Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Poker Legislation (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=59)
-   -   Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users? (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=556461)

BluffTHIS! 11-29-2007 01:38 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
[ QUOTE ]
2) Yeah the guy "complied". He now has a link to a different bot page. Same damn thing. He's still using his profile there to advertise a botting "championship" site which is nothing other than a marketing gimmick to sell his program and services.

[/ QUOTE ]


I note that the profile of the poster in question now has his webpage changed to the PPA site. Nice fast action.

BluffTHIS! 11-29-2007 03:11 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
Crossposted from the PPA forums a post by Engineer:

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
A poster on 2+2 has commented on RayBonnert's participation. Unlike some poker forums, this forum does NOT censor for ideas. We're not afraid of dissenting opinions.

We do have rules that we expect to be followed, which I spelled out for RayBonnert. He has followed them in his posts. The 2+2 poster pointed out that RayBonnert's profile violates our T&Cs. I'm unclear as to why he posted it on 2+2 rather than posting his concerns here, but we did happen to see the post.

Last night I sent RayBonnert notification that he needs to update his profile. He updated his profile, but it still did not comply. I just sent him a clarification of our requirements. He has until noon to comply.

[/ QUOTE ]


He refused our requests to comply with our T&Cs, so he's permanently banned..

[/ QUOTE ]


The banned botter asked me for clarification via a PM. Needless to say, I didn't reply, but I'll share info with you all.

Earlier in this thread, I clearly stated that we do not permit links to bot promoting sites. The action of my saying this alone makes it officially part of our T&Cs. He refused to comply. Adamantly refusing to comply and then relenting at 11:59 doesn't qualify, as it took longer than that for his profile to update. By then, we deleted his posts. Too bad. Tough luck. Whatever. Regardless, my decision is final.

We don't condone bots, botters, or other cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]



Engineer,

Thanks for taking care of this issue and making it clear that the PPA won't condone botting.

Now why don't you come back here and work your action threads?

indianaV8 11-29-2007 04:20 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
[ QUOTE ]

1) [ QUOTE ]
Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech

[/ QUOTE ]

Botting is cheating. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's cheating only on some (and that includes the major) poker sites, hence it is normally cheating, but not always cheating. On these and/or other sites, cheating (or action against EULA) are also:
- Playing poker proffesionally (hence not for personal entertainment only)
- Making damaging comments about the site in any media or forum
- Using any automated scripts
- Using ANY software in conjuction with the poker client
and others.

Thank you.

I can understand the motivation of the 2+2 forums in keeping "normallity" behind the discussions, and even being against or punishing not widely accepted, non-neutral point of views, and I restrict myself to comply with that. One can argue that this is needed for the site in order to operate and offer the great value to its community, that it currently offers.

But on the other hand my feeling is that especially this forum (the legislation) should be a place where free speech, POVs, logic, and motivation of opinions, whatever they are, should be much more protected and valued ... if you always live to comply then you guys in the US should not fight the wise decisions of your own government!

Legislurker 11-29-2007 04:45 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) [ QUOTE ]
Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech

[/ QUOTE ]

Botting is cheating. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's cheating only on some (and that includes the major) poker sites, hence it is normally cheating, but not always cheating. On these and/or other sites, cheating (or action against EULA) are also:
- Playing poker proffesionally (hence not for personal entertainment only)
- Making damaging comments about the site in any media or forum
- Using any automated scripts
- Using ANY software in conjuction with the poker client
and others.

Thank you.

I can understand the motivation of the 2+2 forums in keeping "normallity" behind the discussions, and even being against or punishing not widely accepted, non-neutral point of views, and I restrict myself to comply with that. One can argue that this is needed for the site in order to operate and offer the great value to its community, that it currently offers.

But on the other hand my feeling is that especially this forum (the legislation) should be a place where free speech, POVs, logic, and motivation of opinions, whatever they are, should be much more protected and valued ... if you always live to comply then you guys in the US should not fight the wise decisions of your own government!

