Does the PPA need 2+2?

[Berge20]

Bluff this returned from his self-exile in true form in another thread, but I felt it warranted additional discussion on its own.

His post is below and my basic question is, does the PPA need 2+2 to succeed?

[ QUOTE ]
I've been absent for a while but I'm back, and would like to comment on this situation. Mason's position and the thoughts of various posters were detailed in the other thread, but let's summarize the situation. Mason has a neutral at best position on the PPA and won't change to positive unless issues dealing with the conflicted interests on the board, and with transparency, are first addressed in a satisfactory manner. BUT in the meantime, he is perfectly willing to let the PPA be discussed, and for official reps of same to post here as well, with no censorship of their views even when they differ from Mason's. All he has required is that those official reps like Mr. Pappas and Bryan be so identified, and that board members of the PPA be as well. That's not really a lot to ask for unlimited and uncensored access to these forums, which brings together the largest body of poker players on the net.

And again, all the Engineer has to do to address his own concerns is simply add to the PPA board member note that he is speaking his own views and not acting in that instance as an official spokesman.

"PPA board member speaking his own private viewpoints and not necessarily those of the PPA" - or someting similar.

It might be tedious, but the Engineer could simply cut & paste a standard such ending or even use an AHK script. Super easy.

I hope the Engineer doesn't get hung up on this and even if he disagrees with the demand, views it as worth complying with in order to help continue advance the work of the PPA as he has so ably done in this forum.



Now I have something to say to the rest of you professing outrage. You are the ones who by your refusal to take seriously important problems with the PPA (which admittedly are getting better though after two years of misteps and failure) who are hurting the cause we have. Instead of working to try to get two or so board members to resign (*without* first voting on their replacements), and then the newly constituted board to deal with the transparency issue, you make every excuse and sweep every criticism under the rug.

Sure you might say you understand, but how does that understanding translate into action? Have even one of you emailed Ms. Schulman asking her to resign and take one other affiliate farm interest board member with her? Or have you emailed Greg Fossilman Raymer to ask him to broker such resignations for the good of the PPA? Instead of always criticizing Mason or those other of us who have expressed concerns in the past about the PPA, why can't YOU try to do something to address these concerns instead of just demanding everyone ignore same and kowtow to the PPA *in its current state*?

And here's the main issue in all this. Either this forum and 2p2 in general (and Mason's positive endorsement) is very important to the success of the PPA or it's not. If not, then why waste words arguing against Mason's actions and the viewpoints of some of us who share his concerns? Just move on.

BUT if 2p2 is important, as I believe it is, because it has the ability like no other place on the net or in the B&M world to bring together the largest mass of poker players who can be induced to act in concert for our cause by the great efforts of posters like TheEngineer, then I would submit that you should spend as much effort seeking to remove the concerns some of us have, as you do in criticizing us. That means as I said above contacting relevant board members and asking them to resign for the good of the PPA. And it means taking seriously the board and transparency issues, which you *should* given headsup Berge gave us to the Politico article which shows our foes are trying to capitalize in typical political fashion on *any* perceived negative to deflect attention away from our arguments which they can't rebut.

Even if you think that Mason and others like myself are totally wrong, motivated in part by personal animus or whatever, the bottom line *if 2p2 is important to the PPA's success* is that you need to work on addressing those long term criticisms so that we have an internal unity, and a lack of conflicted or tainted interests that can be used against our cause by our foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

I'm sorry but I do not have any facts or other information to suggest that any members of the board of directors of the PPA need to resign. I am a full member of the PPA and quite satisfied with its board of directors.
I am not sure that the PPA needs 2+2 to succeed. In addition, it is possible that, in time, Mason's position may cost him readership on these forums and some business.

[BluffTHIS!]

JPF,

Read the last part of my quoted post above about even if you think we're wrong. Perception is often more important in politics than facts.

And how exactly does the PPA not need 2p2? Do they have a forum of their own with *viable* traffic? No. Do they have any other venue where they can quickly reach thousands of member poker players who are willing to act? No. At least not if the alternative is a mass email that isn't able to target the most active of their membership. Does the PPA have any other place where there are industry and politics insiders and knowledgeable attorneys whose brains can be picked? Not that I'm aware of.

I suggest that if you and others are going to take a "I'm not sure" position in response to Berge's question, that you should instead quantify that. 2p2 has to be important on a scale of 1 to 10. When you know precisely where on that scale 2p2 is, then you know also how much effort and accomodation should be made to the concerns of posters on 2p2 and Mason himself.

And tell me something else. Even if you don't personally have a problem with the PPA board being dominated by online affiliate farm interests who cannot benefit from, and thus are less likely to see the PPA help promote, certain forms of poker like intra-state and B&M, would you if you were one of those board members be willing to resign for the good of the PPA? The higher up the scale of importance of 2p2 to the PPA, then the more willing you *should* be to do so.

[Cactus Jack]

This is absurd.

This is like what's left over from Ivory's 99 44/100% pure fighting about who's more important. The truth is neither are more important in the grand scheme of things.

The vast majority of the poker playing population--the 99 and 44/100%--do not know about either the PPA or 2+2. Do you understand that??? 2+2 is important to SOME online poker players--among the ones still playing--but totally unimportant to the ones who WOULD BE PLAYING if the PPA is successful. 2+2 is important to us, but the rest of the world could give a fat rat's derierre.

I'm a supporter of 2+2, but I'm in the same position here as I was before the invasion of Iraq. I can't criticise without being considered a Communist. Well, at the risk of offending some people I'd rather not, I'm going to anyway...

This is totally and utterly ridiculous and I'm appalled!

C'mon, Mason, gimme a break. While you may have good reasons in your own mind, in the minds of your customers you're out of your mind. Frankly, 2+2 did nothing before the passage of the UIGEA to prevent it, to educate poker players, and has since done nothing to repeal it. You've sold a bunch of books. You haven't done what the PPA is at least trying to do.

In my eyes, the PPA is the one who's gaining respect, while 2+2 is losing it. You are, simply, wrong. (and sadly unlikely to change your mind.)

So, in conclusion, I believe in this case, 2+2 needs the PPA much more than the PPA needs 2+2. If the PPA fails, there's nothing to take it's place, the market shrinks further, and you sell fewer books over time. Duh. The PPA has made it this far without 2+2 at all. The only thing to come out of 2+2 which has been of great help to the PPA is The Engineer, if that's a true statement at all.

Stop this nonsense before it hurts us further. And stop acting like Democrats. Sheesh.

CJ--a member of the Democratic Party and as such, his views should be taken as the policy of the Democratic Party.

[Lostit]

I think this is a great question.

I think the PPA DOES need 2+2.
I also think 2+2 needs the PPA.

2+2 provides a congregating place for all things that a poker player cares about. Poker instruction, like minded conversation, news, etc. There are many reasons to come to this site. As a result it provides an organization like the PPA, an easy place to communicate with many people who are concerned with their cause. In fact there probably is no greater concentration of these people than what 2+2 provides. As a result, I say the PPA needs 2+2.

In the last year however, we've all seen how much our passtime (and income) can be threatened by legislation. 2+2 provides a great place to comizerate (sp?) and cry together, but what good does that do? We've got a few posters who come up with great ideas and make great leaders (The Engineer), and can stir people to action on a certain level, but we need more than that. We need political action. We need people with political ties like Al D'Amato. We need fly-ins to Washington DC. We need someone to set up a grass roots structure by designating a representative for each state to track events and coordinate efforts there. I haven't seen that on 2+2 but I do see it from the PPA.

The PPA may have issues, I get that. Something is better than nothing.

If we get no political action, the forces against us remain unchecked in the political arena, the poker community will dwindle as it won't be worth it to fight hard just to play poker in a contracting rock garden. It won't be profitable, and it won't be worth the effort just for some fun.

The PPA needs 2+2 for the people they provide. 2+2 needs the PPA to keep fighting in the politcal arena so that there is a reason for 2+2's people to keep coming back.

One last thing, specifically for Mason. We've got a ton of threads on the whole Engineer thing and I see both sides, fine, enough on that. Please be careful with someone who has motivated so many of us to do things that we wouldn't have otherwise done. I appreciate the board, and all the hard work that goes into this place. But for all of us who have been writing letters, making phone calls, and getting politically involved for the benefit of all poker players, it was the Engineer who caused most of that. Not 2+2. Not You. Work with this man to keep him here, show him the respect he deserves, because while you may make a profit off this site, he did it all for free, for the good of the game, and accomplished amazing things. Lets not drive those people away. We need them now more than ever. Perhaps at this point in time, more than 2+2 or the PPA.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of the poker playing population--the 99 and 44/100%--do not know about either the PPA or 2+2. Do you understand that???

[/ QUOTE ]


And do YOU not understand that isn't what is important? The statistic that *is important*, is what percentage of active, letter writing and phone calling members of the PPA are also 2p2'ers. And where is the place most likely to induce more members to such active measures. This is the same as in politics where it's not just registered voters, but those most likely to in fact vote, who are the most sought after.

[Kraize]

[censored] 2+2.

I don't post here often but I do read the legislation board every day and do the things asked of us by TE in his weekly action threads.

This situation is complete BS and I won't be visiting this site or buying anymore 2+2 books.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] 2+2.

I don't post here often but I do read the legislation board every day and do the things asked of us by TE in his weekly action threads.

