Mason... Sir,

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't fully understand what your problem is with the PPA. You don't like their board make up is as much as I can glean.

[/ 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

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't fully understand what your problem is with the PPA. You don't like their board make up is as much as I can glean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you'd dig up a semi-dead thread.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is NOT the only reason to question the make-up of the board, to suggest such is a straw man.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often have you yourself posted that since you "spoke to John" about an issue and because you were satisfied the issue was dead?

Just using improved communications with members, one of John's "highest" priorities, as a yardstick, the approaching 6 month anniversary of John's "reign" has to be considered a failure.

From a grassroots perspective of making the most of resources volunteered that are demonstratively shown to have been and will be needed, the same reign should be considered an abject failure.

I hesitate to offer any of a number of solutions, as me doing so is sure to doom them to immediate rejection.

To suggest that PPA critic's only empower our opposition as you did in the resurrection of semi-dead thread is another example of you loosing your objectivity and claimed 2+2 forum bias representation to the PPA board.



D$D

[Uglyowl]

I too am disappointed by twoplustwo's, the Company, effort when it comes to fighting for online poker (maybe they are doing behind the scenes stuff, but I doubt it). My respect for the company has greatly diminished in the past year. Short of an incredible book going forward, I will look to other book publishers.

That being said I am surprised you tried to engage Mason again. Not what I would want to do. PPA and Mason don't mix, I would try going on without him.

FWIW, I agree with the opposition not caring about the make-up of the board (I view it as only a very small part of his argument), although he may have a point about it from our end (his main point)


D$D: Failure is inaccurate or way too harsh. They have done alot of good things, you sound like a scorned lover.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I just want to thank you for all your efforts. I agree with everything that you wrote. I hope that 2+2 can contribute to our efforts to fight the Bush administration's war against online gambling.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I too am disappointed by twoplustwo's, the Company, effort when it comes to fighting for online poker (maybe they are doing behind the scenes stuff, but I doubt it). My respect for the company has greatly diminished in the past year. Short of an incredible book going forward, I will look to other book publishers.

That being said I am surprised you tried to engage Mason again. Not what I would want to do. PPA and Mason don't mix, I would try going on without him.

FWIW, I agree with the opposition not caring about the make-up of the board (I view it as only a very small part of his argument), although he may have a point about it from our end (his main point)


D$D: Failure is inaccurate or way too harsh. They have done alot of good things, you sound like a scorned lover.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'm bringing it up again because we asked Mason for a 2+2 LLC comment for the UIGEA regs and he replied by telling PPA to change its board (and it was, IMO, impolite). I think he has a right to his opinion, but withholding commenting on the UIGEA regs hurts us, the players. I really hope to see 2+2 LLC's UIGEA regulation comment here soon.

PPA has done a lot of good on behalf of poker players. I'm committed to continuing this improvement, but it's time for PPA to lose the apologetic tone around here, IMO. When challenged, I think PPA needs to stand up for what it's doing for the poker community. PPA should admit what needs improvement, but should also stand up for what they're succeeding at.

Rich Muny
PPA Board Member

[crzylgs]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm bringing it up again because we asked Mason for a 2+2 LLC comment for the UIGEA regs and he replied by telling PPA to change its board (and it was, IMO, impolite). I think he has a right to his opinion, but withholding commenting on the UIGEA regs hurts us, the players. I really hope to see 2+2 LLC's UIGEA regulation comment here soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this went down the way you say it went down here, I agree with this 100%. Whatever issues 2+2 has with the PPA have absolutely nothing to do with potential comments on the regs. It's just bad business not to comment, and I hope Mason et al don't let this ideological feud blind them to doing what is best for poker.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just bad business not to comment, and I hope Mason et al don't let this ideological feud blind them to doing what is best for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a thread or link about official PPA comments submitted to the regulators? I hope I missed it or the reason for not commenting.

[JPFisher55]

Bluffthis, I would like to point out that the DOJ has previously threatened CP with prosecution for accepting .com poker site ads. In fact, CP has in essence answered prosecute when ready. The DOJ has declined to prosecute. What would Mason do if the DOJ threatened to prosecute 2+2 and him for the affiliate ads that he has on this site? If litigation is needed to protect the interests of online poker players, then Ms. Shulman is the best director that we can get for the PPA. She is already assisting Mr. Lee Rousso with his litigation against the State of Washington concerning its law prohibiting individuals from making any bets on online gambling sites.
I'm sorry but I fail to see what interests the board of directors of the PPA has that 2+2 or us online poker players do not share.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I had made it clear in prior private message communication that I would not have a conversation with John Pappas until we saw improvements in the PPA board. We feel that it is very important for the PPA to improve in a number of areas or else they run the risk of damaging the cause that we all want to see successful. The reason we pick on the board so much is that I believe this area is highly visible and (relatively) easy to address. (I also don't want to get into the other issues any more since we believe that this forum is now read by many entities, not all of who are friendly to the PPA and our cause in general. So it's not in our best interest to post specifics that can be used against us.) Hence, when I heard from John Pappas the other day, a response from me along the lines of my previous communication was sent. Also, it's hard to see how it was impolite since my response was almost word for word the exact same message he sent to me except with appropriate subjects changed.

For those who want to know, we do have a line of communication with the PPA, but it does not go through John Pappas. It will also remain confidential as to how that line of communication works.

We have also made it clear to the PPA through our communication and through this forum that their officials are free to post here unencumbered so long as they are identified as PPA officials and they follow the rules of this board. This includes John Pappas who does post here on occasion even though I will not, at this point in time, directly communicate with him.

As for Two Plus Two Publishing LLC commenting on the UIGEA Regs, I don't think it is appropriate for us to do so simply because I and the the other officials of Two Plus Two are not experts on Internet gambling law. We rely on our attorneys who are experts in this area for advice when we need it, and are confident because of how they advise us that we are making the right decisions from a company point of view in this area. We also feel that there are many posters here who are far more knowledgeable in this area than we are and rely on them to post their comments and opinions.

As for The Engineer, he needs to understand that posting here is a privledge and not a right. He cannot and it will not be tolerated for him to participate here in an un-respecful and non-professional manner. So to this end he now has been given a three day vacation. I know that some of you will be upset by this, but www.twoplustwo.com is our site and we will run it by the rules that we post and in which everyone, including myself, must abide by.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tehpokarplayor]

Mason - Agreed, it is your site. To all others, I have been lurking here for a long time, and it has never ceased to amaze me the amount of energy that is spent on arguing and infighting. If only a small percentage of that energy could go to either unifying or being productive; this battle could be finished already, imo.

I remember last election, a large amount of money was raised and a senator was voted out...let's go back to that.