[/ QUOTE ]

T&Cs are not a good idea of whats cheating and what is not.
Im being very nice, which is rare for me when I tell you you are a sickening excuse of protoplasm that should end up on someone's heel. Bots are always with no exceptions cheating. The idea is REAL poker with REAL people. Woman or Man vs Man or Woman. 99% of people here regard bots as cheating. If you don't accept that, go to scumbag.com or wherever you cheaters hang out.

indianaV8 11-29-2007 05:17 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) [ QUOTE ]
Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech

[/ QUOTE ]

Botting is cheating. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's cheating only on some (and that includes the major) poker sites, hence it is normally cheating, but not always cheating. On these and/or other sites, cheating (or action against EULA) are also:
- Playing poker proffesionally (hence not for personal entertainment only)
- Making damaging comments about the site in any media or forum
- Using any automated scripts
- Using ANY software in conjuction with the poker client
and others.

Thank you.

I can understand the motivation of the 2+2 forums in keeping "normallity" behind the discussions, and even being against or punishing not widely accepted, non-neutral point of views, and I restrict myself to comply with that. One can argue that this is needed for the site in order to operate and offer the great value to its community, that it currently offers.

But on the other hand my feeling is that especially this forum (the legislation) should be a place where free speech, POVs, logic, and motivation of opinions, whatever they are, should be much more protected and valued ... if you always live to comply then you guys in the US should not fight the wise decisions of your own government!

[/ QUOTE ]

T&Cs are not a good idea of whats cheating and what is not.
Im being very nice, which is rare for me when I tell you you are a sickening excuse of protoplasm that should end up on someone's heel. Bots are always with no exceptions cheating. The idea is REAL poker with REAL people. Woman or Man vs Man or Woman. 99% of people here regard bots as cheating. If you don't accept that, go to scumbag.com or wherever you cheaters hang out.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is like to say - law doesn't matter, REAL men get any girl they want and can shoot to death anyone that's not honest and they can shot. EULA is the legally binding document for your use of the service and that's it.

There is nothing "unreal" in programming a strategy, and w.r.t. poker as a game, it gives you no advantage whatsoever.

But you have valid point of view, and I accept it, and accept it being the normallity. It was only strange to me to see such line of motivation in this legislation sub-forum.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Cheaters don't hang out together. They are too greedy for that and they know it. And I don't hang out with cheaters, I hang out with honest people, both here and elsewhere.

Legislurker 11-29-2007 06:45 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
Defending botting is tantamount to actually cheating. Saying that decent people should associate with them at all is sick. Botrunners are on a par with DOS botnet operators, child pornographers, and FoF shills. Anywhere they show up they should be hounded away, immediately. Its like including the Klan at the DOJ's civil right's office.

indianaV8 11-29-2007 07:43 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Defending botting is tantamount to actually cheating. Saying that decent people should associate with them at all is sick. Botrunners are on a par with DOS botnet operators, child pornographers, and FoF shills. Anywhere they show up they should be hounded away, immediately. Its like including the Klan at the DOJ's civil right's office.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious from where you came with that opinion. Just a week or two ago I've seen a guy interviewed on NBC talking about his stock market bot "bobo" or something like this, and I got zero impression of anyone having any issue with that, what about whatever pornography.

Although I have no any clue of how accepted are bots on the stock markets, from game theory point of view it is similar problem.

Maybe we do not use the same meaning for botting - many people mix up botting with multi-account collusion, or other multi acount abuses, which gives to the operator advantage (from game theory POV).

indianaV8 11-29-2007 08:04 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
I don't know if I'm stepping on someone too, but you need to make your claims more clear, is it that
1) botting is criminal
2) botting is cheating defined by "breaking a service agreement"
3) botting is cheating defined by "breaking a common denominator moral"
etc.

1 is obviously not the case.