This situation is complete BS and I won't be visiting this site or buying anymore 2+2 books.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm curious whether you are also mad at the CP mag and affiliate farm board members of the PPA who could resign but won't because of either their vested interests tied to only certain forms of online poker, or their animus against 2p2? Will you also be boycotting CP magazine and urging your friends not to sign with affiliates advertised on their website?

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
I'm curious whether you are also mad at the CP mag and affiliate farm board members of the PPA who could resign but won't because of either their vested interests tied to only certain forms of online poker, or their animus against 2p2? Will you also be boycotting CP magazine and urging your friends not to sign with affiliates advertised on their website?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff This,

Please go back into hibernation where ever you were.

PPA has done more for MY poker interests in a week than you have EVER.

Nobody but nobody cares a fig what you think.

Tuff

[VP$IP]

Let's see. We have crummy laws that make it difficult for many people to fund their poker accounts, and there is a major online cheating scandal. Meanwhile, many of the people here are on Tilt, playing Russian Roulette, and we are eating our young.

[BluffTHIS!]

Tuff,

Quick question. When you were at the D.C. flyin, were board members Allyn Schulman, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher and Mary Magazine also there? And did you have any discussions with them relevant to the issues of concern here regarding the board composition and transparency?

Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence. Unless of course you're playing at my table and donating. In that case I'm willing to cave into some of your demands including a percentage back of your losses. After all, it's the fish like you we want and not all these weak-tighties!

[Kraize]

"I'm curious whether you are also mad at the CP mag and affiliate farm board members of the PPA who could resign but won't because of either their vested interests tied to only certain forms of online poker, or their animus against 2p2? Will you also be boycotting CP magazine and urging your friends not to sign with affiliates advertised on their website?"


I don't read CP but that has nothing to do with this issue.

I'm not backing up the PPA. I am however backing up TE. He has done nothing but help our cause and Mason is being ridiculous in his demands.

Anyone that reads here knows TE is on the PPA board. He shouldn't have to sign every post like he is representing the PPA.

Anyway this issue has been discussed in enough threads. Most people are on TE's side and hopefully they will follow him off 2+2.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway this issue has been discussed in enough threads. Most people are on TE's side and hopefully they will follow him off 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]


The question at issue is not whether 2p2 needs some of you, but whether the PPA needs 2p2. I presume you are saying the PPA does not in fact need 2p2 or you would stay and put up with things you disagree with for the overall good of the cause wouldn't you?

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are being serious, you are a bigger fool than i thought. Just because someone is bad at poker does not mean that they are not capable of making superior arguments to your own.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are being serious, you are a bigger fool than i thought. Just because someone is bad at poker does not mean that they are not capable of making superior arguments to your own.

[/ QUOTE ]


No it doesn't mean that 100%. But it does mean that the probability is very high such is in fact the case. And if you don't see why you aren't really a 2p2'er. If you can't play +EV then you most likely don't think very well. Or maybe Sklansky and Mason are full of [censored] in all their math and poker writings.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,

Quick question. When you were at the D.C. flyin, were board members Allyn Schulman, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher and Mary Magazine also there?

.
.
There was a lady at my table who said she was a board member and a lawyer. I didn't catch her name.
.
.
And did you have any discussions with them relevant to the issues of concern here regarding the board composition and transparency?
.
.
I did not because I don't care one whit about the board conposition. The PPA is working for me. That works for me. You and Mason are the only ones who seem to have heart burn about the board makeup.
.
.


Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence. Unless of course you're playing at my table and donating. In that case I'm willing to cave into some of your demands including a percentage back of your losses. After all, it's the fish like you we want
.
.
Then you sir are a complete freaking idiot, because fish like me aren't going to be playing online poker AT ALL unless the PPA has success. You would be better served to work your complaining ass off helping the PPA rather that whining and obstructing them.
.
.

and not all these weak-tighties!

.
.

There may come a day, not too distant, when you and all your selfish ilk, will pine for the right to play the weak tight grinders the permeate the online scene nowadays. .



[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff

[Skallagrim]

I posted my thoughts on TE specifically in the "TE is Yellow" thread so I wont repeat them here.

On the specific question, does the PPA NEED 2+2, the answer is no. But can the PPA use 2+2 and can that be a very effective use? The answer to that is clearly yes. Yes, simply because 2+2 to its credit, but maybe more so to the credit of its posters (like TE and even you Bluff) is THE place to read and talk about poker.

Do political candidates need CBS or NBC? Well, there are other methods of getting the message out, they just are not as quick and easy. But if political candidates could not advertise on those stations, dont you think they, and the viewers who would be interested in what they have to say (OK, here the analogy does break down a bit /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) would find something else that works? Of course they would.

In that sense 2+2 does have a little bit to lose too; its not likely to continue to be the place for cutting edge poker-related political and legal discussion/information that it is now - and that has certainly enhanced (to some degree) 2+2's reputation in the poker community.

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
does the PPA need 2+2 to succeed?


[/ QUOTE ]




Today's PPA definition of success, may not be the same as most player's or 2+2's. But yes, PPA needs the fine help of 2+2 PLUS several minor miracles in a row "to succeed" as I think of success. Without 2+2, it would be ugly.

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is absurd.

This is like what's left over from Ivory's 99 44/100% pure fighting about who's more important. The truth is neither are more important in the grand scheme of things.

The vast majority of the poker playing population--the 99 and 44/100%--do not know about either the PPA or 2+2. Do you understand that??? 2+2 is important to SOME online poker players--among the ones still playing--but totally unimportant to the ones who WOULD BE PLAYING if the PPA is successful. 2+2 is important to us, but the rest of the world could give a fat rat's derierre.

I'm a supporter of 2+2, but I'm in the same position here as I was before the invasion of Iraq. I can't criticise without being considered a Communist. Well, at the risk of offending some people I'd rather not, I'm going to anyway...

This is totally and utterly ridiculous and I'm appalled!

C'mon, Mason, gimme a break. While you may have good reasons in your own mind, in the minds of your customers you're out of your mind. Frankly, 2+2 did nothing before the passage of the UIGEA to prevent it, to educate poker players, and has since done nothing to repeal it. You've sold a bunch of books. You haven't done what the PPA is at least trying to do.

In my eyes, the PPA is the one who's gaining respect, while 2+2 is losing it. You are, simply, wrong. (and sadly unlikely to change your mind.)

So, in conclusion, I believe in this case, 2+2 needs the PPA much more than the PPA needs 2+2. If the PPA fails, there's nothing to take it's place, the market shrinks further, and you sell fewer books over time. Duh. The PPA has made it this far without 2+2 at all. The only thing to come out of 2+2 which has been of great help to the PPA is The Engineer, if that's a true statement at all.

Stop this nonsense before it hurts us further. And stop acting like Democrats. Sheesh.

CJ--a member of the Democratic Party and as such, his views should be taken as the policy of the Democratic Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

HERE HERE

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see. We have crummy laws that make it difficult for many people to fund their poker accounts, and there is a major online cheating scandal. Meanwhile, many of the people here are on Tilt, playing Russian Roulette, and we are eating our young.

[/ QUOTE ]

HERE HERE

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same as in politics where it's not just registered voters, but those most likely to in fact vote, who are the most sought after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're getting closer.

The most sought after are the ones capable of registering new voters and getting them and the already registered to the right polls on time ready to vote your way.

This movement really is at the crutical "tipping point."

We either move forward and take a shot at winning or all dig in for the long hard slow fight.

Quite likely this is why this issue has been pushed to the forefront RIGHT now.

The PPA is NOT strong enought to stand on it own, nor really ready to "spring" into action.

2+2 and 2+2er's have done a good deal of the heavy lifting in the name of the PPA or not. To date the PPA for the most part gets all the credit.

But the PPA is excedingly weak now. As a Grassroots organization "we" have an expensive e-mail list of 800k names, a weak structure, over 2 years of time and something north of 4 million spent to date; and are still a fledgeling "infant" organization with less than 1/30 of the community and less than 10% active membership participation.

In political terms of where we need to be we have a decent outline and a lot of hope.

As I've said in the past this in no way takes away from the very hard work that has been done and the great progress that has been accomplished recently. We really do good PR!

The PPA is currently hamstrung for money. It is a sad fact of building your numbers from the least committed.

So we die an infant death and one of great promise but get strangled from our history and todling misteps, or we get back up and get ready to just train for the apporaching marathon.

As all things in reality it is up to "we" the members of the larger community and each of the smaller "communities" to decide if we have the heart for this fight.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

I am an online poker player. I do not play live poker and do not want to play live poker. Thus, the affiliate farms, online poker sites and poker magazines who profit from advertisements from online poker sites represent my interests just fine.
As for who needs who. The best situation for both is a symbiotic one. IMO, Mason needs to understand that and maybe work at bit harder to achieve it. Recently, the PPA has finally realized it and taken steps to achieve it. IMO putting TE on its board of directors was one such step taken by PPA.

[BluffTHIS!]

How can there be a mutual symbiotic relationship with a lopsided board representation? Why can't the online interests you mention be the ones to also work a little harder at this? Just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency?

[JPFisher55]

Bluffthis, who would be better on PPA's board? It has several poker pros, some industry reps, a noted politician and at least one, TE, player and organizer? Do you really think that more players will help? I don't think so. Would more B&M interests help? I don't think so and they may not be on our side.
So how is the board lopsided? All the members have an interest in online poker being successful, profitable and becoming legal in US to the point that some online poker providers can be based in US.

