Which Groups *DO NOT* Deserve a Seat on the PPA Board?

[BluffTHIS!]

I have discussed many times the composition of the PPA board and why I feel it is in drastic need of being revamped in order to give it a broad range of relevant and competent expertise that it needs to have the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.

The poll I am including here is an attempt to see which of those industry concerns *are least deserving or undeserving* of representation on the PPA board. I have enabled the ability to vote for two choices. Also if you please, you can post and give your reasons for your votes. It would especially be enlightening if such reasoning included what a specific industry groups brings to the table that helps the cause of poker, and what it brings that harms the cause of poker. Or rather, is a specific concern benefiting the PPA and the goals that its members have in some way, or is it only interested in its own self-interest (specific business models again).

[Berge20]

Can I pick more than 2 please?

[BluffTHIS!]

Uh no. Otherwise it wouldn't be specific enough.


Note: I got asked via PM what an affiliate farm is. Affiliate farm is the name often given to mega-affiliates that are affiliates for multiple sites, and/or also have large networks of sub-affiliates, similar to network marketing type of organizations.

[pokerg1]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I pick more than 2 please?

[/ QUOTE ][/list]pick3

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have discussed many times the composition of the PPA board and why I feel it is in drastic need of being revamped in order to give it a broad range of relevant and competent expertise that it needs to have the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.



[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO your entire question is not only out of line it is based on a false premise.

Do the current board members deserve to be there?

Well let’s see? They stood up when asked to join. I don't know how much seed money they were required to personally contribute or "bring to the table" but that is usually the buy-in to be dealt a hand at a board room table like this.

Your premise is in effect an attempted proxy fight. You think the board sucks. I get that.

But what do you usually need in a proxy fight to win?

You have to show that the current board and management are unfit and its actions have hurt the organization.

Other than expressing your dislike of the current board, or demanding certain people be replacing by your own personal slate or possibly one chosen in this forum, what exactly are you getting at?

You have yet to show any harm to the poker world done by the PPA to date. You might have a mismanagement claim, which I might have supported before the board made the changes it has recently. We've got a new HQ location, a new Ex. Dir., even a new board member from "our" ranks. The PPA's KY participation is under serious discussion based on a cost vs. reward basis. Efforts are already under way with the e-mail TE posted to get an initial gauge of interest and I imagine see how good the e-mail list is. TE says the PPA is going to address the new IRS reg. Efforts are well underway to have a meaningful marking of the Anniversary of the UIGEA. I'm told the member questionnaire John promised to send out to the members is out or on it's way. John came here and posted. He's answered questions, e-mails, and had a meeting with me. I don't know and didn't ask how many others he's met with. Let alone the thousands things the PPA is doing that I know nothing about. These are all positives aren't they?

Where is the damage? What would your dream board do differently or what would you have them do differently, that is much different than is currently underway?

You act like there was a secret conspiracy to keep certain poker interests off the board. Do you have any proof of this? You act like the interests of certain aspects of the poker industry are being harmed by the PPA; can you point to specific actions?

As I posted once before, sometime around the age of four I pretty much gave up on the idea that I was ever going to get everything I wanted all of the time. Hell you know I've posted that I'm a lifelong Republican. I volunteered over 250 hours in 16 weeks in a Presidential campaign. I knew I'd been doing a lot, but it was my wife who told me how many hours I'd donated. Yes that's about a year of 40 hour work weeks in less than a quarter of a year. I’ve done a lot of work since then that was below my going rate. Even the Federal job I reluctantly accepted was taken at a pay cut to what I’d been making before taking it. Am I totally happy with everything the party does all the time?

What the hell am I doing as a lifelong Republican? Am I off to KY to do everything I can to try and save a fellow Republican? No I want to burry the SOB so deep they will need part of the Rockies to fill the hole! Yeah I think the PPA can mobilize the effort to make a mark on National politics in KY for poker. At this point in my life if I could afford to go down their on my own dime, I’d already be there! 3 kids, one in College will cause you to loose a little of your freedoms. Perhaps if I hadn’t given so much to the GOP and wasn’t getting to the point where the AARP sends you that nasty birthday card on your 50th I’d go anyway. Maybe if I was a better poker player I could afford to go. Hey anyone want to stake me??? John Pappas are you reading this? I bet it would be a positive ROI and likely return your staking in the form of new member donations….

I'd say this to you. Can you show me proof that there were people willing to step up and join the effort in a meaningful way when the PPA was formed but were denied a seat at the table? No I don't mean that they might not have had their butts kissed enough or given enough control to bother getting involved, I mean being told NO.

Can you show me other than through past mismanagement where the interests of any portion of the poker world was disserved or one portion given special favor over the competing interest of another?

