Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?
 

If you go to what the PPA calls a forum, which is really a tumbleweed net town, you can find a profile for this poster. He is the writer and seller of the most popular bot program available. To my mind, and apparently most 2p2'ers would agree in consideration of past discussions in the zoo, this guy and all bot users are scumbags. This guy specifically has been banned multiple times on 2+2 under various posting accounts. Yet apparently he is welcomed with open arms by the PPA.

Despite the fact that Annie Duke used a bot argument as proof of poker being a skill game, that use, even if mathematically valid, was a very ill chosen one. Second only to the kind of fraud/cheating shown in the Absolute situation, bot use has more potential to harm the reputation of online poker than anything else, in the minds of the average joe player.

So why is this scumbag given a haven in the PPA forums? If the answer is that he is a member, then I submit that his membership dues if he paid them, should be refunded, and that his membership and posting privileges in their forum should be canceled. Having botters affiliated with any poker organization is akin to allowing a bank robber to join a credit union.

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

i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

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

He is now free to return. Surely he can come back and do his thing without making demands of Mason or directing snide comments his way. But if he would rather talk to the tumbleweeds instead of the thousands of PPA members here, that's his choice.

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

[ QUOTE ]
or directing snide comments his way.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please, whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

I happen to agree with you about the bot issue. What I am curious about though is this: I can understand constructive criticism of the PPA, but you seem to relish taking pot shots and crapping on it whenever possible. Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

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

Another "troll" post to bash the PPA...TE PPA Board Member clearly stated the PPA's position as has RB..There is and never will be an alignment...Nor has one been sttempted..

The underlying debate of the thread is proving poker is a game of skill and a "possible legal test case" and the use of bots to prove the issue...Once again TE PPA Board Member made the PPAs position clear..

I see no value in the OP other then the continued intention of OP to bash the PPA at every opportunity..

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

LF,

I take botting very seriously. I didn't go to the PPA forum looking for something to bash them over. But when I saw that guy was a poster there, I felt I had to bring the issue to everyone's attention here.

As to your "better off" question, I would submit the question is actually whether we are better off with the PPA and its goals as it exists now, versus a different PPA or other organization. The choice isn't just a black and white, "PPA or no PPA" one, though that is what the affiliate farm interests who control the board would like us to believe to perpetuate their control and lack of transparency.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Another "troll" post to bash the PPA...TE PPA Board Member clearly stated the PPA's position as has RB..There is and never will be an alignment...Nor has one been sttempted..

[/ QUOTE ]


So are you saying that poster has been banned from their forums and I am not aware of it?

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

BT, again, I agree with you about the Bot issue. I think it is ok to discuss the use of computer programs to prove skill, but I don't think it is to the PPAs benefit to even 'be seen in the same room' as the maker of a bot program.

My issue was that fact that you seem to take every opportunity to bash the PPA even when it doesn't relate to the topic at hand (see unnecessary tumbleweed reference).

BT, I believe that we are at a time critical juncture for online poker. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for the creation a 'perfect' grassroots organization headed (and funded) by poker playing soccer moms.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another "troll" post to bash the PPA...TE PPA Board Member clearly stated the PPA's position as has RB..There is and never will be an alignment...Nor has one been sttempted..

[/ QUOTE ]


So are you saying that poster has been banned from their forums and I am not aware of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

In context he is posting and the condition that TE PPA BOARD MEMBER placed on him why should he be banned...

I can only assume you did not take the time to read the thread just recognized the name and decided to take a "cheap" shot..

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

Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I was (and am) a part of the discussion BT refers to. The fact that this guy endorses bots was made plain, as was the PPA position that use of bots at sites was to be condemned.

The PPA forum just has more respect for free speech than you do, apparently, Bluff. I would never support banning anyone from a free-speech discussion forum based on who they were or what they did elsewhere or what they supported.

If someone from FOF started (openly) posting here, should 2+2 ban them?

Skallagrim

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

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

oddly many in the business community, some poker rooms and some pros think so. Most chose to remain silent because its not a popular thing to discuss. BluffThis is one of the few people whop are willing to go out on a limb to point out the hypocrisies, I think he should be applauded. Sure like most of you I dont always agree with how he does it, but it needs to be said none the less.

some thoughts -

1) If poker is carved out then the all the sites as we currently know them will likely have to sell to third parties in order to operate int the US

2) Poker will never be legislated so it is controlled by the feds, it is currently - and will likely remain - under the jurisdiction of individual states.