[Legislurker]

A lot of you want to use the NRA as a role model for the PPA. Fair enough. Just like the NRA has to get to hunters, the PPA has to get to the casual poker players. So how do you fit 2p2 into the analogy? Were not the gun manufacturers and with a few exceptions were not crazy militia members in the Montana woods. We are the gun show dealers. We(for the most part) make a damn good living off poker, either as just players, or as affiliates and players.
2p2 is where the shock troops are. We can either spread the word that the PPA is a good or bad thing. How many poker playing people can you reach for free in a day? Theres a few thousand of us here who can reach six figures easily on short notice. You can double that number maybe if you add up the other forums including the sportsbook ones.


D$D's outline of how much money has been spent for such pitiful results should make the question in the post rhetorical. Like gun show dealers who buy and sell with no oversight we have the most to gain or lose in this fight. And the PPA still does NOT have 2p2 behind it. Despite everyone standing up to rip Bluff how many people are 100% willing to vouch for whose side the PPA is on long run? Its not the players because they dont call the shots or have ANY
method of influencing decisions. So the PPA can keep trying
to reach around a large set of motivated individuals or enlist them by ceding some power and control. Whats the PPA's long term goal? To keep the same board and executive makeup in perpetuity? If we get to 2 million members, will they ever have a say? Are you going to disband if ANtigua does all our heavy lifting? Or are you really going to back up your words about representing poker players in all all legislative areas? If that is so, then make a start now by reaching an agreement with Mason and 2p2, if something reasonable can be reached, and set a DATE, a year or two away, when all the controlling board seats will be up for election. ALL.

[BluffTHIS!]

I just want to note again that either the PPA doesn't need 2p2, in which case all this arguing and discussion is pointless, or they do need 2p2, in which case *even if the criticisms and demands of Mason and posters like myself are totally unreasonable* you who disagree will seek to remove the source of those criticisms by working for board change and better transparency. Of course believing that the PPA does need 2p2 but refusing for reasons of pride/ego/whatever not to meet critics half-way is also an option. Just don't keep bitching at those of us who refuse to accept the PPA as it is, even while we note that the PPA has made visible improvements of late.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So how is the board lopsided? All the members have an interest in online poker being successful, profitable and becoming legal in US to the point that some online poker providers can be based in US.

[/ QUOTE ]


The majority of members only have an interest in certain forms of online poker, representative of the business models they derive profit from, and NOT all forms of online poker. And while you yourself have no interest in B&M poker (and I myself have little), the wider membership of the PPA surely desires the most playing options possible. *And* working for all those other forms of poker has the important synergistic effect of each helping the other. If you are content to be a stooge for certain vested business interests, and to dismiss the interests of those of us who have a wider range of goals, then that's your choice. But that choice does have consequences to the chances for success of your own interests.

And again I put it to you, just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency if it makes all these arguments go away and unifies us?

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to note again that either the PPA doesn't need 2p2, in which case all this arguing and discussion is pointless, or they do need 2p2, in which case *even if the criticisms and demands of Mason and posters like myself are totally unreasonable* you who disagree will seek to remove the source of those criticisms by working for board change and better transparency. Of course believing that the PPA does need 2p2 but refusing for reasons of pride/ego/whatever not to meet critics half-way is also an option. Just don't keep bitching at those of us who refuse to accept the PPA as it is, even while we note that the PPA has made visible improvements of late.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't accept the PPA as it is, thats fine. Many of us DON'T bitch at you for your viewpoint. If you have insight that I'm not aware of, great, lets hear it.

If I'm you, bluff, and I feel that strongly about changing the PPA, here's what I'd do.

1.) Lay out my points in a thread, and sticky it. Probably been done over time, or in various threads, but as the average Joe, I just looked and I don't see it. Maybe it needs to hit me in the face for me to notice, but I don't think that makes me much different than anyone else. So consider me you target audience. I need a thread, a sticky, and an occasional club to the head.

2.) Once you've laid out enough facts to convince me you're right, tell me what I can do with that information. Organize. One of TE's strengths is that not only does he give you ample information, but then he lays out what to do with that information. If you don't like the board members, convince me why I should agree with you, then tell me what to do. Write to the PPA? Threaten to withdraw my membership? Call somebody? Direct me to a petition? What?

3.) Follow up. Keep beating that drum, pounding that rock, whatever. Be relentless. Keep reminding me why this is important. Your target audience has ADD. We're online poker players and have the attention span of a nat. Its the hand you've been dealt, get used to it.

This is the issue I have with the way you and others like Mason have been handling the situation thus far. I don't understand why I should feel as strongly as you do, and don't know what I should do if I did feel that way.

Inform me, (and others) in a constructive, focused, well conceived manner and you might get exactly what you want.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
And again I put it to you, just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency if it makes all these arguments go away and unifies us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually worryed about the next "poker prince" and their demands. What is next the pub leagues?


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

Losit,

FWIW I have been pounding these PPA issues to death for the past year. And these present discussions are just more of the same. The ball is in the court of those who disagree, but believe the PPA needs 2p2. If they want full backing for the PPA of all posters here including Mason, then THEY will take action to try to achieve that. Otherwise there is no point in arguing the issue and they should accept the limitations, small that they are, that Mason places on reps of the PPA.

And they should accept as well the lessened chances for success for the goals of the PPA. Changing out a couple board members with non-clones, and being financially/operationally transparent, is all that stands in the way. But so many posters here both don't care about those issues, and also bitch mightily when 2p2 and posters like myself don't accept that refusal to address those issues, and give the PPA 100% unqualified support.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
and being financially/operationally transparent, is all that stands in the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be a shareholder to get to see the books.

You also have to have the votes or the money to gain a seat on a board.

Legally the PPA meets all current regualtions governing their disclouser requirements.

You want more you have to pay for it.

Yes 2+2 have given a lot in terms of donations in kind in a sense.

But come on gentlemen work it out and lets get on with it.


D$D

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not backing up the PPA. I am however backing up TE. He has done nothing but help our cause and Mason is being ridiculous in his demands.


[/ QUOTE ]

But we made no demands. I sent TE a private message asking that he identify himself as a PPA board member in the same manner that PPABryan and John Pappas identify themselves. Our reason for doing this was for our posters benefit, especially those new to this site.

MM

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]
Losit,

FWIW I have been pounding these PPA issues to death for the past year. And these present discussions are just more of the same. The ball is in the court of those who disagree, but believe the PPA needs 2p2. If they want full backing for the PPA of all posters here including Mason, then THEY will take action to try to achieve that. Otherwise there is no point in arguing the issue and they should accept the limitations, small that they are, that Mason places on reps of the PPA.

And they should accept as well the lessened chances for success for the goals of the PPA. Changing out a couple board members with non-clones, and being financially/operationally transparent, is all that stands in the way. But so many posters here both don't care about those issues, and also bitch mightily when 2p2 and posters like myself don't accept that refusal to address those issues, and give the PPA 100% unqualified support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, even in that post you're missing my point.

Organization.

In the last year, you've been pounding on this, but in random threads. I'm the average poster on here... what do you want me to do? When am I supposed to do it?

I don't necesarily disagree on any of your points. I think they're reasonable. Its the way you're going about it.

Where's my sticky? Where's my action plan? Where's my deadlines for the action plan? Why am I not as fired up about it as you are? Do I need some additional explanation?

How does the PPA feel about that list of 800K becoming a list of 770K? 750K? How about going up to 900K? Politicians like donations, and I'd bet the PPA does too. Got any influence there? Bet you do if you're 2+2 and have the membership that you do.

See my point? You can keep marching the same old arguement out, or you can take it up a notch.

One point that we can agree to disagree on is that the PPA needs 2+2, but not vice versa. 2 years ago I would have been in 100% agreement with you. Today however, I think they need each other. I think its fair to say that Mason is running a business here. If the PPA succeeds does it help or hurt Mason? If they fail the UIGEA stands or somehow additional legislation passes, do you think Mason's business gets hurt?

I know myself, and others that I know personally who still play, took time off after the UIGEA passed because it was a real downer. Not only did I take time off, but I didn't come here, and I didn't buy books. I don't think it was an uncommon reaction. My point is, that the more restrictive the legislation, which is what the PPA is working against, the more Mason's business gets hurt. I don't think this reasoning is a real stretch.

As a result, I think the PPA absolutely needs 2+2 and more importantly, they need to realize that. But we also shouldn't be so cavalier and arrogant to believe that it isn't also the other way around. 2+2 needs the PPA to succeed or come up with another organization to effectively replace them. Sitting on the sidelines and being neutral or counterproductive, in the long run, is bad for business for 2+2.

[Lostit]

Here's what I would like to know Mason... will you reach out to the man again and attempt to smooth things over? I'm not saying to totally cave in, but work it out. We need all the TE's we can get, and even you have to admit, this whole thing is a trivial matter that has gotten way out hand.

So will you make another attempt to reach out to him?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

Where's my sticky? Where's my action plan? Where's my deadlines for the action plan?

[/ QUOTE ]


Start Loop

1) Write all the board members of the PPA requesting that Ms. Schulman and one other affiliate farm rep resign *without first voting on replacements*, and that the other board members get some more members with *relevant* political, legal or organizational experience to replace them.

