Does the PPA need 2+2?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi canvasbck:

[ QUOTE ]
That goal will be reached MUCH easier if organizations like 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, and whoever the [censored] else can help will work together.


[/ QUOTE ]

We would very much like to be able to work with the PPA and have certainly cooperated with them in some areas. (An example is allowing their officials to post here unrestricted as long as they identify themselves and their positions.) But we also feel, as I just mentioned in my other post, that the concerns we have might eventually hurt the cause, not help it.

As I also mentioned in one of the other recent threads, since these boards are now read by many people, some of whom may be representing non-friendly entities, I won't list out our concerns here. In fact, I'm little uncomfortable with making this post at all since we don't want to damage the PPA. However, we are trying to do what's right and what's best for poker in the long run. We're not being motivated by profit though I agree that easy access to Internet poker would certainly be to our benefit.

best wishes,
Mason

[Cactus Jack]

Mason, I don't understand something. You want the same thing the PPA wants, but haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA. You've gone from against to meh.

I know Linda Johnson and Jan Fisher quite well. Neither of them has anything but the best interests of poker in being on the board. We've talked about it. They were there at the beginning because they felt they could do something about it. At the start. They put their reputations and their money into it. Those reputations have been called into question here. If Bluffthis has any proof that the board members he mentioned by name have anything other than the best intentions, he needs to make these known. If not, he needs to shut up and go away. Again.

These two ladies have been promoting poker in the same way you have for as long. They are exceptional people with complete integrity. I'd vouch for them and I do. Bluffidiot's attacks also make it appear that this also has very much to do with 2+2 and it's feelings toward Card Player. This wouldn't be the case now, would it?

Bluffidiot has gone too far, again, and I'll make sure Linda and Jan are aware of this thread and his suggestions. What they do is up to them. TE was put into a position where he couldn't post his opinion because it might conflict with the official position of the PPA. Bluffidiot can post any opinion he wants and it appears to be the official position of 2+2. The attack dog of 2+2.

It's sad that this has been so blown out of proportion, but it has and may even get worse. Because, Mason, you don't trust us to know who we can trust. That notion is what has gotten in this whole UIGEA mess in the first place.

With all due respect,

CJ--still the official spokesman of the Democratic Party

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
We hope that the PPA is successful

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, I don't understand something. You want the same thing the PPA wants, but haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA. You've gone from against to meh.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a bit over the top.

Here is part of the cause of the problem.

"Luckily for online poker players, the stealth-like inclusion of anti-online gaming legislation did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice. The PPA immediately issued an action alert to all its Massachusetts members stating, "The Poker Players Alliance is committed to assisting Massachusetts poker players by bringing attention to this attack on our rights; however, we cannot do this alone. We need your help and are asking that you send letters to Governor Deval Patrick, your local State Representative and your State Senator." The PPA also includes linkage at its site (at www.pokerplayersalliance.org) for contacting these elected officials."

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/1...asino-bill.htm

If this forum didn't exist who knows when the PPA could have ridden in and "saved" the day. This forum borught the issue up and got action by the PPA. I doubt that Mason wants sole credit for this "sucess", as it was everyone here in some ways.

But to try and suggest that 2+2 "haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA"; is about as fair as the PPA getting full credit in the news story.

We've got to start working to fix the problem and not always trying to fix the blame (or credit). But like volunteers in all aspects you can not continue to rely on their hard work without showing them a little appreciation from time to time.


D$D

[Cactus Jack]

You think?

Who cares who gets the credit if the job gets done? People here seem to forget the purpose is to drain the swamp, not to destroy it because of a few alligators.

And to give 2+2 the credit because of this forum? That's an accident, not an intention. There is a difference. Perhaps you give credit to the phone company for providing the line to the fire department for saving your house when it's burning?

Where are people's minds, sometime? Put it on my tombstone as my last thought on humankind...DUH!

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you give credit to the phone company for providing the line to the fire department for saving your house when it's burning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this phrase, never heard it before. Twoplustwo provides this forum to make money and further their business not because they are humanitarians.

