PPA Washington Fly-In October 22nd thru 24th

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally I think I get it. Bluff doesn't like the PPA because it was founded by folks who stand to benefit from any success the PPA might have.

And, I can only conclude that he feels that any such benefit is going to harm his interests in some way.

Bluff, please explain exactly how you are harmed by affiliates advancing their "narrow interests". I am also curious as to how the PPA can simultaneously promote legal poker for themselves and oppose legal poker for others.

I have a lot to learn here. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bluff and Everyone Else:

There's something I want to make clear here which I think a few of you may misunderstand. It's that we want the PPA to be an effective organization that does a great job in defending the rights and needs of poker players everywhere. (This is why we are allowing them some access here.)

But for the PPA to be effective, in my opinion, there needs to be some improvements, Specifics please. I honestly do not know what the PPA has done, or is doing, that is causing such anguish in some folks' hearts. and the lack of progress in this area should, again in my opinion, hold the PPA back from accomplishing its stated goals.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Engineer:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

When making my post, I assumed that you are not a board member. As far as I can tell, there was never any announcement on the PPA website that you were named to the board, and on their board member page you're not yet listed. Is this accurate or are you now officially on their board?

Best wishes,
mason

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Engineer:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I didn't join the board to not have a voice.

[/ QUOTE ]

When making my post, I assumed that you are not a board member. As far as I can tell, there was never any announcement on the PPA website that you were named to the board, and on their board member page you're not yet listed. Is this accurate or are you now officially on their board?

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

My comment about myself was tongue-in-cheek, of course. I didn't think you were including me in your description of the board.

I'm not yet officially on the board. It seems inevitable, as it's been announced. I'll mention it here once it's official.

Cheers,

TE

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff, please explain exactly how you are harmed by affiliates advancing their "narrow interests". I am also curious as to how the PPA can simultaneously promote legal poker for themselves and oppose legal poker for others.

I have a lot to learn here. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]


TF,

I think you are have demonstrated in this forum not only that you are very obtuse, but also that you like to make lots of sarcastic and simplistic replies when you haven't in fact studied in depth all the facets of the various issues that we discuss here. However although I have explained this countless times, including in threads where you have participated, I will do so again.

When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve, it is true that those who have a narrower range *might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals. But when they do so in a manner that not just omits those other goals, but in a way that is also at variance with same, then they do in fact harm us. And furthermore they even harm us as to the goals we do agree on because by not working on and promoting that larger range, they forgo the positive synergy that the broader range has (raise the awareness of B&M poker for example and you raise awareness of all forms of poker).

But there are two simple and easy ways to look at this. Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in. And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

And secondly, by packing the board with those narrow interests, they can allow our opponents to paint the PPA as an organization that only represents those interests, mostly foreign and offshore, instead of average *american players*. Which then can severely harm the chances for success on even that smaller range of overlapping goals.

The fact that you and many others are not even willing to acknowledge the validity of these points that are being raised in criticism of the PPA here, even if you don't weight them the same as myself and others do, speaks to a lack of good judgment on your part, perhaps driven by fear which prompts you to be a sucker and uncritically accept any help that comes along no matter if it really doesn't end up helping as much as you hope, and in fact runs the risk of actually harming your goals.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]


TF,

I think you are have demonstrated ....... However although I have explained this countless times, including in threads where you have participated, I will do so again.

When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve,


"Our" goals:

Legal US facing poker sites on which we can play without harassment, and on which we enjoy a measure of protection regarding honesty and safety of funds.

Sites where we can freely transfer funds on and off.

Sites that are free to advertise and have promotions the very same way the lotteries and horse tracks can.

These are actually a pretty narrow range of goals methinks.


it is true that those who have a narrower range

Please explain how the PPA's goals are more narrow than "Ours".

Are they advocating only selected groups be allowed to have a poker site? (One would presume "their group")

That only certain localities be allowed to have a license?

That only certain players be allowed to play?

That some sort of restriction be put on advertising or promotions?

I am only guessing here. To my knowledge you have never been specific about any of your grievances except that you loath the PPA Board.



*might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals. But when they do so in a manner that not just omits those other goals, which goals are they omitting? but in a way that is also at variance with same, then they do in fact harm us. And furthermore they even harm us as to the goals we do agree on because by not working on and promoting that larger range, which of our "larger range of goals" are they not addressing? Bear in mind they have finite resources. You seem to think you have some special claim to their time and money. they forgo the positive synergy that the broader range has (raise the awareness of B&M poker for example and you raise awareness of all forms of poker). Unless one just got back from Mars, I suspect anybody who has a farthing of interest knows all about B&M poker rooms.

But there are two simple and easy ways to look at this. Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in. Example of what they are trying to do, or failing to do, in this area that displeases you. And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

And secondly, by packing the board with those narrow interests, they can allow our opponents to paint the PPA as an organization that only represents those interests, mostly foreign and offshore, instead of average *american players*. Which then can severely harm the chances for success on even that smaller range of overlapping goals.

The fact that you and many others are not even willing to acknowledge the validity of these points that are being raised in criticism of the PPA here, even if you don't weight them the same as myself and others do, speaks to a lack of good judgment on your part, perhaps driven by fear which prompts you to be a sucker and uncritically accept any help that comes along no matter if it really doesn't end up helping as much as you hope, and in fact runs the risk of actually harming your goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of words here, but I'm not too sure you said very much. As angry as you seem to be at the PPA, you should be able to spit out your grievances in 40 words or less.

Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

So in other words you are just trolling this forum and won't respond substantively to posters who respond substantively to you?

Short enough for you?

[2easy]

Not trying to be confrontational, but I too have often wondered what specifics have transpired, or you expect to inevitably transpire, for you to be as concerned as you show yourself to be.

And I thought that Tuff's list of goals would seem to be reasonably accurate and acceptable.

So, I too am curious as to what specific actions go against the goals he stated, and to whom these subterfuges are attributable.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TF,

So in other words you are just trolling this forum and won't respond substantively to posters who respond substantively to you?

Short enough for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do have one comment about TF's position. His CA initiative very likely shuts out affiliates, yet PPA gives him front-page links on their web site, plus John Pappas has personally discussed the initiative with him.

I was actually quite curious how PPA would handle TF's proposal on a number of levels....I'm happy with their level of advocacy, and I think TF is as well (I can't speak for him, of course).

[1p0kerboy]

When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve, it is true that those who have a narrower range *might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals.

<font color="blue"> Do we really have a wider range of goals? It kind of seems to me like we are all fighting for the same thing. Can you explain further what you mean by this? </font>

Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in.

<font color="blue"> This is a pretty big assumption to make. Besides that, what makes you think they could do this, even if they wanted to?</font>

And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

<font color="blue"> When I give money to any charity or special interest group, I often do the little bit of research it takes (like reading the PPA's website) to find out what that particular company's priorities are. We all know what the PPA's priorities are. They say so on their website. I get the sense that you are trying to say that the PPA's best interest isn't that of ours as recreational players. That's a lie. </font>