Absolute Scandal

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, government has only attempted to prevent fraud and other cheating since the New Deal. While not a primary cause fraud, land swindling, cattle watering and stock market manipulation played a major role in the Great Depression.
I am not as certain as most that the prevention attempts by government have been effective. I do think that the government has been effective in spreading and sharing the cost of such illegality. So in that respect, IMO the intervention by government that began in the New Deal has helped in preventing another Great Depression.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government didn't help us out of the Great Depression, Hitler did that. The Feds misuse of monetary policy by elected [censored] deepened it. THe late 70s/early 80s we finally got an independant Central Bank, and that has steadied the economy. I think regulating poker for things like this is exactly what government is good for. No one else has a stick. If the [censored] hadn't run his mouth and cheated flagrantly, no one would have known. The shufflers are all rigged IMO, but I can live with that for now. The question is do we get a professional or political patronage regulatory agency. I DOUBT the govt will pay what it takes for a good one. Who smart enough to to do this would work for the govt for MAYBE 125k/yr tops? Or who smart enough that wouldnt take bribes.

[Quanah Parker]

Online poker is not regulated, and I'm not so sure that I want to see the US gov't get involved.

I feel like twoplustwo has done an amazing job of fact finding and checking, along with debunking myths and speculation. This is the result of a democratic forum where many of the posters are working together for common interest. I think forums like twoplustwo might be more powerful than many types of possible regulation.

I'm not sure how much anybody is going to be able to spin this. The cat is out of the bag, and the show is far from over.

I hate the current situation in the US as much as anyone, and I will be happy to see the day when everyone in the US can play poker easily, and when US companies can offer online poker and compete internationally.

While I find the Absolute scandal to be troubling, I'm not going to declare that the sky is falling. I think most poker players still want the same things I did last month. I want to be free to play poker online, without the US government's intrusion, and I want an environment that is friendly and inviting to everyone that might be interested.

I thank everyone at twoplustwo who's working so hard to make these things possible.

[Grasshopp3r]

My point is not "lol scandals are unavoidable", but that major scandals have happened despite the regulation. Where there is a will, there is a way. There are plenty more financial institutions that were not prosecuted, but disappeared after nobody would do business with them.

[Skallagrim]

For all those who haven't checked lately, the story has hit the MSM: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21364557/

Since there is great credit to be given to all the cyber-slueths on 2+2 who made the case, perhaps those of us in the legislation forum can come up with some good PPA press release ideas???

Perhaps "Internet Poker Community discovers and reveals cheater on Poker site, community demands recognition of online Poker as a legal activity to insure compensation to victims and help prevent future criminal acts."

First it describes the efforts of the guys who tracked it all down, and second it describes how the questions surrounding internet poker's legality could hinder the cheater from getting justice and the cheater's victims from getting restitution. Throw in some stuff about how the whole episode shows the online poker community to be smart, mostly honest, concerned and capable of policing itself.

Or come up with a better idea ... please.

Skallagrim

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd suggest that the reduction in competition resulting from UIGEA has restricted the ability of the free market to clear bad apples from the marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you are correct about this, surely you realize that the powers-to-be that are against online gambling/poker will use this as a weapon to further their cause. It's only logical that we should use it as a weapon for our cause or at least use it to partially combat their "spin" on the scandal.

They will say "Look, we told you onlie gambling was evil and here is your proof, UIGEA was a great idea and in fact we need even stronger legislation than that." For us to simply say, "Well your wrong, it has nothing to do with UIGEA" does nothing to convince the people who are on the fence over the whole issue to take our viewpoint. Rather it leaves them thinking how weak our defense is, and reporters and the public begin to believe the pro-banners.

Instead, we use it as an offense. Unfortunatley, this is how the politicians game is played. It has little to do with fairness and truth in reporting and more to do with manipulating the truth to help your cause. You either play the game by those rules, or you lose. I agree this is unfortunate in our society, but it is true.

[Legislurker]

The PPA part of this is troubling me. I really don't think we want this in the media spotlight for one. We've said its corporate and fairly clean. People aren't going to read it and know it was a rogue employee/owner. They are just going to say, Oh, the mob still runs poker. On the other hand, I still don't trust the PPA entirely to crack down on a company that pays their affiliate sites and advertizes in their magaziness. The PPA is still a Washington Lobbying group representing Im not sure what, they are NOT a player organization yet in any sense of the word. Let Casinomesiter, PSO, SBR, winneronline, etc deal with this. Even if they are affiliates as well, its what they do. Really, if I was interviewed for a story on 60 Minutes, I'd say I think its rigged or influenced in some way at all sites. I just don't think this is a way to advance what we want TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

[Skallagrim]

It will be out to the general public whether we like it or not. The question is how we respond. Erricicecream is right that this is how things are done nowadays: the best spin wins.

And I am glad 60 minutes is not looking to interview you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
It will be out to the general public whether we like it or not. The question is how we respond. Erricicecream is right that this is how things are done nowadays: the best spin wins.

And I am glad 60 minutes is not looking to interview you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you imagine he and I on Springer?!?!


D$D

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
Cheese,

It's pretty clearly a massive beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheeseio!

Good insight man!