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.