2) Demand also that the board provide better/meaningful transparency by posting financials and such on their website and *leaving them there*, instead of removing them later as they did with the 2005 financials.

3) Post in threads that you agree with the necessity of the above contrary to the assertions of so many other posters that they don't care, which indicates that they can't see the woods for the trees.

4) Do this today

Loop back and do again tomorrow until the above goals achieved

[Lostit]

This is a decent start, but here's my feedback...

1.) Why should I request that they resign? I'm missing that part. Convince me. As far as voting on replacements first???? That thought in and of itself makes me doubt the intentions of the board member. I've dealt with a lot of boards and personally have never seen this, nor would I even have the audicity to bring it up. This should be an obvious non-negotiable

2.) The demand is straight forward enough, but why should they listen to me? Explain that. Give examples of organizations in similar situations that are transparent. Whats the "industry standard" for transparency? Give examples of entities in similar situations that were not transparent that ended up being fraudulent. Examples of why this is important are key to winning additional readers to your side and provides them with information to regurgitate when making the demands that you're requesting. It also helps to motivate the PPA when you can start making parallels between themselves and fraudulent organizations that behaved similarly, yet would want to distance themselves from.

3.) I think TE had a better idea, in that instead of posting that you agree, post what you actually did, so that other people can see that there is some momentum already. People love to fit in, but no one wants to be the first one in the pool.

DO NOT LOOP again. It gets old. Instead do a new variation, and be relentless that way. Doing the same thing over and over again, shows you either don't care or are incompetent. Varying your methods keeps people on their toes and paying attention to you.

This sounds like a lot of work and it is. But if this is as important as you sound like it is, the it should be worth it, correct?

[redbeard]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted my thoughts on TE specifically in the "TE is Yellow" thread so I wont repeat them here.

On the specific question, does the PPA NEED 2+2, the answer is no. But can the PPA use 2+2 and can that be a very effective use? The answer to that is clearly yes. Yes, simply because 2+2 to its credit, but maybe more so to the credit of its posters (like TE and even you Bluff) is THE place to read and talk about poker.

Do political candidates need CBS or NBC? Well, there are other methods of getting the message out, they just are not as quick and easy. But if political candidates could not advertise on those stations, dont you think they, and the viewers who would be interested in what they have to say (OK, here the analogy does break down a bit /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) would find something else that works? Of course they would.

In that sense 2+2 does have a little bit to lose too; its not likely to continue to be the place for cutting edge poker-related political and legal discussion/information that it is now - and that has certainly enhanced (to some degree) 2+2's reputation in the poker community.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]


WELL SAID SIR!!!!!!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[IndyFish]

The PPA needs 2p2 to a degree. I'm sure the posters and readers in this forum are far more active in the fight than your "signed up for a freeroll on PS" non-paying members of the PPA. When (and if) the PPA becomes a true grassroots movement then 2p2 (and other forums like pocket fives) will be invaluable.

As it stands right now, 2p2 is a "gathering place" of individuals willing to help out with the cause. If TE either decides to leave 2p2 (I certainly hope not), or is otherwise persuaded NOT to post here then you can be sure that a very large portion of this forum (legislation) will follow him to a new forum.

On the other hand: does 2p2 need the PPA? 2+2 LLC made it very clear around the time UIGEA was passed that it was simply a book publisher and not a lobbyist organization. If left to 2p2 alone there would never have been as strong a fight as the PPA is putting up (if there was a fight at all). I mean in no way to discredit 2p2, because as publishers of books on gambling they are simply the best, as is this forum.

Let me put it this way: I've had legal B&M poker within a two hour drive for several years now here in Indiana. I have YET to play one hand in a B&M casino (although I plan to go one day next weekend). It's just too much of a hassle to drive that far after a full day of work. IMO most casual poker players fall into this category. Keep in mind the "Poker Explosion" happened AFTER Moneymaker won the WSOP by entering an ONLINE satelite. If I can't play online I simply won't play. And what use then do I have for books on poker?

Just my $.02.
IndyFish

[canvasbck]

To answer the OP, does the PPA need 2+2? Beats the [censored] outa me. I could give a rats ass. What I do know is that the PPA as a grass roots organization is strengthened by being able to contact a large volume of poker players.

Does 2+2 need the PPA? No. But 2+2 would definantly benefit from free acess to poker for citizens across the nation and PPA seems to be the organization most suited to fight for that goal. (Thanks to recent developments such as the appointments of Pappas and TE and the recent fly-in)

It is quite clear to everyone who posts here that Mason and Bluff have a huge problem with the makeup of the PPA board. What both of you seem to ignore is the fact that the vast majority of posters here dont give a flying [censored] who is on the board as long as we get the opportunity to play poker. What I really hope is that poker becomes available for everyone again and the affiliates make a [censored] load of money, then Mason makes a [censored] load of money from all the new players. Then 2+2 members make a [censored] load of money because of all the new fish, anyone remember what Party poker used to be like???

THAT is the goal folks, and I don't give a [censored] who else gets rich off of it nor do I give a flying [censored] who gets the recognition. The average poster here could give a rats ass about PPA board members and Mason/Bluff whipping out their [censored] to see who's is bigger. We just want to be informed about how we can help to realize even a portion of our dream of returning to the pre-UIGEA days.

That goal will be reached MUCH easier if organizations like 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, and whoever the [censored] else can help will work together.

Canvasbck
Average poker player
Buyer of 2+2 books
Member of the PPA
(These comments do not reflect the views of 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, Party Poker, FoF, Dwight Eisenhower, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, or anyone else.)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi IFish:

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand: does 2p2 need the PPA? 2+2 LLC made it very clear around the time UIGEA was passed that it was simply a book publisher and not a lobbyist organization. If left to 2p2 alone there would never have been as strong a fight as the PPA is putting up (if there was a fight at all). I mean in no way to discredit 2p2, because as publishers of books on gambling they are simply the best, as is this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. We hope that the PPA is successful, and we also hope that our concerns are not necessary.

On the other hand, we do believe that our concerns have the potential to become significant and therefore damage the cause as they are better understood by those entities which want to see online poker and Internet gambling in general severely restricted. So that's why we are only neutral towards this organization even though we do share the same goals.

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind the "Poker Explosion" happened AFTER Moneymaker won the WSOP by entering an ONLINE satelite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. The poker boom was already well underway when Moneymaker won the WSOP. It began shortly after the World Poker Tour shows were first broadcast, and I have the records to prove it. Our book sales began to rise significantly in May, 2003, and then they went crazy in June, 2003. However, Moneymaker's win certainly didn't hurt things, and in my opinon did contribute to continued growth.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi canvasbck:

[ QUOTE ]
That goal will be reached MUCH easier if organizations like 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, and whoever the [censored] else can help will work together.


[/ QUOTE ]

We would very much like to be able to work with the PPA and have certainly cooperated with them in some areas. (An example is allowing their officials to post here unrestricted as long as they identify themselves and their positions.) But we also feel, as I just mentioned in my other post, that the concerns we have might eventually hurt the cause, not help it.

As I also mentioned in one of the other recent threads, since these boards are now read by many people, some of whom may be representing non-friendly entities, I won't list out our concerns here. In fact, I'm little uncomfortable with making this post at all since we don't want to damage the PPA. However, we are trying to do what's right and what's best for poker in the long run. We're not being motivated by profit though I agree that easy access to Internet poker would certainly be to our benefit.

best wishes,
Mason

[Cactus Jack]

Mason, I don't understand something. You want the same thing the PPA wants, but haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA. You've gone from against to meh.

I know Linda Johnson and Jan Fisher quite well. Neither of them has anything but the best interests of poker in being on the board. We've talked about it. They were there at the beginning because they felt they could do something about it. At the start. They put their reputations and their money into it. Those reputations have been called into question here. If Bluffthis has any proof that the board members he mentioned by name have anything other than the best intentions, he needs to make these known. If not, he needs to shut up and go away. Again.

These two ladies have been promoting poker in the same way you have for as long. They are exceptional people with complete integrity. I'd vouch for them and I do. Bluffidiot's attacks also make it appear that this also has very much to do with 2+2 and it's feelings toward Card Player. This wouldn't be the case now, would it?

Bluffidiot has gone too far, again, and I'll make sure Linda and Jan are aware of this thread and his suggestions. What they do is up to them. TE was put into a position where he couldn't post his opinion because it might conflict with the official position of the PPA. Bluffidiot can post any opinion he wants and it appears to be the official position of 2+2. The attack dog of 2+2.

It's sad that this has been so blown out of proportion, but it has and may even get worse. Because, Mason, you don't trust us to know who we can trust. That notion is what has gotten in this whole UIGEA mess in the first place.

With all due respect,

CJ--still the official spokesman of the Democratic Party

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
We hope that the PPA is successful

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.portersemail.com/gallery/photos/faint.jpg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, I don't understand something. You want the same thing the PPA wants, but haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA. You've gone from against to meh.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a bit over the top.

Here is part of the cause of the problem.

"Luckily for online poker players, the stealth-like inclusion of anti-online gaming legislation did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice. The PPA immediately issued an action alert to all its Massachusetts members stating, "The Poker Players Alliance is committed to assisting Massachusetts poker players by bringing attention to this attack on our rights; however, we cannot do this alone. We need your help and are asking that you send letters to Governor Deval Patrick, your local State Representative and your State Senator." The PPA also includes linkage at its site (at www.pokerplayersalliance.org (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org)) for contacting these elected officials."

