[BluffTHIS!]

I've been absent for a while but I'm back, and would like to comment on this situation. Mason's position and the thoughts of various posters were detailed in the other thread, but let's summarize the situation. Mason has a neutral at best position on the PPA and won't change to positive unless issues dealing with the conflicted interests on the board, and with transparency, are first addressed in a satisfactory manner. BUT in the meantime, he is perfectly willing to let the PPA be discussed, and for official reps of same to post here as well, with no censorship of their views even when they differ from Mason's. All he has required is that those official reps like Mr. Pappas and Bryan be so identified, and that board members of the PPA be as well. That's not really a lot to ask for unlimited and uncensored access to these forums, which brings together the largest body of poker players on the net.

And again, all the Engineer has to do to address his own concerns is simply add to the PPA board member note that he is speaking his own views and not acting in that instance as an official spokesman.

"PPA board member speaking his own private viewpoints and not necessarily those of the PPA" - or someting similar.

It might be tedious, but the Engineer could simply cut & paste a standard such ending or even use an AHK script. Super easy.

I hope the Engineer doesn't get hung up on this and even if he disagrees with the demand, views it as worth complying with in order to help continue advance the work of the PPA as he has so ably done in this forum.



Now I have something to say to the rest of you professing outrage. You are the ones who by your refusal to take seriously important problems with the PPA (which admittedly are getting better though after two years of misteps and failure) who are hurting the cause we have. Instead of working to try to get two or so board members to resign (*without* first voting on their replacements), and then the newly constituted board to deal with the transparency issue, you make every excuse and sweep every criticism under the rug.

Sure you might say you understand, but how does that understanding translate into action? Have even one of you emailed Ms. Schulman asking her to resign and take one other affiliate farm interest board member with her? Or have you emailed Greg Fossilman Raymer to ask him to broker such resignations for the good of the PPA? Instead of always criticizing Mason or those other of us who have expressed concerns in the past about the PPA, why can't YOU try to do something to address these concerns instead of just demanding everyone ignore same and kowtow to the PPA *in its current state*?

And here's the main issue in all this. Either this forum and 2p2 in general (and Mason's positive endorsement) is very important to the success of the PPA or it's not. If not, then why waste words arguing against Mason's actions and the viewpoints of some of us who share his concerns? Just move on.

BUT if 2p2 is important, as I believe it is, because it has the ability like no other place on the net or in the B&M world to bring together the largest mass of poker players who can be induced to act in concert for our cause by the great efforts of posters like TheEngineer, then I would submit that you should spend as much effort seeking to remove the concerns some of us have, as you do in criticizing us. That means as I said above contacting relevant board members and asking them to resign for the good of the PPA. And it means taking seriously the board and transparency issues, which you *should* given headsup Berge gave us to the Politico article which shows our foes are trying to capitalize in typical political fashion on *any* perceived negative to deflect attention away from our arguments which they can't rebut.

Even if you think that Mason and others like myself are totally wrong, motivated in part by personal animus or whatever, the bottom line *if 2p2 is important to the PPA's success* is that you need to work on addressing those long term criticisms so that we have an internal unity, and a lack of conflicted or tainted interests that can be used against our cause by our foes.