[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll ask again - what is the back story between 2+2 and some members of the PPA board that led to the investigation and the hatchet job statement pinned to the top of the board?

I genuinely want to know why the only 2+2 action on this is to slag the PPA, if there are better or even more personal but potentially significant character issues I'd like to know what they are because from a neutrals perspective it looks like the PPA are doing all they can and started to work on this long before many of us knew it was a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]


Richas,

And I'll ask YOU again. Are you affiliated with either party poker or another online gaming site, or a site such as neteller that provides logistical support to same? Your extreme interest in the PPA as a UK citizen raises this question.

Also regarding "backstory" vis-a-vis 2+2 and the PPA, why do you think there must be some sinister motive on Mason's part when many of us posters have raised the same issues regarding the PPA? If anything, you should question the makeup of the PPA board which consists *solely* of CP mag affiliated writers, and players who have either an ownership or sponsorship affiliation with an online poker site, thus leading to a reasonable conclusion that the PPA represents primarily the interests of those online sites and the media dependant on same, rather than its player membership. And this is important because an agenda of online poker only as opposed to both B&M and online, and one furthermore tied to other forms of gambling likes sports and casino games is what some of those same sites like party are very interested in, regardless of whether it harms poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I have no connection with online sites apart from using them. I don't work for them or any organisation connected to them. I gues you suspect me for similar reasons I am concerned about 2+2's attack on the PPA.

The reason I think that there is likely to be some "back story" is the way that this was done by 2+2. If 2+2 want to do an investigation and then make a decision to endorse or not then fine. If the investigation raises concerns then the way to handle it (without personal animosity) is to make a statement saying something like as 2+2 has concerns about financial acountability, board membership and player representaton we cannot endorse the PPA at this time. Job done. Instead we have a whole load of muck pinned to this forum written by a lawyer not 2+2 that essentially attacks the PPA for being a new, small organisation trying to present itself as larger and more significant than it is (this is after all the job of any lobby group!!!). This statement has been and continues to be damaging to the PPA and to the poker lobby. Why choose to damage the PPA to the maximum of your ability? is my question. As for 2+2 doing nothing else on the issue what else can you point to? Why isn't the statement pinned to the top of this forum a statement in support of online poker and explaining why 2+2 opposes UIGEA instead of an attack on the PPA?

My "extreme interest in the PPA" is really an extreme interest in the future of Poker. I'm also interested in the differences between the politics/legislature in the US/UK and how new political issues arise and are dealt with, including new campaigns on issues I care about(including international trade).

I'm also concerned that the UK has all too often followed the US. In the past week we have had three TV programmes and numerous op-ed pieces attacking the UK government for regulating casinos and poker instead of "banning" them like the US. Most in the UK are not scared by what the US government is doing - I am.