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/11/anti-online-poker-massachusetts-casino-bill.htm

If this forum didn't exist who knows when the PPA could have ridden in and "saved" the day. This forum borught the issue up and got action by the PPA. I doubt that Mason wants sole credit for this "sucess", as it was everyone here in some ways.

But to try and suggest that 2+2 "haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA"; is about as fair as the PPA getting full credit in the news story.

We've got to start working to fix the problem and not always trying to fix the blame (or credit). But like volunteers in all aspects you can not continue to rely on their hard work without showing them a little appreciation from time to time.


D$D

[Cactus Jack]

You think?

Who cares who gets the credit if the job gets done? People here seem to forget the purpose is to drain the swamp, not to destroy it because of a few alligators.

And to give 2+2 the credit because of this forum? That's an accident, not an intention. There is a difference. Perhaps you give credit to the phone company for providing the line to the fire department for saving your house when it's burning?

Where are people's minds, sometime? Put it on my tombstone as my last thought on humankind...DUH!

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you give credit to the phone company for providing the line to the fire department for saving your house when it's burning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this phrase, never heard it before. Twoplustwo provides this forum to make money and further their business not because they are humanitarians.

PPA has come here not because of Mason, David, etc., but because as consumers and poker enthusiasts this is where we decide to have our poker discussion.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

1.) Why should I request that they resign? I'm missing that part. Convince me. As far as voting on replacements first???? That thought in and of itself makes me doubt the intentions of the board member. .........
.
.
2.) The demand is straight forward enough, but why should they listen to me? Explain that. Give examples of organizations in similar situations that are transparent. Whats the "industry standard" for transparency? Give examples of entities in similar situations that were not transparent that ended up being fraudulent. Examples of why this is important are key to winning additional readers to your side and provides them with information to regurgitate when making the demands that you're requesting. It also helps to motivate the PPA when you can start making parallels between themselves and fraudulent organizations that behaved similarly, yet would want to distance themselves from...........
.
.



[/ QUOTE ]

We are still awaiting a coherent answer.

From Bluff's earlier post..

Write all the board members of the PPA requesting that Ms. Schulman and one other affiliate farm rep resign

Why? What sinister failing are these two guilty of? Which other rep? Demanding "one other affiliate farm rep resign" without knowing who this is and why they should go isn't very illuminating.

Again from Bluff..

Post in threads that you agree with the necessity of the above contrary to the assertions of so many other posters that they don't care, which indicates that they can't see the woods for the trees.

Which woods are we missing? Which trees are getting in the way?

Bluff, you mostly talk in riddles and don't make sense in any way except to keep whining that you don't like the board.

From Mason's post...

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. We hope that the PPA is successful, and we also hope that our concerns are not necessary.

On the other hand, we do believe that our concerns have the potential to become significant and therefore damage the cause as they are better understood by those entities which want to see online poker and Internet gambling in general severely restricted. So that's why we are only neutral towards this organization even though we do share the same goals.

Are these concerns so devastating they cannot be mentioned? You seem to indicate that FOF or some similar organization could make use of these "concerns" if they were to learn of them. Well, if they are that bad, I want to know about them. (I am sure others would too)

Tuff

Still waiting to make sense of the acrimony I see here.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
You think?

Who cares who gets the credit if the job gets done?

Where are people's minds, sometime?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is EXACTLY my point.

We have had very limited sucess defending our rights as poker players. Given the UIGEA we are worse off than we were before the PPA was formed.

Even the new and "improved" PPA is behind the curve.

In an organization and even the larger community of all poker players the PPA can not survive by continuing to operate on this basis of pimping others sucesses as its own and hoping to grow.

To a large degree the PPA is using up much of the goodwill given to an infant organization becuase "we" all hope to achieve the larger goals.

There is absolutely no reason for this now or in the future. The PPA will always be an organization dependent on the actions of volunteers. There is already a large segment of our "natural market" who will not get involved until the PPA proves itself much more.

Look this isn't some sort of mental exercise. Before I met John he asked if I was interested in the VA rep position. Because of the gypsy nature of political pros I said I'd look at it but if I got involved in a national '08 race it would likely not be a good choice.

But I did the job for awhile to see "where we were". I made the rounds of live events, made a bunch of calls, and spoke to almost every one likely IMO to be seriously involved. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the situation in N. VA and a decent picture of the larger State.

I've even taken actions that should have been done by the State Reps or the PPA HQ itself, in other States again just to see if they were being done.

I don't care rat spit who gets credit. I understand the control issues only because you need to know the ground you are working on. IMO in less than a year they will be meaningless because we will be too strong or too weak for it to matter.

So what the F have you done lately?


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

You can find my reasoning about the board in the poll thread I bumped.


Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe "the proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The PPA, starting with its former president Bolzerick (if I spelt his name correctly) has been all over this board for the past 15 months or so. We have also heard, sometimes privately, from a number of other people associated with them, including an attorney who originally organized the PPPA (which became the PPA) and one of their lobbyist. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.

As for whether we need them, I think that's a little more debatable. We want to see a successful poker industry, and if the PPA helps in that area, it's good for us. On the other hand, we should remain a successful publishing company, though perhaps a smaller version of Two Plus Two, no matter what happens.

Best wishes,
Mason

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe "the proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The PPA, starting with its former president Bolzerick (if I spelt his name correctly) has been all over this board for the past 15 months or so. We have also heard, sometimes privately, from a number of other people associated with them, including an attorney who originally organized the PPPA (which became the PPA) and one of their lobbyist. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.

As for whether we need them, I think that's a little more debatable. We want to see a successful poker industry, and if the PPA helps in that area, it's good for us. On the other hand, we should remain a successful publishing company, though perhaps a smaller version of Two Plus Two, no matter what happens.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I wouldn't post here anymore. I said I couldn't post non-PPA posts under the guidelines you initially laid out, which was accurate.

Why can't you comprehend that I don't represent the PPA?!?!!?!

I get the hint. Good bye.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
We have also heard, sometimes privately, from a number of other people associated with them, including an attorney who originally organized the PPPA (which became the PPA) and one of their lobbyist. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, what the hell are you trying to do. The Engineer could just as easily disappear and say "I win". What is this some god damn contest to see who is more important. This reminds me of high school arguing who's [censored] is bigger. Let's move on.

Fortunately Engineer realizes the goal is get online poker legalized and not try going to war PPA vs. 2p2. Hell if you asked most of us, The Engineer is more engrained here than the PPA at this point.

We get the point, you control this board and what you says go. You are powerful, we get it.

[whangarei]

D$D, I hope some other campaign hires you on soon so you have an appropriate outlet for your many talents (where's that sarcasm smiley?).

As to the question posed in the title of this thread, of course the PPA doesn't need 2+2. This forum's members represent a small fraction of the poker community. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have their attention since the more the merrier, but it is far from essential,

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe "the proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The PPA, starting with its former president Bolzerick (if I spelt his name correctly) has been all over this board for the past 15 months or so. We have also heard, sometimes privately, from a number of other people associated with them, including an attorney who originally organized the PPPA (which became the PPA) and one of their lobbyist. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.

As for whether we need them, I think that's a little more debatable. We want to see a successful poker industry, and if the PPA helps in that area, it's good for us. On the other hand, we should remain a successful publishing company, though perhaps a smaller version of Two Plus Two, no matter what happens.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I wouldn't post here anymore. I said I couldn't post non-PPA posts under the guidelines you initially laid out, which was accurate.

Why can't you comprehend that I don't represent the PPA?!?!!?!

I get the hint. Good bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sad. In another thread a few hours ago, I posted how nice it was that Mason and TE had come to a rational resolution.

TE, you're a great asset here (despite that one unfortunate incident where you refused to distance yourself from the "ChristoNazi" talk, which, in my opinion, hurts our chances to win normal people over to our side).

But this is at least the third time you've said you're leaving; and yet you're still here. Are you really sure that you want to stick around?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
... and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. We appear to reach an amicable agreement and then Mason throws in this little zinger. Good work Mason. TE please let us know where you'll be posting as most of us here will follow you.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. We appear to reach an amicable agreement and then Mason throws in this little zinger. Good work Mason. TE please let us know where you'll be posting as most of us here will follow you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'll be at http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewforum.php?f=2

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

If Mason wanted you gone he'd make you gone. If you don't like what he says then ARGUE WITH HIM. He has a remarkably thick skin himself from what I've seen over the years, and he and David actually have put up with a lot of personal attacks that one wouldn't think the site owners would.

Don't be quitter and move to where very few are really listening. Politics includes not only dealing with opposing parties, but also with internal factional differences. DEAL WITH IT dude!

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets hope you finally chased him away. I would like to see a comparison of the # of unpaid hours devoted to keeping online poker legal and easy to access between you and TE for this year. You are really performing a service to the poker community.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets hope you finally chased him away. I would like to see a comparison of the # of unpaid hours devoted to keeping online poker legal and easy to access between you and TE for this year. You are really performing a service to the poker community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look both sides of this issue are "freerolling" to some degree off the efforts of the other.

Perhaps it is best to get this resolved now rather than when it was really important for us to be able to move forward.