PPA has come here not because of Mason, David, etc., but because as consumers and poker enthusiasts this is where we decide to have our poker discussion.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

1.) Why should I request that they resign? I'm missing that part. Convince me. As far as voting on replacements first???? That thought in and of itself makes me doubt the intentions of the board member. .........
.
.
2.) The demand is straight forward enough, but why should they listen to me? Explain that. Give examples of organizations in similar situations that are transparent. Whats the "industry standard" for transparency? Give examples of entities in similar situations that were not transparent that ended up being fraudulent. Examples of why this is important are key to winning additional readers to your side and provides them with information to regurgitate when making the demands that you're requesting. It also helps to motivate the PPA when you can start making parallels between themselves and fraudulent organizations that behaved similarly, yet would want to distance themselves from...........
.
.



[/ QUOTE ]

We are still awaiting a coherent answer.

From Bluff's earlier post..

Write all the board members of the PPA requesting that Ms. Schulman and one other affiliate farm rep resign

Why? What sinister failing are these two guilty of? Which other rep? Demanding "one other affiliate farm rep resign" without knowing who this is and why they should go isn't very illuminating.

Again from Bluff..

Post in threads that you agree with the necessity of the above contrary to the assertions of so many other posters that they don't care, which indicates that they can't see the woods for the trees.

Which woods are we missing? Which trees are getting in the way?

Bluff, you mostly talk in riddles and don't make sense in any way except to keep whining that you don't like the board.

From Mason's post...

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. We hope that the PPA is successful, and we also hope that our concerns are not necessary.

On the other hand, we do believe that our concerns have the potential to become significant and therefore damage the cause as they are better understood by those entities which want to see online poker and Internet gambling in general severely restricted. So that's why we are only neutral towards this organization even though we do share the same goals.

Are these concerns so devastating they cannot be mentioned? You seem to indicate that FOF or some similar organization could make use of these "concerns" if they were to learn of them. Well, if they are that bad, I want to know about them. (I am sure others would too)

Tuff

Still waiting to make sense of the acrimony I see here.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
You think?

Who cares who gets the credit if the job gets done?

Where are people's minds, sometime?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is EXACTLY my point.

We have had very limited sucess defending our rights as poker players. Given the UIGEA we are worse off than we were before the PPA was formed.

Even the new and "improved" PPA is behind the curve.

In an organization and even the larger community of all poker players the PPA can not survive by continuing to operate on this basis of pimping others sucesses as its own and hoping to grow.

To a large degree the PPA is using up much of the goodwill given to an infant organization becuase "we" all hope to achieve the larger goals.

There is absolutely no reason for this now or in the future. The PPA will always be an organization dependent on the actions of volunteers. There is already a large segment of our "natural market" who will not get involved until the PPA proves itself much more.

Look this isn't some sort of mental exercise. Before I met John he asked if I was interested in the VA rep position. Because of the gypsy nature of political pros I said I'd look at it but if I got involved in a national '08 race it would likely not be a good choice.

But I did the job for awhile to see "where we were". I made the rounds of live events, made a bunch of calls, and spoke to almost every one likely IMO to be seriously involved. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the situation in N. VA and a decent picture of the larger State.

I've even taken actions that should have been done by the State Reps or the PPA HQ itself, in other States again just to see if they were being done.

I don't care rat spit who gets credit. I understand the control issues only because you need to know the ground you are working on. IMO in less than a year they will be meaningless because we will be too strong or too weak for it to matter.

So what the F have you done lately?


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

You can find my reasoning about the board in the poll thread I bumped.


Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe "the proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The PPA, starting with its former president Bolzerick (if I spelt his name correctly) has been all over this board for the past 15 months or so. We have also heard, sometimes privately, from a number of other people associated with them, including an attorney who originally organized the PPPA (which became the PPA) and one of their lobbyist. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.

As for whether we need them, I think that's a little more debatable. We want to see a successful poker industry, and if the PPA helps in that area, it's good for us. On the other hand, we should remain a successful publishing company, though perhaps a smaller version of Two Plus Two, no matter what happens.

Best wishes,
Mason