What I Would Like to See From the PPA (and 2+2)

[BluffTHIS!]

If this debate about Professor Rose or other specific persons gets real drawn out, perhaps a separate thread would be in order to discuss just who should be on the board of the PPA.

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress will not take the lobbying power of an organization that represents THE PEOPLE seriously. Congress won't take the lobbying power of an organization that was created by Party Poker to represent the industry by masquerading as an organization to represent the people seriously.

Getting a carve out is serious business. We need the right people representing us the right way or it will never happen. IMHO anyone who doesn't stand up and question how the PPA operates at this stage is actually hurting the game of poker, not helping it. BluffThis!! will go down in history as a person who helped archive the end goal, don't you want to do the same?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me here TT.

Do you think the Horse industry got to congress with a group of THE PEOPLE.

Ah...no, things get done in DC with money and power....I don't think you understand that.

Your point is a lobbying interest group needs to appear independent to be effective.

You're premise is just wrong and uninformed.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress will not take the lobbying power of an organization that represents THE PEOPLE seriously. Congress won't take the lobbying power of an organization that was created by Party Poker to represent the industry by masquerading as an organization to represent the people seriously.

Getting a carve out is serious business. We need the right people representing us the right way or it will never happen. IMHO anyone who doesn't stand up and question how the PPA operates at this stage is actually hurting the game of poker, not helping it. BluffThis!! will go down in history as a person who helped archive the end goal, don't you want to do the same?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me here TT.

Do you think the Horse industry got to congress with a group of THE PEOPLE.

Ah...no, things get done in DC with money and power....I don't think you understand that.

Your point is a lobbying interest group needs to appear independent to be effective.

You're premise is just wrong and uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horseracing had a legitimate B&M industry that was regulated by the government for for than a century when they got their carve-out. Horse racing at the time was perceived to be a legitimate industry. Poker does not have that same perception, it is perceived to be a pastime not an industry. There is no B&M equivalent to the companies who were operating in the US before the UGIA was passed, and many are currently perceived (I am using the word perceived intentionally) to be operating illegally now. It is not in our best interest to allow companies that are viewed as criminal enterprises located in foreign territories lobby on our behalf, it takes more money and power to have the wishes of a criminal enterprise change the views of Congress than any of us could ever produce. Therefore our best oportunity is to lobby Congress with an autonomous entity that represents the people, the players interests. Don't you see that this is a significant reason why 2+2 has not endorsed the PPA yet?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress will not take the lobbying power of an organization that represents THE PEOPLE seriously. Congress won't take the lobbying power of an organization that was created by Party Poker to represent the industry by masquerading as an organization to represent the people seriously.

Getting a carve out is serious business. We need the right people representing us the right way or it will never happen. IMHO anyone who doesn't stand up and question how the PPA operates at this stage is actually hurting the game of poker, not helping it. BluffThis!! will go down in history as a person who helped archive the end goal, don't you want to do the same?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me here TT.

Do you think the Horse industry got to congress with a group of THE PEOPLE.

Ah...no, things get done in DC with money and power....I don't think you understand that.

Your point is a lobbying interest group needs to appear independent to be effective.

You're premise is just wrong and uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horseracing had a legitimate B&M industry that was regulated by the government for for than a century when they got their carve-out. Horse racing at the time was perceived to be a legitimate industry. Poker does not have that same perception, it is perceived to be a pastime not an industry. There is no B&M equivalent to the companies who were operating in the US before the UGIA was passed, and many are currently perceived (I am using the word perceived intentionally) to be operating illegally now. It is not in our best interest to allow companies that are viewed as criminal enterprises located in foreign territories lobby on our behalf, it takes more money and power to have the wishes of a criminal enterprise change the views of Congress than any of us could ever produce. Therefore our best oportunity is to lobby Congress with an autonomous entity that represents the people, the players interests. Don't you see that this is a significant reason why 2+2 has not endorsed the PPA yet?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the difference between horse tracks who've been around for a long time to now be able to offer their product over the internet versus MGM being able to offer their product over the internet.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress will not take the lobbying power of an organization that represents THE PEOPLE seriously. Congress won't take the lobbying power of an organization that was created by Party Poker to represent the industry by masquerading as an organization to represent the people seriously.

Getting a carve out is serious business. We need the right people representing us the right way or it will never happen. IMHO anyone who doesn't stand up and question how the PPA operates at this stage is actually hurting the game of poker, not helping it. BluffThis!! will go down in history as a person who helped archive the end goal, don't you want to do the same?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me here TT.

Do you think the Horse industry got to congress with a group of THE PEOPLE.