D$D

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets hope you finally chased him away. I would like to see a comparison of the # of unpaid hours devoted to keeping online poker legal and easy to access between you and TE for this year. You are really performing a service to the poker community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look both sides of this issue are "freerolling" to some degree off the efforts of the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree -- I just am upset at what I perceive as pettiness. I may not agree with MMs position on the PPA but I don't begrudge him it. This is what bothers me:

It appeared that things were finally calming down again MM had to throw in an unecessary jibe. Yes TE should probably get some thicker skin but hey, who is perfect? It is not like TE was trying to walk all over him and throw his weight around. MM should, imo, at least realize that further comments could cause him to avoid 2+2.

I think we can all agree that regardless of the make up of the board or other PPA issues TE is a valued member of the 2+2 community and has done a considerable amount of work (both before and after his affiliation with the PPA) to help protect online poker. Why risk driving him off, I just don't get it.

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

If Mason wanted you gone he'd make you gone. If you don't like what he says then ARGUE WITH HIM. He has a remarkably thick skin himself from what I've seen over the years, and he and David actually have put up with a lot of personal attacks that one wouldn't think the site owners would.

Don't be quitter and move to where very few are really listening. Politics includes not only dealing with opposing parties, but also with internal factional differences. DEAL WITH IT dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%.

Engineer, you are an asset to this community. I, like many other players here, read many of your posts now but will not if you move.

It would be easy to leave now and blame Mason. But, from what I know of you, you are not someone who just takes the easiest path.

Fight through this, and do what you know is best for your professed goals and the community. Keep posting!

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi IFish:

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand: does 2p2 need the PPA? 2+2 LLC made it very clear around the time UIGEA was passed that it was simply a book publisher and not a lobbyist organization. If left to 2p2 alone there would never have been as strong a fight as the PPA is putting up (if there was a fight at all). I mean in no way to discredit 2p2, because as publishers of books on gambling they are simply the best, as is this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. We hope that the PPA is successful, and we also hope that our concerns are not necessary.

On the other hand, we do believe that our concerns have the potential to become significant and therefore damage the cause as they are better understood by those entities which want to see online poker and Internet gambling in general severely restricted. So that's why we are only neutral towards this organization even though we do share the same goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, I never meant to imply that you didn't want the PPA to succeed. As your books prove, you are inherently logical. Online poker pads your already successful business, both with book sales and affiliate advertizing on this board. Of course you want the PPA to succeed.

I honestly don't know what the problem is with the PPA board makeup. I assume you have valid reasons for your criticism. My only point--that I perhaps did not make clear--is that RIGHT NOW the PPA seems to be the best shot we have to get explicitly legal online poker here in the US. I really do hope you and the PPA can resolve your differences, by whatever means. I think the result would greatly help our cause.

IndyFish

[canvasbck]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi canvasbck:

[ QUOTE ]
That goal will be reached MUCH easier if organizations like 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, and whoever the [censored] else can help will work together.


[/ QUOTE ]

We would very much like to be able to work with the PPA and have certainly cooperated with them in some areas. (An example is allowing their officials to post here unrestricted as long as they identify themselves and their positions.) But we also feel, as I just mentioned in my other post, that the concerns we have might eventually hurt the cause, not help it.

As I also mentioned in one of the other recent threads, since these boards are now read by many people, some of whom may be representing non-friendly entities, I won't list out our concerns here. In fact, I'm little uncomfortable with making this post at all since we don't want to damage the PPA. However, we are trying to do what's right and what's best for poker in the long run. We're not being motivated by profit though I agree that easy access to Internet poker would certainly be to our benefit.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the better posts you have made on this topic. As a PPA member, I would really like to know what issues there are with the PPA that could adversly affect our plight. I understand why you will not post that publicly, but if you could outline these problems in a PM with possible action items, it would be greatly appreciated. I REALLY want to see the PPA succeed, if there are problems with the board hampering that effort, I want to know about it. If it is just the pizzing contest that many here believe it is, then I want the involved parties to get over it and quit fighting each other, save your battles for Heir Frist. If there are legitimate hurdles within the PPA, I will be doing all that my insignifigant azz can do to change/remove those hurtles.

I'm a resident of Texas that is several hours from legal poker (and it's at the Isle of Crappy). Local underground rooms have a capped rake of $10 per pot in 1/2 NL!!!!!! I have a definant vested intrest in seeing the return of the fishies to the internet.

[chrisptp]

there's no great mystery here.

any organization that promotes gambling of any sort and lacks transparency opens the door for opposition groups to raise the specter of proxy involvement of organized crime, etc.

that PPA forum is ugly and i don't want to read it. engineer, please come back.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

What planet are you on? The PPA should represent just winning players? Only winning players shold have the right to play or the right to campaign and be listened to as part of the campaign? Oh shoot 90% of players excluded from having any meningfull opinion - I am (just) a winning player so does that make my (negative) opinion of you valid?

[ComeOnNine]

probably not

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

What planet are you on? The PPA should represent just winning players? Only winning players shold have the right to play or the right to campaign and be listened to as part of the campaign? Oh shoot 90% of players excluded from having any meningfull opinion - I am (just) a winning player so does that make my (negative) opinion of you valid?

[/ QUOTE ]


Believing that 2+2=6 isn't a disqualification for either voting or enjoying the rights of citizenship in either my country or yours, but it still doesn't make the opinions and thought processes of such persons relevant or worth taking seriously.

And hey, why don't focus your energies on starting a British PPA instead of worrying about us Yanks?

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

If Mason wanted you gone he'd make you gone. If you don't like what he says then ARGUE WITH HIM. He has a remarkably thick skin himself from what I've seen over the years, and he and David actually have put up with a lot of personal attacks that one wouldn't think the site owners would.

Don't be quitter and move to where very few are really listening. Politics includes not only dealing with opposing parties, but also with internal factional differences. DEAL WITH IT dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%.

Engineer, you are an asset to this community. I, like many other players here, read many of your posts now but will not if you move.

It would be easy to leave now and blame Mason. But, from what I know of you, you are not someone who just takes the easiest path.

Fight through this, and do what you know is best for your professed goals and the community. Keep posting!

[/ QUOTE ]
Just had to third this, please keep posting TE.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

TE:

Your posts are very informative and are the way I keep up with the legislative issues. However, I work a full time career and am a semi-pro poker player. I don't have time to follow you to another site. This site is where I improve my game. Its why I'm here. I'd much prefer that you stay, and I think that the PPA title or moniker is a reasonable mechanism for you to provide your message to 2+2ers.

Additionally, I think MM's underlying concerns should be taken seriously, and addressed now. I have no great concerns of my own, but I strongly suspect that issues like the issues 2+2 has pointed out will be used as talking points by opponents in attempts to diminish the PPA. I would suggest that complete financial and operational transarency (as big of a pain as that is) is extremely important as is the make up of the board. The title of the organization should give an indication of where ultimate operational control needs to reside. Anything less creates an opportunity for "spin" by your opponents. And that would be unfortunate.

In any event, I hope you choose to continue to keep us informed on this board. If not, good luck in your efforts and thanks for the work you have already done.

[MassPoker]

Greetings:

I'm fairly new to this forum, so I won't even pretend to know all of the issues outlined here, but I do want to opine what I do know of TE and the PPA as well as my own personal views as to what I have seen here, but first, I want to chime in on what this thread represents and why I think it is ultimately counterproductive to all our goals.

I really think this bickering back and forth is sad. It doesn't (and won't) lead to anything positive coming from this. Who really cares who needs who more. This thread is reminiscent of childhood battles as to "whose uncle can beat up the other's uncle." Please, spare me the sanctimonious, holier than though, argument that this thread seeks to demonstrate a greater purpose than what which we all know it truly is, "an old fashioned pissing contest!" If some of you that post here would put a fraction of the effort into the salvation of poker than you put into trying to be right in these threads, it's possible that poker rights wouldn't be where they are today.

Getting credit means absolutely nothing to me personally. I work as a "volunteer" for the PPA and have put in COUNTLESS hours in support of MA right's to play poker...period! However, it was TE who brought the MA issue to my attention initially. TE doesn't live in MA and he has NO vested interest in the MA law being passed other than the obvious trickle down effect of the bill's passage. His commitment to the rights of all poker players is solid, and I, for one, appreciate that commitment.

Just as this forum is only as good as the quality of its readers/posters, so too, is the PPA in it's members/volunteers. 2+2 and their support faction admits that recently things have improved with the PPA. Things are getting done. (Can we all agree on at least this single point!) I've said this before and I'll say it again, as far as I am concerned, the PPA never really "existed" until John Pappas came on board. So, whatever happend prior to that means absolutely nothing to me...NOTHING! The work that is being done now at the PPA far exceeds what little
that was done previous to John's appointment. The PPA has recently demonstrated some aggressive PR, and in a very short amount of time, we have managed to get NATIONAL attention to our cause. People are starting to wake up!

OK...to be fair about this, I'll give credit where credit is due; when it comes to forums, 2 + 2 is the ultimate poker forum out there...Ok, is that what you want to hear? BUT, it isn't the only poker forum out there...At the moment, there is no other "reputable" organization that is fighting for the right's of poker players except the PPA. If Mason wants 2+2 to remain "neutral", then so be it. That's better than fighting against us.

Look at what has become of this situation. Some fo you will blame PPA, some will blame 2+2...who cares?...Let's start acting like responsible adults and less like warring children. also, NO ONE is "entitled" to see the PPA books anymore than I have a right to see the 2+2's books. The PPA has complied with what is "legally" expected of them and that is just fine by me until such time that flagrant abuses surface, which to date they have NOT! The only thing I see here is a lot of misguided speculation and from what I have read based on personal issues rather than from any sense of real grievances.

