Crticism of the PPA and its effects

[hollaballa]

Sweet, I just found the "ignore this user" button.

Awesome. Later dude.

[Our House]

If I knew Bluff's IRL name and address, how much could I get for it? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[dc_publius]

Too many people here confuse public advocacy with lobbying.

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
If I knew Bluff's IRL name and address, how much could I get for it? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, shoot it over to cardplayer and you could probably get a decent chunk.

[faustusmedea]

One of the things I think most folks miss is a little longer perspective. Online poker grew up the way it did; we cannot change that and because it was so lucrative for so many, a lot of folks really didn't want to change it. But there are a couple of issues which would become major once any significant discussion about regulation occurred.

First, the rake is onerous. Say what you want about startup costs, the rake is far too much based on the economies of scale and ability to multitable. This is a player's issue which stands in direct opposition to a site's issues. Most casual players do not think about the rake much and those who do were rewarded with rakeback programs. I don't believe that strategy goes hand in hand with the long term health of the game.

Second, players funds constitute a large and valuable financial pool. When I deposit moneys into Etrade (or wherever), I can expect them to earn interest when they are not being invested by me. Again, players have one interest, sites have another here.

Finally there is the whole area of financial security which has been highlighted recently. While I believe the government would force security on the sites in a regulatory discussion, it might not tip towards players much as recent bankruptcy laws tilted dramatically towards credit issuers.

A player's organization is needed; I don't believe the PPA is such.

[Petomane]

If only the PPA posted here and told us what they're doing. I recall getting a bonus from Party last year to join up and so far the PPA has done nothing. A post from Bolcerek saying it'll be an exciting year doesn't quite cut it.

I think this is an issue of the freedom of the Internet - what we do in the privacy of our homes is nobody's business, providing we do no harm.

The IRS is going after E-Bay now, pressuring them to hand over records. It's not E-Bay's business to inform the IRS, it's up to individuals to report their income.

Technology has changed the way the world works, but the protectionist federal government still thinks it's 1961 (the Wire Act).

If poker is banned, what's next?

We don't need poker to be "regulated" by congress, we need it to be left alone. It's not their business.

This is clearly a fight against prohibition. Lobbying congresspeople for "special extemptions" is acknowledging that they have jurisdiction in cyberspace, which they don't. Cyberspace is for the whole world - if arcane local laws of every country started applying to the Internet, the whole thing would come to a screeching halt.

The PPA has failed to inform anyone what their game plan is.

[Skallagrim]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In accord with that principal, refusing to support the PPA and encouraging others not to support it (for whatever reason) only helps the enemy.

Of course that shouldnt stop criticism of the PPA ... but please stop bashing it.

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is that you don't want the PPA to change. You are obseesed with the drama associated with finding flaws and pointing out defects.

[/ QUOTE ]

[faustusmedea]

>> In accord with that principal, refusing to support the PPA and encouraging others not to support it (for whatever reason) only helps the enemy.

We don't live in a black/white world, so these kinds of statements are not helpful and incongruent with our needs as players. Right now, there is no enemy. Some zealous rightwingers were able to finally push through some additional legislation last year which put an additional overhang on the game but did not outlaw it.

The fact is that gambling in America is viewed by many as less than desirable, so if you really want to frame the issue in your terms, the enemy are those folks. Unfortunately, you might be surprised they comprise a significant portion of the population.

What none of us know at this point is how the short/medium term is going to shape up. We don't understand how the B&M companies are going to proceed, we don't know how aligned the online sites are with each other, we don't know how Justice/Treasury is going to implement the act, we don't know if there will be more arrests, we don't know a lot.

We know what we want (to play cards). For some, its enough that ANYBODY is taking up the fight and thus deserve our support. As a winning card player, you know to seek edges and to get as much value out of every hand. Because of the lack of transparency, the seeming alignment with the online sites, the lack of productive communication, the organization being discussed has set itself up to be questioned. What is even stranger is they actually seem to be comfortable letting anonymous internet posters carry the spear of message delivery and communications (something which has hurt the organization immeasurably).

My belief is the time has come for the players to unite and create the Players Organization as opposed to the Poker Site Alliance. In some cases the organizations could end up working together and in others they may actually be in opposition, but one thing is clear, the players need to take this opportunity to create an organization or we will continue to be at somebody else's mercy.

[Mondogarage]

I don't think the PPA has any obligation to post *here* necessarily -- however, they are well aware that their opaquness is a big reason why a lot of potential supporters and members are not willing to join.

There is nothing stopping, say, Allyn Jaffrey Shulman from actually writing up in clear consice fact where the PPA gets it's financial support from, in what amounts and percentages, and *specific* actions the PPA is undertaking.

After all, she's on the bloody board, and has far more specific information than 99.9% of the rest of us. As for "confidentiality provisions", there is no reason the board can't willfully leak, just as they did when they selectively leaked they were negotiating with DiAmato (who, I think, would be a potentially effective lobbyist in this regard).

In other words, there really is no reason whatsoever why the PPA could not satisfy the concerns of many, including many 2+2ers, other than the fact they strategically think it is in the PPA's best interests to be secretive. Rather, it's in the interests of the PPA's actual biggest supports to keep the PPA secretive. That is certainly their right, and I neither encourage nor discourage anyone to join. However, they do this knowing they are actively taking steps to turn away a potential large group of support that would otherwise support thier aims.

Remember, it is not:

1. Establish PPA.
2. Hire Al DiAmato
3. ?????
4. Profit!

Just doesn't work like that. Especially when you're trying to affect legislation that has already been made law.

As for the banks whining...thinking the banks are on their side just because UIGEA compliance costs is a silly assertion. The banks never tried to get RICO statutes rolled back, just because it costs them money to help protect against money laundering.

The crux of it is, this is an uphill battle for online poker in the US. And if the PPA *truly* wanted the support of the entire US online poker playing community, they would not follow a path that will inherently keep some of that support away, not unless they were benefitting more in other ways, by not having that support. (e.g., if Harrah's were actually bankrolling them, they don't really need the donations, and $$$ is more important in a lobbying effort than a list of names...particularly when a good % of those names aren't even American citizens.)