3) The PPA has too many ties to the needs of poker rooms, and not enough ties to the needs of players. Perhaps in the PPA called itself the PIA - Poker Industry Association - Bluff This and many others who chose to remain silent would have fewer complaints?

4) The best thing for us would be for the foundation of a true poker PLAYERS association which fought for our rights on a regional as well as national level - fighting for our rights on many causes while lobbying congress and providing healthcare benefits. Of course I dont think this is realistic and I am not expecting miracles, but that would be the ideal solution. The PPA has too many conflicts of interest to make this happen.

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

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA forum just has more respect for free speech than you do, apparently, Bluff. I would never support banning anyone from a free-speech discussion forum based on who they were or what they did elsewhere or what they supported.

If someone from FOF started (openly) posting here, should 2+2 ban them?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]


And just how much "free speech" are you legally or morally entitled to either here or in the PPA forums? Does the PPA have to accept just anyone as a member even if that member reflects badly upon them? Think allowing David Duke to be a member in good standing of your political party even if you place "limitations" on him.

Note to Kew: I admit I did not read discussion about that guy and only saw a) he is a poster, and b)has made recent posts and is thus a welcome member. Which is all that matters.

Note to Berge: being in politics I can't see how you don't think it important to the public perception of your member in Congress, of whom he associates with. It's the same principle here. And while this issue might be far down the list of issues with the PPA, and thus why you think it a cheap shot or petty, notice that precisely because the PPA forums don't get squat for traffic that the poster in question appears to have a much bigger presence in, and thus backing of, the PPA, to a random observer.

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

Guilt by association, eh Bluff? I was taught a long time ago the fallacy of that kind of thinking. I never suspected you of being one of those "politically correct" types Bluff, but apparently you are, or your dislike of the PPA has led you to become one.

Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech and I am proud to stand up for it. Even the right of David Duke to speak, yes. Even a bot enthusiast. I will NEVER agree that policing (should I say "purging") posters or members for their willingness to toe the party line is a right or good thing to do.

In response to TT:

I have to say you apparently havent read the legislation, or at least have not followed the details of what is supported and not supported.

If the Wexler skill games bill is passed AS WRITTEN it will be glory days for online poker all over again. All current sites could stay, new sites, even from the US, will develop.
No new taxes, no new regulatory agencies...I challenge you to find one fault in the Wexler bill. And this is the bill that is gaining momentum in congress, thanks entirely to the efforts of the PPA and NO ONE ELSE.

The other bills talking of POSSIBLE vast regulation are stalled, do not comply with the WTO decision, and are far from their final versions. The PPA supports moving those bills forward and addressing these legitimate concerns.

Under the US Constitution's commerce clause, ONLINE poker MUST be the subject of federal law. The Feds could (they have not yet) explicitly turn the subject back to the states. But until they do that, it IS a Federal matter because it is Interstate Commerce, no legal question here at all. Also, the WTO demands a Federal law on the subject.

Where in the context of making poker explicitly legal is there a difference between what the sites want and what the players want? You guys always and repeatedly bring up this subject, BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PPA SUPPORTS SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE SITES (or the "affiliate farms") THAT IS AT THE SAME TIME BAD FOR THE PLAYERS. As they say in Missouri "show me."

Finally, great idea to have an organization that is just a players organization. I would join it in a heart beat. I could probably even give it $25 or $50 (once it can take my credit card). SO I SUGGEST YOU START SUCH AN ORGANIZATION: go and raise the money, get the word out, hopefully Mason will help, at least let you openly advertise, maybe even for free, here on 2+2. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

The PPA is the only thing that is out there, it has done some very good things so far, has failed at other things, and it can still be made better, but it would not exist at all (and thus we would still have nothing but a bunch of whining forum posts to show for the cause) BUT FOR THE EFFORTS OF SOME INDUSTRY INTERESTS WITH THE MONEY TO GET THE THING GOING.

