Mason... Sir,

[2easy]

It seems to me that even if Mason were to get some redress from the PPA as regards the board makeup, there is no way 2+2 would ever become any form of advocate for our interests as players.

The fact that they have never done anything proactive, (aside from making this forum available, if that could be called proactive,) even well before the board makeup, or the PPA itself, for that matter, was an issue, seems to bear this out quite clearly.

[oldbookguy]

It seems this really is a non-starter. Does 2+2 need the PPA or PPA need 2+2?

No, neither needs the other.

The real question is does the fight for poker need either. Yes, both are needed. Our fight needs everyone; all affiliate sites, forums, groups and most of all our fight needs ALL of us.

I care not at all if any one group, or all groups have distaste for the others, having been through this scenario in local politics with organizations, it simply needs to be put on a back burner, keeping the big picture in mind.

Someplace in this or another thread concerning this it was stated by someone (too lazy too look it up) that 2+2 started seeing business pick-up before the Moneymaker boom. This I can see as correct, the advent of the hole card cam in the year or so before made watching TV poker much more interesting and at that time players (Helmuth mainly) was running around with his .COM hats and jerseys and remember, all the .COM sites we advertising big then too, all before Moneymaker, but the internet WAS driving the boom. In this respect, yes, 2+2’s success was predicated on the Internet, Moneymaker just made it more popular. Recall, the year he won attendance was up what, over 100% from the year before.

In closing, we are all in this together. Each will shoulder a load they can carry, no more, no less.

So, perhaps we can end this and move on to more important matters like expending all this energy and time on fighting for poker; we have letters to write and comments to make (ABOUT the proposed regs, no about each other!

obg

[Legislurker]

But fight thru what vehicle obg? Why give your time, energy, and money to an organization that at the end of the day you don't know if you can trust? How hard would it be to rejig the board? Open it up to participatory member action? Poker players more than most people, but its true of human nature, hate a harness. We work for ourselves first and foremost, and asking us to work and support a pig in a poke is nigh insane. Im 100% glad Mason drew a line in the sand because so few people are willing to question a group that purports to serve the interests of poker at large while remaining secretive and narrowly controlled.

[oldbookguy]

That is the point, you are missing legis!

Join the PPA, don't join, it is moot what group, if any you affiliate yourself with.

The big picture, we are, all groups (am I am a member of several) are all fighting for the same thing, some more than others.

Some I agree with, some I don't; that does not mean I discount the effort simply because I dislike them. It means I will try and perhaps work to change what I don't like, while still supporting the end goal (not all are poker related).

Liking or disliking the PPA's board, does that mean you disagree with fighting to win this fight? Of course not.

Fight with a group you agree with, heck.

I read often the NRA model mentioned here. Take note sometime of them, they endorse candidates from BOTH parties, it is not the party they are fighting for, it is the end game.

Do you think ALL NRA members support this or prefer they support only one party? Does that stop the fight, no. It simply means they hold together even during times of disagreement.

obg

[Legislurker]

the NRA is different in that it OWNS districts. And that it relies on the goodwill/money of members to keep up the fight.
If the PPA is a flybynight affiliate farm outfit it just wants a one-off exemption and [censored] B&M and home poker. I want a PLAYER organziation for the long haul. Im not saying tear down the PPA and defame it in the street, just that I won't endorse it to anyone or even recommend it. Same as Safe and Secure. Fine, fight by us, but don't claim to be the voice of poker players. Its not agree/disagree with them, just a wish to not be lumped in with them. Say who you are and be who you are, and it would be easy for the PPA to be different, but it doesn't want that. No one is saying ban poker because the PPA is conflicted and suspect. The point is fight beside, not with. Id rescind my membership in it if it wasnt pointless to belong in the first place. Who is saying stop fighting for poker? No one said that.

[JPFisher55]

Ok maybe the PPA should be the OPPA, Online Poker Players Alliance.

[djrion]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand either. Mason claims to be concerned about how the composition of the board will be perceived by the opponents of gaming, but I've seen no evidence anywhere that our opponents care, and I read everything on this that I could find. They care who funds the pro-Internet poker lobbies and they've speculated on that, but there's no evidence anywhere that they care at all about affiliates being on the board.

I personally think our opponents feel we're all degenerates. In their minds, there are degenerate gamblers, degenerate authors, and degenerate site owners, all motivated by greed. What they pay attention to is infighting. Read the criticism section of the PPA Wikipedia article. There's nothing about the board. Rather, it's about Mason.

I invite Mason to make his case that the PPA board composition empowers our opponents in any way, because he hasn't yet. He's entitled to his opinion, of course. However, he states this as incontrovertible fact; he's very emphatic about it, but he has yet to prove it.

There is another issue concerning the board composition. Specifically, are we players adequately represented? There are many opinions on this, but Mason hasn't made a case that either the Pappas-era PPA (i.e., the time I've been on the board) isn't acting 100% in our interests or that's it's ineffective. He's not asked me to push for policy or direction changes within PPA. He's not asked me for anything (besides telling me how to sign my name and to complain about the board makeup). My only other PM from him was one to let me know my request for moderator privileges on this forum was denied because of my PPA work.

