Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
JPF,
Read the last part of my quoted post above about even if you think we're wrong. Perception is often more important in politics than facts.
And how exactly does the PPA not need 2p2? Do they have a forum of their own with *viable* traffic? No. Do they have any other venue where they can quickly reach thousands of member poker players who are willing to act? No. At least not if the alternative is a mass email that isn't able to target the most active of their membership. Does the PPA have any other place where there are industry and politics insiders and knowledgeable attorneys whose brains can be picked? Not that I'm aware of.
I suggest that if you and others are going to take a "I'm not sure" position in response to Berge's question, that you should instead quantify that. 2p2 has to be important on a scale of 1 to 10. When you know precisely where on that scale 2p2 is, then you know also how much effort and accomodation should be made to the concerns of posters on 2p2 and Mason himself.
And tell me something else. Even if you don't personally have a problem with the PPA board being dominated by online affiliate farm interests who cannot benefit from, and thus are less likely to see the PPA help promote, certain forms of poker like intra-state and B&M, would you if you were one of those board members be willing to resign for the good of the PPA? The higher up the scale of importance of 2p2 to the PPA, then the more willing you *should* be to do so.
|