Really, can you honestly think the poker world would be better without the PPA? Love the current online situation? Even if you are personally OK with it, wait till the DOJ goes after Poker directly - it is only the efforts of the group of us, which currently is being advanced in an organized way only by the PPA, that is slowing that, and even then it will not work without continued support.

So go ahead and trash the only thing out there working to protect the game. You guys who live near casinos will be OK, and you guys who never need to move money online will also be happy (until they take the next step when this one doesnt stop you). And who cares about the rest of us anyway?

Of course, I am forgetting, there will be true players alliance financed by BluffThis and TT that will make all of our current troubles meaningless and, like the fabled cavalry of old, come riding in from the west to save the day. God I feel so much better now.

Skallagrim

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

[ QUOTE ]
Guilt by association, eh Bluff? I was taught a long time ago the fallacy of that kind of thinking. I never suspected you of being one of those "politically correct" types Bluff, but apparently you are, or your dislike of the PPA has led you to become one.

Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech and I am proud to stand up for it. Even the right of David Duke to speak, yes. Even a bot enthusiast. I will NEVER agree that policing (should I say "purging") posters or members for their willingness to toe the party line is a right or good thing to do.

In response to TT:

I have to say you apparently havent read the legislation, or at least have not followed the details of what is supported and not supported.

If the Wexler skill games bill is passed AS WRITTEN it will be glory days for online poker all over again. All current sites could stay, new sites, even from the US, will develop.
No new taxes, no new regulatory agencies...I challenge you to find one fault in the Wexler bill. And this is the bill that is gaining momentum in congress, thanks entirely to the efforts of the PPA and NO ONE ELSE.

The other bills talking of POSSIBLE vast regulation are stalled, do not comply with the WTO decision, and are far from their final versions. The PPA supports moving those bills forward and addressing these legitimate concerns.

Under the US Constitution's commerce clause, ONLINE poker MUST be the subject of federal law. The Feds could (they have not yet) explicitly turn the subject back to the states. But until they do that, it IS a Federal matter because it is Interstate Commerce, no legal question here at all. Also, the WTO demands a Federal law on the subject.

Where in the context of making poker explicitly legal is there a difference between what the sites want and what the players want? You guys always and repeatedly bring up this subject, BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PPA SUPPORTS SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE SITES (or the "affiliate farms") THAT IS AT THE SAME TIME BAD FOR THE PLAYERS. As they say in Missouri "show me."

Finally, great idea to have an organization that is just a players organization. I would join it in a heart beat. I could probably even give it $25 or $50 (once it can take my credit card). SO I SUGGEST YOU START SUCH AN ORGANIZATION: go and raise the money, get the word out, hopefully Mason will help, at least let you openly advertise, maybe even for free, here on 2+2. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

The PPA is the only thing that is out there, it has done some very good things so far, has failed at other things, and it can still be made better, but it would not exist at all (and thus we would still have nothing but a bunch of whining forum posts to show for the cause) BUT FOR THE EFFORTS OF SOME INDUSTRY INTERESTS WITH THE MONEY TO GET THE THING GOING.

Really, can you honestly think the poker world would be better without the PPA? Love the current online situation? Even if you are personally OK with it, wait till the DOJ goes after Poker directly - it is only the efforts of the group of us, which currently is being advanced in an organized way only by the PPA, that is slowing that, and even then it will not work without continued support.

So go ahead and trash the only thing out there working to protect the game. You guys who live near casinos will be OK, and you guys who never need to move money online will also be happy (until they take the next step when this one doesnt stop you). And who cares about the rest of us anyway?

Of course, I am forgetting, there will be true players alliance financed by BluffThis and TT that will make all of our current troubles meaningless and, like the fabled cavalry of old, come riding in from the west to save the day. God I feel so much better now.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank You

clearly deserves a big QFT...

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

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. BT if you want to do more than just troll why don't you let the PPA know the bot dude is posting at their forums so they could take appropriate actions.

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

[ QUOTE ]
i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't generally QFT, but this is an exception. QFT

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't generally QFT, but this is an exception. QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully tomorrow the saloons and brothels will reopen [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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

Skall,

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. And the PPA doesn't need to discuss things or deal with cheats for any reason. It can only hurt their image to do so. If you want to be a chump and champion the rights of botters go ahead though.