So, I'm at a loss. Pappas is working hard for your right to play. I'm working hard for your right to play. You all are working hard for your right to play. Mason, OTOH, hasn't even submitted the 2+2 LLC comments on the UIGEA regs yet. If 2+2 LLC had submitted their comments by now, perhaps it would have worked to encourage other businesses to submit theirs. Even the Chamber of Commerce has submitted comments that help us. I do know that if 2+2 LLC and its authors don't submit comments by Dec. 12th, it will be difficult for them to claim a right to an opinion on what the rest of us are doing.

I wonder what Mason does think we should all do about the current situation regarding online poker. He's not articulated an alternate vision by which we work without ulitizing PPA. I hope it at least involves commenting on the UIGEA regs before Dec. 12th.

Cheers,

Rich Muny
PPA Board Member


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Do you have a response to any of these concerns? Have I missed your response in another post on this board? Would you please enlighten us plebs?

I was thinking of purchasing some new books in the next few months/year(2008). The expanded edition of Tournament for Adv. Players; Harrington Cash I and II. I am seriously going to reconsider because of your perceived behaviour/attitude.

If you do have a reason and do not feel like sharing it, why don't you feel compelled to respond publicly? You are very adamant about thwarting any effort the PPA seems to have in your "virtual" world. May I ask what you or 2+2 are doing to actually fight for our rights to play? Finally, why play this game that it appears you are playing? Do you want the PPA on this board or not? It seems like you dont, so why give yourself this administrative nightmare? Why dont you ban any and all talk from the PPA organization until you approve of them? If I owned a store and I said "no shoes, no service" I would NOT let in patron with only ONE SHOE ON. Stop playing games.

ryAn

[yahboohoo]

I'm outta here. gl/gg

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm outta here. gl/gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yabbadabbadoo! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
these threads, and others like them, strike me as a sad waste of time by intelligent people whose energy could be better spent promoting (in whatever way they see fit) the greater goal of legalized, regulated online poker.



[/ QUOTE ]


This is an important issue. Management of any organization is important to shareholders and stakeholders alike.

My active posting career here started with a post proclaiming that the PPA had turned the corner and my opinion that John Pappas, from my personal conversations, was a fantastic change for the prospects of success for all poker players.

"We" as poker player are indeed better off than "we" were before the Board decided to make the recent changes.

What is unanswered is what are the PPA's goals?

I am a critic because almost 6 months ago, John told me and made many public published statements that have not even been begun in the planning stages.

The PPA seems unwilling to do much more than push for a fairly limited set of legislative goals. Most of these goals do benefit your average poker player, but accomplishing them can be problematic if the broader interests of the average poker player are given short shrift to industry interests over represented on the board.

For example look at Party Poker's position vs Full Tilt and Poker Stars. FT & PS stayed in the US market. PP took the position that to do so was a F U to the US government.

So the question remains what would the PPA do or has done if a legislative compromise was offered by Congress that gave "us" (the average player) fully legal and regulated US poker, but the cost was an understanding that FT or PS would face some or complete difficulties in ever getting a US license?

I would suggest on principal that all sites should get a fair shot at any US market. But should "we" fight a longer battle as directed by the PPA to preserve their board interests, or does the majority of US poker players and members of the PPA not care who operates the games?

The PPA has also shown very little desire to organize its grassroots members. There are very little requirements for appointment to State Rep positions. Even worse there is very little requested of and required of these positions.

Some grassroots advocacy groups are lead by to some degree members elected to advisory groups. Suggesting running elections for State Reps just now is insane. But I think it is a fair suggestion to make that the Board has shown no interest in training, supporting, and developing these positions. Other than Randy having to almost demand help from PPA HQ, but actually finally getting but almost in spite of the PPA management and board. I can point to at least a dozen state actions I am personally aware of where this lack of organization, training, and support has hurt the overall cause.

If the PPA is to become an effective grassroots force in '08 time is running VERY short. Political grassroots work is a passion of mine. I do not consider myself in the top 1/2 of professionals, but even I have been approached by National efforts for State and Regional positions. I do not state this to some how promote myself to the forum or the PPA, it is clear that ship has sailed, but to simply show that almost all major players committed to trying to make an impact in '08 are well advanced in their efforts.

I have seen too many political efforts loose or discourage too many outstanding volunteers because they were not organized nor committed to developing their grassroots abilities until it was way too late.

Personally I offered to volunteer my time to do any job needed by John or the PPA from about June until now. Even if my talents are even less than 10% of those seeming recognized by others why would any group refuse almost any offers of free help?

I still do not completely buy into the PPA's board is working at somewhat cross purposes to the larger interests of the average US poker player. But any fair observer would have more questions today than ever, in fact even recent sucesses point to more problems or "evidence" to support rather than reject these concerns.



D$D