Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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 ]

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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!

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

"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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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.

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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?

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) 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!!!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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.)

Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
 

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