[satya]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think it very important that the PPA represent all its members interests, and not just those of the major online sites and advertising media dependant on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree - even though I don't see how the PPA is doing that. But, if they didn't work for the interests of finanical backers they wouldn't exist. You can't tell people "Don't give $$ to the PPA because they don't work for us" and expect anything positive to come of it. Real life doesn't work that way.

[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed at length before so I won't repeat it here. I also do this because of the flurry of postings, which are nothing other than spin, which try to take the focus off such criticism, and argue, wrongly I believe, that we simply must accept the PPA as is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, I don't mean to say that PPA is doing everything right. Clearly they are not. But you can't affect positive change from the outside with repeated bashings on an inet forum.

I don't much care what you or anyone else thinks, so haven't read 96% of the pro/anti PPA argument. However, seems to me that maybe your idea of what the PPA should be and be doing conflicts with their mission? And how does what "we" want, which I dunno about you, but for me is to simply play when and where I want to play, conflict with what CP and Party want? They want my money. I want to give it to them. (I think) we all want the US gov't to let us do it. I don't care if I get what I want via a carve out, a new law, regulation, or assassination. I really don't care. Perhaps you do. Nothing wrong with that.

Should the PPA change its goals, methods, and/or mission to please a few non-supporting 2+2 posters who bash the PPA no matter what it does? This forum has likely done more to prevent positive change than it has promote.

Is it +EV for the PPA to try to change opinions of a few naysayers on an inet forum? Every time they post something there's a bunch of "...yeah well you still suck because blah blah...." Why bother?

Mason can't publically support the PPA whether he believes in them or not. His opinions are his bread and butter - to some his word gospel.

The PPA has no track record. Should it fail, a public endorsment could hurt 2+2's bottom line. If ever, 2+2 and Mason will only endorse the PPA when they see definitive movement in the direction of success, financially and politically.

"We", or rather I, don't have to follow Mason's lead on this. I'm not saying he's wrong. He's not. If I were him I'd probably be taking the same line. I'm only saying his interests are different than mine.

People don't get political. ESPECIALLY the anti-social, type who predominate i-net forums. The majority of us, anti-social or not, don't get involved in politics and/or activism. Instead, we bend over. Constantly. It's how we got here. It's why we will likely (sans a huge influx of cash for the politicians) stay here for years to come.

Repeated public bashing of the PPA can be counterproductive because it encourages people already predisposed to bending over to continue to bend over simply because they have been given no other option!

Criticism isn't bad, its required for positive change. But when you don't offer an alternative you come across as just a basher/hater. Does it make sense to repeatedly criticize (how many of these threads to do we need?) when doing so has no effect other than to slow forward movement in the form of discouraging any action at all?

Why not instead, get involved in the effort? Granted, there's seemingly little way to get involved in the PPA. And, even if "we" do get involved with the PPA its unlikely that the minority (inet players) opinion will rule. Consensus doesn't work. See: UN.

If the PPA doesn't serve your interests, start your own group that supports your goals or find one that does. Give people something to do other than bend over and bitch and moan about the PPA not doing what "we" think they should be doing how "we" want them to do it.