2) [ QUOTE ]
BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PPA SUPPORTS SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE SITES (or the "affiliate farms") THAT IS AT THE SAME TIME BAD FOR THE PLAYERS.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong standard. The right standard standard is are they working for all the goals that the wider membership has, instead of just the narrower set that benefits the affiliate farm interests that control the board. Errors of omission. Keep ignoring them if you wish.

3)[ QUOTE ]
PUT UP OR SHUT UP

[/ QUOTE ]

="rally 'round the tattered flag boys! no matter the commander is not the sharpest we could have!"

Working for internal change in the PPA *is* putting up. I and others are looking at the long term and big picture, while most of you can't see the woods for the trees and yet keep demanding we follow you blindly.

4) [ QUOTE ]
Really, can you honestly think the poker world would be better without the PPA? Love the current online situation? Even if you are personally OK with it, wait till the DOJ goes after Poker directly - it is only the efforts of the group of us, which currently is being advanced in an organized way only by the PPA, that is slowing that, and even then it will not work without continued support.

So go ahead and trash the only thing out there working to protect the game. You guys who live near casinos will be OK, and you guys who never need to move money online will also be happy (until they take the next step when this one doesnt stop you). And who cares about the rest of us anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]


I've made it clear before that a) I play fulltime, and b) do so online. So I do care about online poker, but the *specific forms in which it is currently offered*, i.e to the liking of the affiliate farms, isn't what I wish to be limited to. And the reason I think it important as well to work on B&M issues is the synergy that comes from same to benefit all forms. Keep ignoring that too if you wish merely because online poker in its current or pre-IUGEA form is all you personally care about.


4) I am going to repeat a question now I asked in another thread, which is: are the affiliate farm interest board members so desperately critical to the PPA's success that there can't be substantive board change?

You and other keep putting it all on the critics of the PPA instead of seeking to remove the sources of that criticism by demanding board change and better/meaningful transparency and a wider set of goals.

5) Bottom line: the WTO and judicial issues, which the PPA has little role in, are what are more likely in the short term to bring about success for our cause. Granted the PPA is seeking to leverage the WTO issue to advance the pending legislation, but they are only taking advantage of an external factor and weren't the ones who brought that issue to the fore. And in the *long term*, the issues I and other critics have raised matter a lot. They even matter in the short term because our enemies can paint the PPA as only an industry interest group instead of a real grassroots organization.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. BT if you want to do more than just troll why don't you let the PPA know the bot dude is posting at their forums so they could take appropriate actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE PPA BOARD MEMBER(emphasis added) was notified an appropriate steps were taken...BT did not even give the PPA enough respect to read a few posts down from the OP before launching his defamatory attack..

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

I seriously cannot believe what I am reading. I completely concur with Skall on this one. BT, unless a person posts something objectionable on the PPA forum, they will NOT be banned simply for who they are and what they may or may not represent. What you are implying is that the PPA admin should become the moral police.

While I personally agree that bots are reprehensible and objectionable, that's my opinion (and as much as I hate to admit this, it's the ONE thing you and I may agree on!) That said, I completely disagree with banning any member until such time that a post is objectionable (such as solicitation of those materials detailed above).

I think we all get that you are anti-PPA BT... This is no secret, and while I personally disagree with your position on the PPA, I affirm that you are 100% entitled to state your opinion. It's just too bad that you have no intention of being more open minded and willing to work toward common ground.

In specific answer to your question as to whether the "PPA should accept membership from a Bot provider/user", I agree with Skall... I believe membership should be open to anyone regardless of who they are, however, as I stated earlier, if they begin to solicit bot products on the forum, then the PPA admin should intervene. Period...Amen!

All In,

Randy C~
Massachusetts Representative
Poker Players Alliance

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

Bluffthis responded:

"Skall,
1) Quote:
Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech

Botting is cheating. Period. And the PPA doesn't need to discuss things or deal with cheats for any reason. It can only hurt their image to do so. If you want to be a chump and champion the rights of botters go ahead though."

This is classic misdirection and blatant guilt by association. If this were a test you would get an "A" for rabble rousing technique and possibly a job with the Bush Admin now that K. Rove is gone.

Where did I anywhere a) say botting is not cheating, or b) champion the rights of botters to do anything other than SPEAK freely?

