Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We hope that the PPA is successful

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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) for contacting these elected officials."

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/1...asino-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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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!

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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,

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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/pokerpla...wforum.php?f=2

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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!

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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!

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

probably not

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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