You want to wage a proxy fight, let’s get it all out in the open. What is your claim to the "throne" why do you or what ever interest you represent or think isn't represented should be given control now? While you are at it tell me what they'd do differently. Give me a compelling list of reasons. I'm either a reasonable person or you might suggest one that is easily persuaded. Give it your best shot.

So far the current board has my vote, but I haven't signed my ballot just yet nor sent it in. My vote is up for grabs, convince me!


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

Like I said my vote is currently for the PPA board that is unless they reject TE's nomination, then all bets are off!!!


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]


Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

[OldNantucker]

Who is currently on the PPA board (or whre can I find this info) and what reasons would any of them have not to fight for online poker rights?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]




Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the worth of having stepped up and built the value of the organization that currently exists? You keep insisting that because of the current affiliations of the board it can not move forward.

Of these prospective board members where were they when the PPA was formed? Did they volunteer their time, resources, and credibility? Has this vast resource been freely offered or tried to talk to the ED or board members when it was formed? How about recently? Or is the position been "we want x amount of seats just to talk"?

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."

We're a single issue group and you want to re-create all of the worst of our current 2 party system to play in that enviorment? With freeroll members, various levels of members, and some small number of big donnors who do you propose to vote this.

I've been in board rooms, good bad and in the middle of a fight for control. I was even in FlA for the re-count. How fancy are you going to try and make this?

While it might be true that for an individual "what doesn't destroy us makes us stronger". IMO that just isn't true in this case. IMO your cure is worse than the current effects of the desease you're trying to cure.

If cooler heads can't prevail and everyone pitch in to their own abilites and tastes with out this "I'm going to take my ball home" attitude I was right in my teaser post in FT's forum. Poker is doomed.

Seems simple to me. Donate you time and the resources you can. If you think you have something valuable enough to try and negociate something more go for it. But this king of the hill game you're playing is getting out of hand. I don't know for sure we as the PPA's members as a whole can walk and chew gum. Now on the eve of battle you want to add a whole nighmare of races amongst ourselves for State Rep unpaid jobs, so we can then vote on an advisory pannel? To tell the people who've done the work so far to do what is working and not do what isn't. OMG you sound like most of the thinking you get talking to people who've been in D.C. too long. Who's going to pay for all of this?

By the way where is this fancy gold plated boardroom any way? We're a infant non-profit, not a Fourtune 500 company. Besides you sound a lot like Gordon Gecko trying a leveraged buy out. But do you really think there is at this point that much to fight over and possibly destroy at this time? IMO you want to do this, I'm all for it come after the November elections in '08. Lets get some state reps in the field see who can carry the politicl water, see if we can operate as we should. Spending the time and effort to wrest the control now in the manner you're speaking of is IMPO insane. Heck you'd start with a problem I'm sure with already appointed state reps. Don't you have to toss them out as well as they were appointed not elected. Who you going to trust to count the ballots? Hire an outside accounting firm?

Lets get real. If one or all of your chosen few have the vast resources, go talk to John talk to the board members individually or in any number you can get them to listen. Work it out behind the scenes. But this my way or the highway crap is getting old and time is very short.


D$D

All opinions expressed in this and all my posts are soley my own. All spelling and gramatically errors are my own and due to sleep deprevation. I've spent the last 48 hours or so out pimping the PPA for free. I use my e-mail program as a spell checker and comcast's e-mail server is down and I'm tired of the password pop-up comming up every minute and me typing have my thought into the password field. I have no affiliation with 2+2 or the PPA other than the free services offered by each. Yes I met with John. I have had no with him conversations beyond how the PPA might avail it self of any talents I might have that he or it finds useful. If nominated to the board I will not accept any such offer should anyone be dumb enough to offer me such a nomination any time before 60 days after election day 2008. If you want to question my motives for my opinions feel free. I wear flame retardant underware. This is my fourth crack at this reply. Timed out twice and trashed the other two. I'll likely edit this after some sleep so enjoy it while you can. Go ahead quote it. Just for prosperity's sake!

[uphigh_downlow]

[ QUOTE ]

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."


[/ QUOTE ]

Hit the nail on the head, as far as TPT LLC manouvering is concerned. I cant believe I was gullible enough not to see through this just a week ago.

Such tactics are only going to weaken TPT's ( ownership etal, not the community) credibility.

They have already lost one lost believer here, and I have good reason to suspect there are more.

BluffThis, you would have a much better chance at causing positive change, with positive contributions and I dont mean with your keyboard.

When you are passionate about an issue, you find innovative ways to find common ground and work on the matter at hand, rather than grandstanding.

I think TheEngineer is a good example.

I'm not being too simplistic or desperate. Its just that when you have two teams. One talks a lot and thats all it does. The other is not great but gets some work done. You go for the latter.