Sigh, when I was younger everyone knew the phrase "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This was a classic and revered AMERICAN value. Look at us now.... the country is going downhill fast IMHO.

The rest we have been through before Bluff, and I was mostly responding to TT not you. I say show me where the PPA's actions have served the industry interests over the players, and you almost admit that you cannot by turning it around and saying the question should be why havent they a wider set of goals ... they can barely handle the goals they have now, and, I think as do most others, that preserving the ability to play online is the most important goal right now.

I have said before that I dont disagree with your criticisms of the board's POSSIBLE bias, and that I appreciate it when you do actually try and "work from within" for change. That was not even remotely what you did with your OP, however.

The PPA was started by industry groups, no question. THANK GOD SOMEONE STARTED SOMETHING. Our enemies can no more use that against us than, as I have said many times, that censorship advocates can trash the ACLU because porn producers give the ACLU money. The average guy accepts that as par for the course. I believe it will have no bearing on the PPA's effectiveness.

In sum, transparancy is a dead issue (all their required filings are there), the board is not a mirror of the poker community but until they do something NOT in my interest I feel I have no cause to ask the folks who started the thing to resign from it, and it will take time for the PPA to grow where it can devote real time to B&M issues.

As Berge said Bluff, your PPA criticisms are not uncalled for. Your OP in this thread, however, was.

Skallagrim

Oh, and on the litigation bit - the PPA has already gotten involved with some litigation, give it a little time and I think you will see it doing a lot more in that area.

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

[ QUOTE ]
In specific answer to your question as to whether the "PPA should accept membership from a Bot provider/user", I agree with Skall... I believe membership should be open to anyone regardless of who they are, however, as I stated earlier, if they begin to solicit bot products on the forum, then the PPA admin should intervene. Period...Amen!


[/ QUOTE ]


But it's OK for that guy to advertise with a link to his site in his profile though isn't it?

As for his being a member, it revolves around his discussion of botting, which I think you agree is cheating. So despite the assertions of KEW above that this has been dealt with, can you say that the guy in question is prohibited from talking about bots in a positive way, which is talking about cheating in a positive way?


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?

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

[ QUOTE ]
In sum, transparancy is a dead issue (all their required filings are there)

[/ QUOTE ]


Where is "there"? Can you link to a portion of their website with same? Or do you mean they have filed same with the gov't while not sharing with the members?

And you really believe that satisfying the minimal legal requirements is all that is involved in transparency? I have never doubted that the PPA met its legal filing obligations. But that isn't what I, nor Mason I suspect, mean by meaningful transparency.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

oddly many in the business community, some poker rooms and some pros think so. Most chose to remain silent because its not a popular thing to discuss. BluffThis is one of the few people whop are willing to go out on a limb to point out the hypocrisies, I think he should be applauded. Sure like most of you I dont always agree with how he does it, but it needs to be said none the less.

some thoughts -

1) If poker is carved out then the all the sites as we currently know them will likely have to sell to third parties in order to operate int the US

2) Poker will never be legislated so it is controlled by the feds, it is currently - and will likely remain - under the jurisdiction of individual states.

3) The PPA has too many ties to the needs of poker rooms, and not enough ties to the needs of players. Perhaps in the PPA called itself the PIA - Poker Industry Association - Bluff This and many others who chose to remain silent would have fewer complaints?

4) The best thing for us would be for the foundation of a true poker PLAYERS association which fought for our rights on a regional as well as national level - fighting for our rights on many causes while lobbying congress and providing healthcare benefits. Of course I dont think this is realistic and I am not expecting miracles, but that would be the ideal solution. The PPA has too many conflicts of interest to make this happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the powers that control the PPA wouldn't be willing to relinquish control ever so it could become a player's association? Thats my opinion, I just don't want it to be true. It would really help our cause if we could have some pros make some statements against the PPA's current incarnation. I guess the cosy deals they have with the sites may prohibit that, but anything to prod the PPA to reform. Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

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

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there is an idea!

Lets start a public campaign against the only entity in the entire world doing anything at all to help us get legal US online poker. That should do wonders to speed along legislation favorable to us.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Tuff

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there is an idea!