There are those who just have to be right. No amount of talking will change their mind. And I'm willing to bet that if Mason were to change his mind right now...I mean at this exact second, the rest of the dissentor's would follow suit. It's truly sad that people cannot think for themselves. Anymore room on that coat tail, Mason?

All In,

Randy C~
MA Rep PPA

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I am concerned, the PPA never really "existed" until John Pappas came on board. So, whatever happend prior to that means absolutely nothing to me...NOTHING! The work that is being done now at the PPA far exceeds what little
that was done previous to John's appointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy I totally agree with everything you said including the value of most of the changes in the PPA recently.

But you fail to fully understand that John while not in charge was a large part of the PPA during the time when many of these problems happened.

So suggesting that the history is a simple pre-John and post-John issues weakenss your credibility.

I fully support the PPA and will continue to do anything asked of me, but I will not become a PPA apoligest no matter if that is volunteer or otherwise. Of course that "otherwise" might actually be eliminated because of my persoanl "integrity".


D$D

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy I totally agree with everything you said including the value of most of the changes in the PPA recently.

But you fail to fully understand that John while not in charge was a large part of the PPA during the time when many of these problems happened.

So suggesting that the history is a simple pre-John and post-John issues weakenss your credibility.

I fully support the PPA and will continue to do anything asked of me, but I will not become a PPA apoligest no matter if that is volunteer or otherwise. Of course that "otherwise" might actually be eliminated because of my persoanl "integrity".


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

D$D,

I respect and even value your opinion. Of the many threads and postings you have done, I appreciate when you offer an opinion on a topic.

Let me pose a question, however...You say; "But you fail to fully understand that John while not in charge was a large part of the PPA during the time when many of these problems happened." Let's say that you (hypothetically speaking) were on the "Apex Widget Corp's Board of Diretcor's" and Apex was in the middle of a financial scandal, does the mere fact that you are part of that BOD neccessarily have to mean that you were PART of the scandal? Of course not. Moreover, some people are just better leaders than others, and John seems to be the guy for the job.

I disagree wholeheartedly that my weighing in on the issue as to pre-John PPA and post-John PPA in any way weakens my credibility because I have been a member almost since the PPA's inception. I am well versed and in full knowledge of who is who and of the BOD's makeup. My statement that "the PPA never really "existed" until John Pappas came along" I percieve as accurate and I stand behind the statement. IMO, John's "leadership" qualities is what seperates him from the pre-John PPA era. I think it is a very narrow viewpoint to assume that John bore any responsibility to the "leadership" of the PPA simply because he was on the BOD's. John's vote while on the BOD was just that...one vote. Now, in John's current position, he can make unilateral decisions and act in accordance with his leadership role rather than just a member of the BOD. This is where I make my distinction. As a "leader" John is committed, focused and I dare say, effective. You don't neccessasrily HAVE to agree with me. We can agree to disagree, but to say that my statement "weakens my credibility" is, IMO, baseless.

Beyond that, I have come to enjoy your posts D$D. I didn't really at first, but in fairness to you, I went back and read many of your previous posts and learned about you a little more and have come to enjoy your posts.

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where I make my distinction. As a "leader" John is committed, focused and I dare say, effective. You don't neccessasrily HAVE to agree with me. We can agree to disagree, but to say that my statement "weakens my credibility" is, IMO, baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may have to agree to disagree, but not on this point. I have no quarrel with John at all. I really respect all he had done in a very difficult position. I respect him as a man.

But the "problems" at the PPA to a large degree are structal in nature. One man, no matter how hard he works, can over come them. In fact the overall effeciveness of the organization is actually hampered because the dedicated efforts of the extra special person are to some degree lost in over coming the problems not of their making. His extra hard work, dedication, and sucess ultimately mask the true nature of the underlying problems.

This has nothing to do with any "board" issues advanced by Mason or anyone else. Except in how that board has directed the efforts of the organization.

Your opinion of the recent sucess of the PPA is a reflection of John's skills. PR and communications is his speciality. If the PPA wasn't currenty exceeding in those areas then his "term" would be an abject failure. No fair person can claim that the recent history of the PPA is an abject failure.

But what is at issue is does the PPA currently posses, and no this is not a reflection of any dsire to gain employment but simply a reflection of my area of expertise, the nessecary talent and true belief from the board down in the value and ultimate sucess of becoming a true effective grassroots advoacy group.

I, like you, do not care who gets credit for any sucess. Realistically fully legal on-line poker will not change my life one bit. I love the game and strongly feel the passion to do all I can to protect "poker rights" even to advancing the "cause" beyond the current plans. But if an effective Federal on-line poker ban was implemented tomorrow it would not change my life much if at all.

I do not derive a significant income from poker. I have won enough to cause me to have to file as the amount is no longer insifnificant. But I have never had a dime at risk. I built my bankroll from scratch through freerolls. I play because I can as I have the time and enjoy the game imensley. This give me a much different perspective than anyone with any profits to protect or projected income stream from the various potential outcomes of legislation to advance or protect.

I can find all the legal home games, play in pub leagues, play in charity events, and travel to B&M's to satisfy my all my desires to "enjoy" the game. Of the population of the poker community I am not an on-line poker is worthless group, which is about 1/2 of the total population. But neither am I part of the "the world would end" without on-line poker group.

This too is one of the structrual issues NOT addressed by the current PPA philsophy and strategy. Given the numbers not addressing this "blind spot" can and will lead to either a much harder job for the PPA or lead to it's failure.

There are a number of serious "structrual" issues concerning the "vision" of the PPA, even under "new" leadership. Some are being discussed but none IMO are currently being given the thought and attention they deserve.

Constant truning them into pissing matches like the one with TE and Mason, popularity matches like TE's meaningless polls, or simply disregarding them in the hopes that they go away as has happened too often in the past, is not a model for sucess.

Over taxing John has really lead to helping better identify many of these problems, because it is clear even from recent history that because he is spred so thin many "awsome opportunities" continue to be missed or given short shrift, and only in hindshight does the true value come to light.


D$D

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If this forum didn't exist who knows when the PPA could have ridden in and "saved" the day. This forum borught the issue up and got action by the PPA. I doubt that Mason wants sole credit for this "sucess", as it was everyone here in some ways.

But to try and suggest that 2+2 "haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA"; is about as fair as the PPA getting full credit in the news story.

We've got to start working to fix the problem and not always trying to fix the blame (or credit). But like volunteers in all aspects you can not continue to rely on their hard work without showing them a little appreciation from time to time.
D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

The article that you are referring to specifically states:

"Luckily for online poker players, the stealth-like inclusion of anti-online gaming legislation {did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice}." The key phrase here is, "did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice." This is an entirely accurate statement! I don't even know why this has become even part of the issue. Someone from the PPA had to 'NOTICE' the bill's language or there wouldn't have been action taken. Perhaps we should include the following statement to be even MORE specific: "Thanks to the eagle eyes of 'Catlover', a poster on the 2+2 poker forum, owned and operated by Mason Malmuth and others, the PPA were able to act on the proposed legislation." Isn't that exactly what happend? Now that is over the top. Why include all of this extraneous information. IMO, the statement made in the article you presented, D$D, assigns the PPA credit for 'noticing' the proposed legislation and properly gave them credit. If 2+2 WANTS to go into the business of organizing a poitical activist group working on behalf of Poker Players, then they would recieve the credit. Ultimately, the poster 'Catlover' rightly deserves the credit for bringing this issue to all of our attention. Thank you Catlover!

Truth be told, the PPA uses several different sources to become informed about current political activity...It has to come from somewhere. Unless the PPA has some crystal ball that we are unaware of, the PPA, along with ALL other political action groups uses multiple sources to collect information. This forum is most definately a part of that collective information gathering process, but to credit them for the ultimate 'action' taken on behalf of the PPA is like saying that news sources should credit 'Catlover' for bringing the issue to all of our attention. You have to ask yourself, "who deserves the credit and how much is assigned to whom?"
I take absolutely nothing away from this forum at all. I think that 2+2 has done quite a bit for poker players, but someone has to be in the business of running forums and others have to be in the business of running political action organizations. In reality, this forum is just a piece of the puzzle overall. Let's not get carried away by asserting that this forum deserves as much credit for the action taken for the MA proposed legislation getting as much attention as it has as the PPA in actually acting on the legislation. You see what I mean?

Let's give credit where credit is due.

All In,

Randy C~
MA Rep PPA

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not get carried away by asserting that this forum deserves as much credit for the action taken for the MA proposed legislation getting as much attention as it has as the PPA in actually acting on the legislation. You see what I mean?

Let's give credit where credit is due.



[/ QUOTE ]

This forum continues to exist are the main place of congregration for those deeply committed to the "protection" of poker. This is NOT because Mason and 2+2 planned it that way because of great business foresight, nor is it even a desire of 2+2 LLC to lead the effort.

This forum has it's percieved value because the PPA forum is a tomb. I can and have generated move views in the PPA forum in a day than has been seen in the previous month, but it isn't a hundredeth of what the impact is here.

TE is sadly mistaken if he feels he can resurect his following here there in any time soon. He's tried in the past.

