW, maybe you can join their "reporting" staff and harp on the PPA even more

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Id say stage for charity event with some named people. Let Al bring his bud Howard Stern down. Maybe a couple tour guys. Raymer and Jerry Wang. If you can get Obama to show would be a coup, but any incumbent Senator or House(House member with status). Rangel might show, he enjoys poker. Im not sure about Conyers. Guys with nothing to lose because they are elected for life. Im sure it could get on TV, even if Raymer is still suing WPT. If you got press coverage of this and we had a few hundred or more people in town................Id suggest picking up some hotel tabs or flights(not mine, Ill pay if i go)IF you can parlay it into press buzz. People I've asked would go if it was free. They still are hesitant about the PPA. Seeing them actually on tv and the news would do wonders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Lederer, Andy Bloch and Barry Greenstein are confirmed to come. Others have been invited and will be confirmed soon.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Id say stage for charity event with some named people. Let Al bring his bud Howard Stern down. Maybe a couple tour guys. Raymer and Jerry Wang. If you can get Obama to show would be a coup, but any incumbent Senator or House(House member with status). Rangel might show, he enjoys poker. Im not sure about Conyers. Guys with nothing to lose because they are elected for life. Im sure it could get on TV, even if Raymer is still suing WPT. If you got press coverage of this and we had a few hundred or more people in town................Id suggest picking up some hotel tabs or flights(not mine, Ill pay if i go)IF you can parlay it into press buzz. People I've asked would go if it was free. They still are hesitant about the PPA. Seeing them actually on tv and the news would do wonders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Lederer, Andy Bloch and Barry Greenstein are confirmed to come. Others have been invited and will be confirmed soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is great, good luck on the event, I wish I could be there.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

This is great, good luck on the event, I wish I could be there.

[/ QUOTE ]


Has anyone given any thought to a workshop during the conference to discuss proposed rule strategy?

While including conference call hook up during a workshop is always a mess, I'd love to have the input of a number of people who might not be currently planning on attending the fly-in.


D$D&lt;--full of dumb ideas

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Id say stage for charity event with some named people. Let Al bring his bud Howard Stern down. Maybe a couple tour guys. Raymer and Jerry Wang. If you can get Obama to show would be a coup, but any incumbent Senator or House(House member with status). Rangel might show, he enjoys poker. Im not sure about Conyers. Guys with nothing to lose because they are elected for life. Im sure it could get on TV, even if Raymer is still suing WPT. If you got press coverage of this and we had a few hundred or more people in town................Id suggest picking up some hotel tabs or flights(not mine, Ill pay if i go)IF you can parlay it into press buzz. People I've asked would go if it was free. They still are hesitant about the PPA. Seeing them actually on tv and the news would do wonders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Lederer, Andy Bloch and Barry Greenstein are confirmed to come. Others have been invited and will be confirmed soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy Bloch, Chad Brown, Barry Greenstein, Howard Lederer, Chris Moneymaker, Vanessa Rousso and Victor Ramdin are confirmed to come. Others have been invited and will be confirmed soon.

[TheEngineer]

Here are some of the planned events:

Welcome Reception - 6:30pm, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Oct. 22

"How to Lobby Congress" Breakfast - 8:30am, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Oct. 23

Member of Congress/Staff Meetings - TBD, Oct. 23 and 24, U.S. Capitol Complex

Capitol Hill Reception - Evening, Oct. 23

Policy Forum - morning, Oct. 24, U.S. Capitol Complex. Invited speakers include: Charlie Nesson, Professor, Harvard Law; Sallie James, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; Keith Whyte, Executive Director, Nat'l Council on Problem Gambling; and other experts in the field of public policy and law.