Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[BluffTHIS!]

If you go to what the PPA calls a forum, which is really a tumbleweed net town, you can find a profile for this poster. He is the writer and seller of the most popular bot program available. To my mind, and apparently most 2p2'ers would agree in consideration of past discussions in the zoo, this guy and all bot users are scumbags. This guy specifically has been banned multiple times on 2+2 under various posting accounts. Yet apparently he is welcomed with open arms by the PPA.

Despite the fact that Annie Duke used a bot argument as proof of poker being a skill game, that use, even if mathematically valid, was a very ill chosen one. Second only to the kind of fraud/cheating shown in the Absolute situation, bot use has more potential to harm the reputation of online poker than anything else, in the minds of the average joe player.

So why is this scumbag given a haven in the PPA forums? If the answer is that he is a member, then I submit that his membership dues if he paid them, should be refunded, and that his membership and posting privileges in their forum should be canceled. Having botters affiliated with any poker organization is akin to allowing a bank robber to join a credit union.

[Fedorfan]

i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[BluffTHIS!]

He is now free to return. Surely he can come back and do his thing without making demands of Mason or directing snide comments his way. But if he would rather talk to the tumbleweeds instead of the thousands of PPA members here, that's his choice.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
or directing snide comments his way.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please, whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

I happen to agree with you about the bot issue. What I am curious about though is this: I can understand constructive criticism of the PPA, but you seem to relish taking pot shots and crapping on it whenever possible. Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[BluffTHIS!]

LF,

I take botting very seriously. I didn't go to the PPA forum looking for something to bash them over. But when I saw that guy was a poster there, I felt I had to bring the issue to everyone's attention here.

As to your "better off" question, I would submit the question is actually whether we are better off with the PPA and its goals as it exists now, versus a different PPA or other organization. The choice isn't just a black and white, "PPA or no PPA" one, though that is what the affiliate farm interests who control the board would like us to believe to perpetuate their control and lack of transparency.

[LeapFrog]

BT, again, I agree with you about the Bot issue. I think it is ok to discuss the use of computer programs to prove skill, but I don't think it is to the PPAs benefit to even 'be seen in the same room' as the maker of a bot program.

My issue was that fact that you seem to take every opportunity to bash the PPA even when it doesn't relate to the topic at hand (see unnecessary tumbleweed reference).

BT, I believe that we are at a time critical juncture for online poker. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for the creation a 'perfect' grassroots organization headed (and funded) by poker playing soccer moms.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
LF,

I take botting very seriously. I didn't go to the PPA forum looking for something to bash them over. But when I saw that guy was a poster there, I felt I had to bring the issue to everyone's attention here.

As to your "better off" question, I would submit the question is actually whether we are better off with the PPA and its goals as it exists now, versus a different PPA or other organization. The choice isn't just a black and white, "PPA or no PPA" one, though that is what the affiliate farm interests who control the board would like us to believe to perpetuate their control and lack of transparency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the argument that the PPA has too much on its plate and must prioritize sucks. I hate having it used on me.

But even as an identified PPA critic, this is a little over the top. The forum there is what it is, now if he had been appointed even a State position or allowed to moderate a sub-forum, i.e. given some credibility or backing by the PPA I'd be screaming right with you.

As it is this is a non-issue IMO.


D$D

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

oddly many in the business community, some poker rooms and some pros think so. Most chose to remain silent because its not a popular thing to discuss. BluffThis is one of the few people whop are willing to go out on a limb to point out the hypocrisies, I think he should be applauded. Sure like most of you I dont always agree with how he does it, but it needs to be said none the less.

some thoughts -

1) If poker is carved out then the all the sites as we currently know them will likely have to sell to third parties in order to operate int the US

2) Poker will never be legislated so it is controlled by the feds, it is currently - and will likely remain - under the jurisdiction of individual states.

3) The PPA has too many ties to the needs of poker rooms, and not enough ties to the needs of players. Perhaps in the PPA called itself the PIA - Poker Industry Association - Bluff This and many others who chose to remain silent would have fewer complaints?

4) The best thing for us would be for the foundation of a true poker PLAYERS association which fought for our rights on a regional as well as national level - fighting for our rights on many causes while lobbying congress and providing healthcare benefits. Of course I dont think this is realistic and I am not expecting miracles, but that would be the ideal solution. The PPA has too many conflicts of interest to make this happen.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

oddly many in the business community, some poker rooms and some pros think so. Most chose to remain silent because its not a popular thing to discuss. BluffThis is one of the few people whop are willing to go out on a limb to point out the hypocrisies, I think he should be applauded. Sure like most of you I dont always agree with how he does it, but it needs to be said none the less.

some thoughts -

1) If poker is carved out then the all the sites as we currently know them will likely have to sell to third parties in order to operate int the US

2) Poker will never be legislated so it is controlled by the feds, it is currently - and will likely remain - under the jurisdiction of individual states.

3) The PPA has too many ties to the needs of poker rooms, and not enough ties to the needs of players. Perhaps in the PPA called itself the PIA - Poker Industry Association - Bluff This and many others who chose to remain silent would have fewer complaints?

4) The best thing for us would be for the foundation of a true poker PLAYERS association which fought for our rights on a regional as well as national level - fighting for our rights on many causes while lobbying congress and providing healthcare benefits. Of course I dont think this is realistic and I am not expecting miracles, but that would be the ideal solution. The PPA has too many conflicts of interest to make this happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the powers that control the PPA wouldn't be willing to relinquish control ever so it could become a player's association? Thats my opinion, I just don't want it to be true. It would really help our cause if we could have some pros make some statements against the PPA's current incarnation. I guess the cosy deals they have with the sites may prohibit that, but anything to prod the PPA to reform. Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't generally QFT, but this is an exception. QFT