Lets start a public campaign against the only entity in the entire world doing anything at all to help us get legal US online poker. That should do wonders to speed along legislation favorable to us.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. I like the PPA as it is. If you want to start a campaign to rename it the "Online PPA" then have at it. But as an online player the PPA represents my and the majority of its 800,000+ members' interests quite well. BT, TT, Mason et. al. by all means feel free to start a B&M PPA if you like.

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

It's so funny and ironic in this thread how the supposed "free speech rights" of cheating scum botters are defended, but not the free speech of PPA members who disagree with specifics of how the PPA is run.

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

[ QUOTE ]
It's so funny and ironic in this thread how the supposed "free speech rights" of cheating scum botters are defended, but not the free speech of PPA members who disagree with specifics of how the PPA is run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find it either funny or ironic. For one because it's not true: noone is saying you don't have the right to voice your opinions about the PPA, and many are saying the scumbotters shouldn't be allowed to post on the PPA forum. But what good are facts in such an asinine thread as this? Also because this whole thread is a joke and a another red herring attempt by you to discredit the PPA. That is the irony -- the PPA is the only organization fighting for our (online poker players) rights yet supposed kindred spirits like you make 100s of posts criticizing them.

whangarei <-- really ashamed I let myself be drawn into a debate with BT in the lamest thread ever

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

You are really good at this game of sophistry, Bluff - but, at the risk of letting truth back into the discussion, perhaps you can point out a post that actually seeks to stop YOUR free speech rights, as opposed to just disagreeing with your opinion?

Skallagrim

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

See the "love it or leave it" arguments above I responded to Skall.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Also because this whole thread is a joke and a another red herring attempt by you to discredit the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discrediting current policies or board compositions isn't the same as discrediting the organization on my part. The organization can only be discredited if it refuses to change itself.


[ QUOTE ]
That is the irony -- the PPA is the only organization fighting for our (online poker players) rights yet supposed kindred spirits like you make 100s of posts criticizing them.

[/ QUOTE ]


And it's precisely when our choices are limited in vehicles to fight the opponents of poker that we should attempt to make sure we have the best possible vehicle.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Another "troll" post to bash the PPA...

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
LF,

I take botting very seriously. I didn't go to the PPA forum looking for something to bash them over. But when I saw that guy was a poster there, I felt I had to bring the issue to everyone's attention here.

As to your "better off" question, I would submit the question is actually whether we are better off with the PPA and its goals as it exists now, versus a different PPA or other organization. The choice isn't just a black and white, "PPA or no PPA" one, though that is what the affiliate farm interests who control the board would like us to believe to perpetuate their control and lack of transparency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the argument that the PPA has too much on its plate and must prioritize sucks. I hate having it used on me.

But even as an identified PPA critic, this is a little over the top. The forum there is what it is, now if he had been appointed even a State position or allowed to moderate a sub-forum, i.e. given some credibility or backing by the PPA I'd be screaming right with you.

As it is this is a non-issue IMO.


D$D

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

Again i am going to advance my opinion that both Bluff and Legislurker have another agenda at work besides just wanting US online poker.

Both are entirely too vitrolic in their opposition to the PPA. I am pretty sure they feel they have something to lose with passage of something akin to the Wexler Bill.

By contrast, Mason, who seems to have quite a bit of trouble with the PPA too, generally says his piece and lets it go.

Bluff and Legislurker are probably associated with some sort of business entities that would be hurt by PPA success. whether those be competing affiliates, some offshore sites, or whatever.

I say if they look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and generally behave like ducks, then they are most likely ducks, whatever they might claim otherwise.

Just my personal take.

Tuff

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

[ QUOTE ]
Again i am going to advance my opinion that both Bluff and Legislurker have another agenda at work besides just wanting US online poker.

Both are entirely too vitrolic in their opposition to the PPA. I am pretty sure they feel they have something to lose with passage of something akin to the Wexler Bill.



Bluff and Legislurker are probably associated with some sort of business entities that would be hurt by PPA success. whether those be competing affiliates, some offshore sites, or whatever.



Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit the nail on the head, and I think you are 100% right. Somthing is very rotten in Denmark about the way they are acting. They have something to hide, they won't admit it, but I am sure they do.

