[BluffTHIS!]

Mass,

You ask some fair questions which I will be happy to answer, even though they are repeating things I've said before.



[ QUOTE ]
I honestly believe that the PPA Board of Directors represents a wide array and broad range of poker players and poker playing business interests. The PPA Board even consists of one of our own (The Engineer). The area that you seem to focus on is what you refer to as "affiliate farm Board members". As distatsteful, and disconcerting as this may be to you, they still represent an interest in the very survival of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have never said that any certain industry or player interest shouldn't have board representation, and that includes affiliate farm and publishing interests. However I do have a huge problem with any one such interest dominating the board which IS the case now.


[ QUOTE ]
Bluff, you seem so very hung up on this issue that it begs the question as to what YOUR personal motivations are to eliminate these Board members from the equation? Before you answer that question, let me answer the question as to what MY motivation is as a PPA State Rep; I am passionate about poker...absolutely love the game heart and soul. I play live and online daily and I dare say that I've gone through 2 keyboards and a mouse in the process. You see, my motivation is purely for the love of the game. It isn't about money, greed or power...It's about preserving MY right to play the game that I love and the freedom to do so wherever and whenever I choose to (and if others benefit from my personal pursuit to preserve, protect and expand the rights of poker players, then that's just GREAT, too!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I'm repeating but here goes:

I play fulltime online and hate the hypocrisy involved all across our country on the issue of gambling. So I have not only a financial interest as a player, but also the interest of a citizen who doesn't like his rights trampled in a hypocritical manner. And this hypocrisy is precisely one where certain forms of gambling are favored, while others are made illegal, solely to benefit those favored interests, whether they are state lotteries or B&M casino interests as have been trying to screw online players in your state.

BUT, I want the FULLEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF PLAYING OPTIONS, even if they aren't what I currently play. That means online as now, intra-state online and B&M. And none of us if we have an ounce of sense will trust any one vested industry group to give us that full range instead of only seeking to benefit their own business models and erecting barriers to entry against others.

In the case of the PPA, while it is true that with the exception of one ad campaign they haven't worked against those other forms, neither are they working for them. Errors of omission. So that is why I want 2 or 3 current board members off the board and replaced with others so that it has the incentive to work for all forms of poker and all the interests of the player members. Again however I note that obviously priorities have to be made as with the current legislation. But still the lesser priorities have to also be worked on some especially because they take even longer to achieve.

And also I will state again that my interest is that the PPA not be harmed by our foes being able to paint it merely as an industry trade group, rather than the large interest group of average citizens who want to play poker in every possible venue that it purports to be.


[ QUOTE ]
I weighed the pros and cons of having affiliate farm board representation of the PPA and I came to the conclusion that they, too, represent a specific interest in the poker industry and IMO, they have as much right to a seat on the Board as anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I don't have a problem with their having a seat at the table, just a problem with their having a majority of those seats. And as well I have a problem with husband/wife or domestic partner teams being on the board since it obviously means a high probability if not certainty of not thinking and acting independently.


[ QUOTE ]
So long as the board member(s) are championing for the same cause as I am, I could care less as to their motivations or business interest for monetary gains. The fact is, we will get to the same end result.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my goal is ten apples and ten oranges and yours in only 10 apples, sure we have a certain commonality of interest. But all my interests aren't being represented if you set the goal to only your own personal interest. That is the point here with a lopsided board dominated by a certain industry interest, and which isn't representative of average players across the country who have a wide spectrum of poker forms they wish to see advanced.

The bottom line is that just because your own personal interests, or even those of a majority of posters here, are being served, doesn't mean the rest of us should be satisfied with your dictating and limiting our results.

Finally I will bring up another issue which is transparency. Filing required forms with the government is NOT transparency despite the ridiculous assertions to the contrary by some posters here recently. This also is a big issue that can come back to haunt the PPA and its efforts. And it is the *current board dominated by affiliate farm interests* that refuses to implement better transparency and thus hold themselves accountable to the membership.

I would urge you as a state rep to work with other state reps to bring about a better board composition not dominated by one industry business model, and to achieve true transparency and accountability. Believe it or not I don't like these endless debates. But the majority of the current board has shown close to zero willingness to act on these issues, even though they have true enough worked on better political efforts with Mr. Pappas' appointment. The PPA, *if it is to be a true grassroots organization*, should be a bottom up and not top down organization. You state reps should elect the board and not it be self-appointing to the benefit of the dominant industry group that currently controls it. The very fact that they use the PPA in this manner shows their unfitness to serve *in absence of any demonstrated proof certain such members are critical to the success of the PPA*, which hasn't even been argued by anyone here, let alone proved.

I and other critics here sincerely want us to have internal unity to be maximally effective. But it is the recalcitrant conflicted interest majority on the board that is standing in way of same, not us.