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

[BluffTHIS!]

See the "love it or leave it" arguments above I responded to Skall.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Also because this whole thread is a joke and a another red herring attempt by you to discredit the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Discrediting current policies or board compositions isn't the same as discrediting the organization on my part. The organization can only be discredited if it refuses to change itself.


[ QUOTE ]
That is the irony -- the PPA is the only organization fighting for our (online poker players) rights yet supposed kindred spirits like you make 100s of posts criticizing them.

[/ QUOTE ]


And it's precisely when our choices are limited in vehicles to fight the opponents of poker that we should attempt to make sure we have the best possible vehicle.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
Another "troll" post to bash the PPA...

[/ QUOTE ]

[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

[Tuff_Fish]

Again i am going to advance my opinion that both Bluff and Legislurker have another agenda at work besides just wanting US online poker.

Both are entirely too vitrolic in their opposition to the PPA. I am pretty sure they feel they have something to lose with passage of something akin to the Wexler Bill.

By contrast, Mason, who seems to have quite a bit of trouble with the PPA too, generally says his piece and lets it go.

Bluff and Legislurker are probably associated with some sort of business entities that would be hurt by PPA success. whether those be competing affiliates, some offshore sites, or whatever.

I say if they look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and generally behave like ducks, then they are most likely ducks, whatever they might claim otherwise.

Just my personal take.

Tuff

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
Again i am going to advance my opinion that both Bluff and Legislurker have another agenda at work besides just wanting US online poker.

Both are entirely too vitrolic in their opposition to the PPA. I am pretty sure they feel they have something to lose with passage of something akin to the Wexler Bill.



Bluff and Legislurker are probably associated with some sort of business entities that would be hurt by PPA success. whether those be competing affiliates, some offshore sites, or whatever.



Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit the nail on the head, and I think you are 100% right. Somthing is very rotten in Denmark about the way they are acting. They have something to hide, they won't admit it, but I am sure they do.

[BluffTHIS!]

I am going to crosspost and comment on a postTheEngineer posted in the PPA forums:

[ QUOTE ]
A poster on 2+2 has commented on RayBonnert's participation. Unlike some poker forums, this forum does NOT censor for ideas. We're not afraid of dissenting opinions.

We do have rules that we expect to be followed, which I spelled out for RayBonnert. He has followed them in his posts. The 2+2 poster pointed out that RayBonnert's profile violates our T&Cs. I'm unclear as to why he posted it on 2+2 rather than posting his concerns here, but we did happen to see the post.

Last night I sent RayBonnert notification that he needs to update his profile. I just sent him a clarification of our requirements He has until noon to comply.

[/ QUOTE ]


Comments:

1)This forum's owners aren't afraid of dissenting opinions either. However they do require standards in manner in which one expresses that dissent.

As to my own views, I don't believe discussion of cheating in a positive manner, which is what botting is, is something that should be condoned on a poker forum dedicated to honest standards of play.

2) Yeah the guy "complied". He now has a link to a different bot page. Same damn thing. He's still using his profile there to advertise a botting "championship" site which is nothing other than a marketing gimmick to sell his program and services.

3) I am unclear on why TE is unclear on why I don't post there but I'll make it crystal now: THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO TRAFFIC ON THOSE FORUMS. Which means *this* is the venue to discuss the PPA. However maybe TE will be successful in getting P5s to host a leg forum as he requested and he can *try* to move discussion to where there is only happy spin and no critics.



Now Engineer, I know you're going to read this, so I would request that you come back here and do what you do best, i.e. action letter writing plans. Just go back to the "truce" that was in effect before you felt it necessary to demand certain actions of Mason, while at the same time not demanding changes in the PPA. You are generally free to say what you wish here in a professional manner, so there is *no truth* in saying you are being censored. You can come back here and be effective for the PPA by reaching 10s of thousands, or you can stay there and reach handfuls. It's up to you.

You are a valued and wanted poster here.

[LesJ]

Your olive branch, as expected, is full of thorns.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Your olive branch, as expected, is full of thorns.

[/ QUOTE ]


Look are we little children here or what? You want all sugar and no criticism. You and others are trying to silence legitimate criticism with "love it or leave it" and "it's the only thing going" arguments and they won't wash. It's not black and white just because you don't want to shade it to gray.

Although I was sincere in saying I value TE and want him back here where he can be effective, that doesn't mean I am going to just agree with the PPA in its current form and quit lobbying for internal changes which are needed, even if a majority of posters here don't agree.

And the bottom line is that this is politics which includes the politics internal to a given faction. It's not for the faint hearted. Maybe TE really doesn't have the stomach for it and needs constant unqualified praise and reinforcement, but I hope that's not the case. And it's just pathetic to waste time posting in a venue that get no traffic.

If TE is only willing to return on his terms, which means Mason and myself and others caving 100% with no concession from the vested interests that run the board, then I guess he won't return. But it would be shame because he is valued here and this is the place where his talents can be used for greatest effect.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Again i am going to advance my opinion that both Bluff and Legislurker have another agenda at work besides just wanting US online poker.

Both are entirely too vitrolic in their opposition to the PPA. I am pretty sure they feel they have something to lose with passage of something akin to the Wexler Bill.

By contrast, Mason, who seems to have quite a bit of trouble with the PPA too, generally says his piece and lets it go.

Bluff and Legislurker are probably associated with some sort of business entities that would be hurt by PPA success. whether those be competing affiliates, some offshore sites, or whatever.

I say if they look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and generally behave like ducks, then they are most likely ducks, whatever they might claim otherwise.

Just my personal take.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no affiliate site. I haven't ran a home poker game in ten years. I work for no poker room, online or real. I just happen to believe in integrity, openness and truth. If you read what TT posted on one thread about a true player's association, thats what I want. Im a self-interested subsistence poker player. I want lower rakes, better RB, generous bonuses and freerolls, and a wide open gaming market for poker, sports, and casinos. I don't know BT at all. In fact, I don't know anyone who posts in this forum.
If that conflicts me out fron honestly critiquing the PPA, then so be it, Ill post poker PLAYER in my profile and accept a new name colour. My vitriol if you want to call it that comes from the fact that the PPA claims to be what it is not, a poker players' alliance. Its akin to GWB calling himself a christian. Except there is a simple remedy for the PPA. Divulge some power and control to players. Why the [censored] not? Is the PPA truly afraid of what poker players would do with their own organization? They don't even have to reliquish control now. Just put a plan in place to transition to a dmeocratic organization. I don't want a job
there, I don't want a seat on the board, I dont want much of nothing at all but to be left alone to play poker. I really don't see why the PPA is so obstinate about opening itself up. Someone must want to control its future and control what is "allowed" and "not allowed". If you want to be a damned sheep and back their agenda blindly, go ahead. I'll put my faith in Jay Cohen, the courts, and the internet. It would be so easy for the PPA to co-opt a broad movement, but it refuses.