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

I am going to crosspost and comment on a postTheEngineer posted in the PPA forums:

[ 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. I just sent him a clarification of our requirements He has until noon to comply.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comments:

1)This forum's owners aren't afraid of dissenting opinions either. However they do require standards in manner in which one expresses that dissent.

As to my own views, I don't believe discussion of cheating in a positive manner, which is what botting is, is something that should be condoned on a poker forum dedicated to honest standards of play.

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.

3) I am unclear on why TE is unclear on why I don't post there but I'll make it crystal now: THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO TRAFFIC ON THOSE FORUMS. Which means *this* is the venue to discuss the PPA. However maybe TE will be successful in getting P5s to host a leg forum as he requested and he can *try* to move discussion to where there is only happy spin and no critics.



Now Engineer, I know you're going to read this, so I would request that you come back here and do what you do best, i.e. action letter writing plans. Just go back to the "truce" that was in effect before you felt it necessary to demand certain actions of Mason, while at the same time not demanding changes in the PPA. You are generally free to say what you wish here in a professional manner, so there is *no truth* in saying you are being censored. You can come back here and be effective for the PPA by reaching 10s of thousands, or you can stay there and reach handfuls. It's up to you.

You are a valued and wanted poster here.

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

Your olive branch, as expected, is full of thorns.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Your olive branch, as expected, is full of thorns.

[/ QUOTE ]


Look are we little children here or what? You want all sugar and no criticism. You and others are trying to silence legitimate criticism with "love it or leave it" and "it's the only thing going" arguments and they won't wash. It's not black and white just because you don't want to shade it to gray.

Although I was sincere in saying I value TE and want him back here where he can be effective, that doesn't mean I am going to just agree with the PPA in its current form and quit lobbying for internal changes which are needed, even if a majority of posters here don't agree.

And the bottom line is that this is politics which includes the politics internal to a given faction. It's not for the faint hearted. Maybe TE really doesn't have the stomach for it and needs constant unqualified praise and reinforcement, but I hope that's not the case. And it's just pathetic to waste time posting in a venue that get no traffic.

If TE is only willing to return on his terms, which means Mason and myself and others caving 100% with no concession from the vested interests that run the board, then I guess he won't return. But it would be shame because he is valued here and this is the place where his talents can be used for greatest effect.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Again i am going to advance my opinion that both Bluff and Legislurker have another agenda at work besides just wanting US online poker.

Both are entirely too vitrolic in their opposition to the PPA. I am pretty sure they feel they have something to lose with passage of something akin to the Wexler Bill.

By contrast, Mason, who seems to have quite a bit of trouble with the PPA too, generally says his piece and lets it go.

Bluff and Legislurker are probably associated with some sort of business entities that would be hurt by PPA success. whether those be competing affiliates, some offshore sites, or whatever.

I say if they look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and generally behave like ducks, then they are most likely ducks, whatever they might claim otherwise.

Just my personal take.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no affiliate site. I haven't ran a home poker game in ten years. I work for no poker room, online or real. I just happen to believe in integrity, openness and truth. If you read what TT posted on one thread about a true player's association, thats what I want. Im a self-interested subsistence poker player. I want lower rakes, better RB, generous bonuses and freerolls, and a wide open gaming market for poker, sports, and casinos. I don't know BT at all. In fact, I don't know anyone who posts in this forum.
If that conflicts me out fron honestly critiquing the PPA, then so be it, Ill post poker PLAYER in my profile and accept a new name colour. My vitriol if you want to call it that comes from the fact that the PPA claims to be what it is not, a poker players' alliance. Its akin to GWB calling himself a christian. Except there is a simple remedy for the PPA. Divulge some power and control to players. Why the [censored] not? Is the PPA truly afraid of what poker players would do with their own organization? They don't even have to reliquish control now. Just put a plan in place to transition to a dmeocratic organization. I don't want a job
there, I don't want a seat on the board, I dont want much of nothing at all but to be left alone to play poker. I really don't see why the PPA is so obstinate about opening itself up. Someone must want to control its future and control what is "allowed" and "not allowed". If you want to be a damned sheep and back their agenda blindly, go ahead. I'll put my faith in Jay Cohen, the courts, and the internet. It would be so easy for the PPA to co-opt a broad movement, but it refuses.