Ah...no, things get done in DC with money and power....I don't think you understand that.

Your point is a lobbying interest group needs to appear independent to be effective.

You're premise is just wrong and uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horseracing had a legitimate B&M industry that was regulated by the government for for than a century when they got their carve-out. Horse racing at the time was perceived to be a legitimate industry. Poker does not have that same perception, it is perceived to be a pastime not an industry. There is no B&M equivalent to the companies who were operating in the US before the UGIA was passed, and many are currently perceived (I am using the word perceived intentionally) to be operating illegally now. It is not in our best interest to allow companies that are viewed as criminal enterprises located in foreign territories lobby on our behalf, it takes more money and power to have the wishes of a criminal enterprise change the views of Congress than any of us could ever produce. Therefore our best oportunity is to lobby Congress with an autonomous entity that represents the people, the players interests. Don't you see that this is a significant reason why 2+2 has not endorsed the PPA yet?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the difference between horse tracks who've been around for a long time to now be able to offer their product over the internet versus MGM being able to offer their product over the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

MGM has chosen to abstain from this fight, it is not in their best interests. Yet.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nelson Rose is a terrible choice, in my opinion. He has no reason to fight for poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Show me your reasons why. A blind statement like that is pointless without facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What interest does he have in poker? He's a gambling law professor with his own business that runs deep into all forms of gambling. he has no vested interest in poker specifically.

If anything, he would more likely be against a specific carveout for personal and business reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean someone with specialist legal expertise? Good choice in a diverse board.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that at least a couple of these ideas/concepts are already in play in one form or another.


[/ QUOTE ]


Les,

Can you comment further on the above remark?

[/ QUOTE ]


Les,

You still around? I would still be interested in your answering the above question.



Note to other posters: this thread got sidetracked a little with discussions of whom should be on the PPA board. Please make comments on that in the other thread: How the PPA's board should be composed

[LesJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that at least a couple of these ideas/concepts are already in play in one form or another.


[/ QUOTE ]


Les,

Can you comment further on the above remark?

[/ QUOTE ]


Les,

You still around? I would still be interested in your answering the above question.



Note to other posters: this thread got sidetracked a little with discussions of whom should be on the PPA board. Please make comments on that in the other thread: How the PPA's board should be composed

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

I guess I missed that post a few days ago. I apologize. I will post in this thread as well as your "Board of Directors" thread before I head off to bed tonight.

I guess the biggest area I am knowledgable about at this point that I know is being worked on is Point #5 "5) Reorganize/expand the PPA's website."

In 5-A, you suggest that the PPA take their forums private so that the "board and the members of the advisory panels to discuss issues and strategy privately." When the State Directors were put in place, we began testing a forum thru "People Aggregator." There is a forum dedicated to just the State Directors and PPA leadership which will hopefully be used for just the type of thing you suggested.

There is also a forum and blog for each State Director to run. It is our duty as State Directors to keep our blogs and forums updated. It is planned to incorporate this network into the main PPA site in the coming months, but there seem to be some issues with the functionality of the site to work out, imho. As soon as I finish these posts, I am going to fire off an email to Randy Lau, who seems to be my main point of contact with the PPA, to share some of my concerns with this network as it exists right now.

You also state that the current PPA forum is a "wasteland" and should be eliminated. It is lightly used right now, but is also difficult to even find. I will suggest that when links to these "state specific" forums go up, that they are much more prominent on the site, to increase traffic, input, and potential volunteerism.

"5-b) Provide a comprehensive information resource for state organizations, friendly legislators and the media"

I know that a State Director "Starter Kit" is in the works right now to provide us with standardized material and talking points to share with other poker players, legistlators and the media.

Thanks for your input, Bluff. You have several good ideas that will definetly be passed on.

Les

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not in our best interest to allow companies that are viewed as criminal enterprises located in foreign territories lobby on our behalf,
TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There's really only one practical way to legal internet poker in the US, and it involves licensing US companies at the state level.

No Federal legislation is going to accomplish legal internet gambling in the US. There's no precedent for stripping this power from the states, it may not be constitutional, and even if it is, as a practical matter, as a political matter, it's impossible.

What the internet sites want is not legal internet gambling, what they want is a rollback on enforcement.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.

What the internet sites want is not legal internet gambling, what they want is a rollback on enforcement.

.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this is also what 90% of the kids on these forums want. It is tough to get a coherent plan together when most of the folks involved want something that is undoable.

But keep up the good fight none the less. You are completely correct in that the breakthrough will come at the state level.

Anybody know the current status of the North Dakota effort?

Tuff