Re: Mason... Sir,
[ QUOTE ]
these threads, and others like them, strike me as a sad waste of time by intelligent people whose energy could be better spent promoting (in whatever way they see fit) the greater goal of legalized, regulated online poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is an important issue. Management of any organization is important to shareholders and stakeholders alike.
My active posting career here started with a post proclaiming that the PPA had turned the corner and my opinion that John Pappas, from my personal conversations, was a fantastic change for the prospects of success for all poker players.
"We" as poker player are indeed better off than "we" were before the Board decided to make the recent changes.
What is unanswered is what are the PPA's goals?
I am a critic because almost 6 months ago, John told me and made many public published statements that have not even been begun in the planning stages.
The PPA seems unwilling to do much more than push for a fairly limited set of legislative goals. Most of these goals do benefit your average poker player, but accomplishing them can be problematic if the broader interests of the average poker player are given short shrift to industry interests over represented on the board.
For example look at Party Poker's position vs Full Tilt and Poker Stars. FT & PS stayed in the US market. PP took the position that to do so was a F U to the US government.
So the question remains what would the PPA do or has done if a legislative compromise was offered by Congress that gave "us" (the average player) fully legal and regulated US poker, but the cost was an understanding that FT or PS would face some or complete difficulties in ever getting a US license?
I would suggest on principal that all sites should get a fair shot at any US market. But should "we" fight a longer battle as directed by the PPA to preserve their board interests, or does the majority of US poker players and members of the PPA not care who operates the games?
The PPA has also shown very little desire to organize its grassroots members. There are very little requirements for appointment to State Rep positions. Even worse there is very little requested of and required of these positions.
Some grassroots advocacy groups are lead by to some degree members elected to advisory groups. Suggesting running elections for State Reps just now is insane. But I think it is a fair suggestion to make that the Board has shown no interest in training, supporting, and developing these positions. Other than Randy having to almost demand help from PPA HQ, but actually finally getting but almost in spite of the PPA management and board. I can point to at least a dozen state actions I am personally aware of where this lack of organization, training, and support has hurt the overall cause.
If the PPA is to become an effective grassroots force in '08 time is running VERY short. Political grassroots work is a passion of mine. I do not consider myself in the top 1/2 of professionals, but even I have been approached by National efforts for State and Regional positions. I do not state this to some how promote myself to the forum or the PPA, it is clear that ship has sailed, but to simply show that almost all major players committed to trying to make an impact in '08 are well advanced in their efforts.
I have seen too many political efforts loose or discourage too many outstanding volunteers because they were not organized nor committed to developing their grassroots abilities until it was way too late.
Personally I offered to volunteer my time to do any job needed by John or the PPA from about June until now. Even if my talents are even less than 10% of those seeming recognized by others why would any group refuse almost any offers of free help?
I still do not completely buy into the PPA's board is working at somewhat cross purposes to the larger interests of the average US poker player. But any fair observer would have more questions today than ever, in fact even recent sucesses point to more problems or "evidence" to support rather than reject these concerns.
D$D
|