W.r.t. 3):
If you like, you may have a look at how Darse Billing, the FullTilt advisor or employee (that is information I got in the 2+2 poker theory forums, I don't know it is true for sure) is talking about poker botting. What is for sure is that a long term poker bot researcher (Aaron Davidson, the author of poki) is now working FullTilt software too. But back to Darse, and what he is writting (just in the last one week):

[ QUOTE ]
In general, it is not a good idea to stay too far from the real game. The academic research should stay grounded in real problems. For the same reason, i suggest moving away from Doyle's game and on to the real NL game with varying stack sizes. <...> Finally, perhaps we should start a discussion of what [poker bot] events should be added in future years. <...>

[/ QUOTE ]

He (and the other "cheaters") are talking about what the rules of the 2008 poker bot scientific competition should be.

Hence only 2) remains, which you already ruled out.

MassPoker 11-29-2007 08:55 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
[ QUOTE ]
And since you answered one of my questions, why don't you answer another about the affiliate farm board members while you're at it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly believe that the PPA Board of Directors represents a wide array and broad range of poker players and poker playing business interests. The PPA Board even consists of one of our own (The Engineer). The area that you seem to focus on is what you refer to as "affiliate farm Board members". As distatsteful, and disconcerting as this may be to you, they still represent an interest in the very survival of poker. Bluff, you seem so very hung up on this issue that it begs the question as to what YOUR personal motivations are to eliminate these Board members from the equation? Before you answer that question, let me answer the question as to what MY motivation is as a PPA State Rep; I am passionate about poker...absolutely love the game heart and soul. I play live and online daily and I dare say that I've gone through 2 keyboards and a mouse in the process. You see, my motivation is purely for the love of the game. It isn't about money, greed or power...It's about preserving MY right to play the game that I love and the freedom to do so wherever and whenever I choose to (and if others benefit from my personal pursuit to preserve, protect and expand the rights of poker players, then that's just GREAT, too!).

When I initially came to this forum, I read yours, and many others like yours regarding the PPA, both in support of your position and those in opposition. I carefully considered your arguments and those of your opponents and then I formed my own opinion, and this is it. I weighed the pros and cons of having affiliate farm board representation of the PPA and I came to the conclusion that they, too, represent a specific interest in the poker industry and IMO, they have as much right to a seat on the Board as anyone else. Again, this is my "personal" opinion and not from my official position as MA State PPA Rep.

Listen, I'm a small fish in a big pond. I know my place. One thing I'll tell you though is; I'm no dummy. I can see the forest for the trees, and when I ask myself why it is important that the PPA BOD represent a broad range of poker players and poker industry people, I look at what they will contribute and how eager they will be to champion for the PPA mission, and it comes down to this:

No matter what a specific Board member's motivation is, and in fact despite that motivation, how much effort, time and interest will any specific Board member put in to the PPA mission is FAR more important to me than any potential gain they may derive from the success of that mission. So long as the board member(s) are championing for the same cause as I am, I could care less as to their motivations or business interest for monetary gains. The fact is, we will get to the same end result.

All of this is quite simply my opinion. Love it or hate it, I am as entitled to my opinion as you are yours. I care about results, not politics. As far as I am concerned, politics give me a headache. I just want to play poker and I don't care how we get to that point and on whose back so long as we get there. I hope this answers your question.

All In,

Randy C
MA PPA Rep

BluffTHIS! 11-29-2007 10:18 PM

Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 
Mass,

You ask some fair questions which I will be happy to answer, even though they are repeating things I've said before.



[ QUOTE ]
I honestly believe that the PPA Board of Directors represents a wide array and broad range of poker players and poker playing business interests. The PPA Board even consists of one of our own (The Engineer). The area that you seem to focus on is what you refer to as "affiliate farm Board members". As distatsteful, and disconcerting as this may be to you, they still represent an interest in the very survival of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have never said that any certain industry or player interest shouldn't have board representation, and that includes affiliate farm and publishing interests. However I do have a huge problem with any one such interest dominating the board which IS the case now.