The specifics of how the actions that lead to the "prompting" of the PPA into action as you say are unimportant to the news story and would indeed detract from the story.

But lets be honest, right now the PPA needs all the help it can get. 6 months from now this may or may not be the case. But it is true today. IMO the PPA is not strong enough today to take the position it has in this simple matter of desigination of TE as affiliated as associated with the PPA board.

But as a look at the future concering the issues invoved I do understand the strategy of making a stand here. I just don't agree with it.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE is sadly mistaken if he feels he can resurect his following here there in any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think PPA needs a viable, uncensored forum for free discussion of ideas, but I could not care less about a "following". I just want to play poker online. Unfortunately, lately I've been spending more time with this political BS than I have on working on the only thing in this that I actually care about. I'll cease that and will stick to my passion -- explicitly legal online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
He's tried in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect.

Why do you mention my name in all of your posts? I really don't like dealing with all this internal political stuff. I just want to play poker. Can you please express your opinion without mentioning me? I just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your numerous wordy posts. It takes time from what's important.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

If Mason wanted you gone he'd make you gone. If you don't like what he says then ARGUE WITH HIM. He has a remarkably thick skin himself from what I've seen over the years, and he and David actually have put up with a lot of personal attacks that one wouldn't think the site owners would.

Don't be quitter and move to where very few are really listening. Politics includes not only dealing with opposing parties, but also with internal factional differences. DEAL WITH IT dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi BluffTHIS!,

He did have me gone for a while.

I spoke with the same individual Mason said he spoke with in his earlier post concerning this issue. I guess I'm still "welcome" here, so I'll be here posting sometimes. However, I've decided to spend the vast majority of my time here encouraging everyone to to their part to advocate for online poker, as that's my passion. I'll leave the internal issues to whoever's interested in them.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TE is sadly mistaken if he feels he can resurect his following here there in any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think PPA needs a viable, uncensored forum for free discussion of ideas, but I could not care less about a "following". I just want to play poker online. Unfortunately, lately I've been spending more time with this political BS than I have on working on the only thing in this that I actually care about. I'll cease that and will stick to my passion -- explicitly legal online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am truly sorry that I do not do a better job of communicating my opinions. I have spoke to John about this issue of a better PPA forum many times, and as recently as today spoke to Bryan about it. We agree much more than you seem to understand from our conversations in this imperfect medium.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's tried in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect.

Why do you mention my name in all of your posts? I really don't like dealing with all this internal political stuff. I just want to play poker. Can you please express your opinion without mentioning me? I just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your numerous wordy posts. It takes time from what's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have made no attempt to help the PPA forum become more useful? You have not stated nor at least suggested that you might leave this forum?

The PPA not only needs a more viable forum, it also needs a better from of non-public communications with the broader membership and grassroots ativists. John and I spoke of this issue in July or August. We wouldn't be having this discussion in an open forum had any actions been taken sooner. Yes I know that again the PPA is not made of money and John and the consultants are really busy, but that repeated answer is beging to wear thin.

To me, you seem to show an sttitude that has grown with your increased "stature" both here and in the PPA ogranization, that you less and less need nor should be subject to critism.

You have regardless if you want it or not have made yourself the issue too often IMO. But, as I've said many times we are too very different people.

I do not criticise in any way to try to tear anything down nor diminish the value of the efforts, dedication, nor passion expended. I value the PPA as much as anyone IMO. I will continue to "push" the PPA to strive to do better no matter my position in or out of the organization.

John identified a number of issues he planned on addressing when he "took over" the PPA. Internal communication was at the top of that list. Your appointment was to a large degree was an attempt to quash the problems here. You yourself have stated that you represent this forum to the PPA not the other way around.

When you become as is sometimes the case, perhaps in preception only, an abject apologist for the PPA and it's decisions you "take sides" and the wrong one from your stated goals and intentions.

The PPA doesn't have a viable form of effective communications with its membership let alone the broader on-line poker community. This forum is prehaps the single most viable from of on-line communications with the core of people dedicated to legislative action that currently exists. Worse yet the PPA has pretty much ignored any chances of reaching the other half of self identified US poker players.

To often as evidenced by many actions both past present and from the future plans I am aware of the PPA has contunied to be happy gathering the "low hanging fruit".

Making a semi-stand on this stupid little issue, from my perspective, shows a continued mis-understanding of reality or an overblown sence of the srength of the "power" of the PPA.

So continue to view me as more critical than I feel I am. My own importance in this effort is ultimately unimportant to me and the overall sucess or failure. But from having gone out from behind the monitor, and from having lead a few sucessful political efforts, let alone from my own opinion of interpersonal relationships I can tell you we all need to work much harder. Perhaps myself the most.

I may have a completely cracked "crystal ball", but my instincts have served me well in my life. I will also suggest that while I only claim, like you, to only be expressing my own personal opinions, I can claim that I am not the only one that feels many of these issues are important. How many others their are I make no claim to know. I do suggest that very little effort has been focused on the 1/2 of the poker world that doesn't play online by the PPA to date.

So please do not take offense from my "pushing" the PPA in general and my "tweaking" of you personally. You for a long time were and will continue to be one of the most "visible" faces of the PPA on-line. With that comes a great deal of responsibility. I am sorry to say, much more than you seem to realize.

I am trully sorry that you feel you have had to spend too much time of this BS. But IMO as much as you feel this was forced upon you, I see it was as much your own making.

Again you deserve all the respect in the world for another thankless position as much as anyone else who has taken on anyone of the various thankless positions in this group effort.

But just as no organization can rest on it's laurels neither can you. I am sorry to say that the advice you have received to get a "thicker" skin have been largely ignored at your own peril.

You may feel I commened you or damn you with faint praise, but I feel I speak to you as a friend who wishes you nothing but more sucess, not less.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's tried in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect.

Why do you mention my name in all of your posts? I really don't like dealing with all this internal political stuff. I just want to play poker. Can you please express your opinion without mentioning me? I just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your numerous wordy posts. It takes time from what's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have made no attempt to help the PPA forum become more useful? You have not stated nor at least suggested that you might leave this forum?

The PPA not only needs a more viable forum, it also needs a better from of non-public communications with the broader membership and grassroots ativists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I've made attempts to help make the PPA forum more useful. In my mind, that's a major issue with PPA right now. That's not the same as saying I've "tried in the past".

[ QUOTE ]
When you become as is sometimes the case, perhaps in preception only, an abject apologist for the PPA and it's decisions you "take sides" and the wrong one from your stated goals and intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely explained the rationale behind some PPA choices. You have a different vision for PPA than many of us do. You stated yourself that your life won't change without online poker. Mine will. Drastically. Sometimes it seems like you're here to play politics. The rest of us want to play poker.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

I merely explained the rationale behind some PPA choices. You have a different vision for PPA than many of us do. You stated yourself that your life won't change without online poker. Mine will. Drastically. Sometimes it seems like you're here to play politics. The rest of us want to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well between the two I am much better at politics than I am at poker. I apologize again if my true meaning is not clear. Removing poker from my life would indeed would leave a big hole. Perhaps I could fill that with live poker, perhaps not. But I do not derive a large part of my income from poker. Poker is a passion not an income source for me. Sorry to be crass, but as I explaned to Tuff, I do not need an additional source of income. Fair or not I can and do as my passions dictate. There is very little that would dramatically affect my life that I do not control other than the health of my family.


D$D

[Robin Foolz]

last time i checked the ppa forums were a ghostown. they need a viable medium to spread their message in and 2+2 seems to be that medium atm. until they get their forums going, they need 2+2. since some of ppa is already here, and this is a private forum, they need to follow forum rules and be careful about not pissing off the owners. i don't understand the big deal. 2+2 has said ppa is welcomed here, as long as they follow some posting guidelines laid out. nothing unreasonable about that. this is, after all, 2+2's forum. ppa needs 2+2 atm greatly because of 2+2 active readership; i hope they realize this and just keep doing their thing here.

[Robin Foolz]

btw, i hold the engineer in very high esteem. i personally find the ppa ineffective in everything from legislation lobbying to garnering support, while the engineer i find very effective at least in rallying and making people aware about the relevant issues. it suck's he's getting lumped in and is being criticized for ppa's past and current ineptitudes when imo te has done more as an individual in helping our cause than the whole ppa has since their very existence. i hope te keeps on posting here to the degree we've grown accustomed to.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I merely explained the rationale behind some PPA choices. You have a different vision for PPA than many of us do. You stated yourself that your life won't change without online poker. Mine will. Drastically. Sometimes it seems like you're here to play politics. The rest of us want to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well between the two I am much better at politics than I am at poker. I apologize again if my true meaning is not clear. Removing poker from my life would indeed would leave a big hole. Perhaps I could fill that with live poker, perhaps not. But I do not derive a large part of my income from poker. Poker is a passion not an income source for me. Sorry to be crass, but as I explaned to Tuff, I do not need an additional source of income. Fair or not I can and do as my passions dictate. There is very little that would dramatically affect my life that I do not control other than the health of my family.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need an additional source of income either, but online poker has enabled me to have more financial freedom than I'd have without. I'm passionate about us having the freedom to play. If we lose this right, I think you'll agree we'll all be affected, as we're all affected whenever government takes yet another right from us.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
If we lose this right, I think you'll agree we'll all be affected, as we're all affected whenever government takes yet another right from us.

[/ QUOTE ]

110%!


D$D