[ QUOTE ]
Bluff, you seem so very hung up on this issue that it begs the question as to what YOUR personal motivations are to eliminate these Board members from the equation? Before you answer that question, let me answer the question as to what MY motivation is as a PPA State Rep; I am passionate about poker...absolutely love the game heart and soul. I play live and online daily and I dare say that I've gone through 2 keyboards and a mouse in the process. You see, my motivation is purely for the love of the game. It isn't about money, greed or power...It's about preserving MY right to play the game that I love and the freedom to do so wherever and whenever I choose to (and if others benefit from my personal pursuit to preserve, protect and expand the rights of poker players, then that's just GREAT, too!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I'm repeating but here goes:

I play fulltime online and hate the hypocrisy involved all across our country on the issue of gambling. So I have not only a financial interest as a player, but also the interest of a citizen who doesn't like his rights trampled in a hypocritical manner. And this hypocrisy is precisely one where certain forms of gambling are favored, while others are made illegal, solely to benefit those favored interests, whether they are state lotteries or B&M casino interests as have been trying to screw online players in your state.

BUT, I want the FULLEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF PLAYING OPTIONS, even if they aren't what I currently play. That means online as now, intra-state online and B&M. And none of us if we have an ounce of sense will trust any one vested industry group to give us that full range instead of only seeking to benefit their own business models and erecting barriers to entry against others.

In the case of the PPA, while it is true that with the exception of one ad campaign they haven't worked against those other forms, neither are they working for them. Errors of omission. So that is why I want 2 or 3 current board members off the board and replaced with others so that it has the incentive to work for all forms of poker and all the interests of the player members. Again however I note that obviously priorities have to be made as with the current legislation. But still the lesser priorities have to also be worked on some especially because they take even longer to achieve.

And also I will state again that my interest is that the PPA not be harmed by our foes being able to paint it merely as an industry trade group, rather than the large interest group of average citizens who want to play poker in every possible venue that it purports to be.


[ QUOTE ]
I weighed the pros and cons of having affiliate farm board representation of the PPA and I came to the conclusion that they, too, represent a specific interest in the poker industry and IMO, they have as much right to a seat on the Board as anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I don't have a problem with their having a seat at the table, just a problem with their having a majority of those seats. And as well I have a problem with husband/wife or domestic partner teams being on the board since it obviously means a high probability if not certainty of not thinking and acting independently.


[ QUOTE ]
So long as the board member(s) are championing for the same cause as I am, I could care less as to their motivations or business interest for monetary gains. The fact is, we will get to the same end result.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my goal is ten apples and ten oranges and yours in only 10 apples, sure we have a certain commonality of interest. But all my interests aren't being represented if you set the goal to only your own personal interest. That is the point here with a lopsided board dominated by a certain industry interest, and which isn't representative of average players across the country who have a wide spectrum of poker forms they wish to see advanced.

The bottom line is that just because your own personal interests, or even those of a majority of posters here, are being served, doesn't mean the rest of us should be satisfied with your dictating and limiting our results.

Finally I will bring up another issue which is transparency. Filing required forms with the government is NOT transparency despite the ridiculous assertions to the contrary by some posters here recently. This also is a big issue that can come back to haunt the PPA and its efforts. And it is the *current board dominated by affiliate farm interests* that refuses to implement better transparency and thus hold themselves accountable to the membership.

I would urge you as a state rep to work with other state reps to bring about a better board composition not dominated by one industry business model, and to achieve true transparency and accountability. Believe it or not I don't like these endless debates. But the majority of the current board has shown close to zero willingness to act on these issues, even though they have true enough worked on better political efforts with Mr. Pappas' appointment. The PPA, *if it is to be a true grassroots organization*, should be a bottom up and not top down organization. You state reps should elect the board and not it be self-appointing to the benefit of the dominant industry group that currently controls it. The very fact that they use the PPA in this manner shows their unfitness to serve *in absence of any demonstrated proof certain such members are critical to the success of the PPA*, which hasn't even been argued by anyone here, let alone proved.

I and other critics here sincerely want us to have internal unity to be maximally effective. But it is the recalcitrant conflicted interest majority on the board that is standing in way of same, not us.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.