2+2 Ask the PPA

[Uglyowl]

I think Mason is 100% correct in that the PPA needs to be on these boards. That being said, the following comment by Mason really struck a nerve yesterday with me and I gave it a day to reflect and am still a bit put off by it:

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make this very clear. You are not a representative of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC or www.twoplustwo.com, and do not represent us in any way. Only I or my designates have that authority, and you are not in that category.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason’s thoughts could have been more constructive, instead of jumping down D$D’s throat. At worst, D$D stated he was a member of the forum?

Who knows if D$D is a PPA “fan-boy” or could become a valuable ally in this fight, but if never give him a chance to establish himself here we will never know.

And yes the word “elite” does seem to fit a lot here.

[4_2_it]

Uglyowl,

D$D is welcome to post here as long as he follows the forum rules (and I think he has done that so far). I am reserving judgement until I have a better idea of exactly what he brings to the table. Others would do well to take this approach.

I can't blame Mason for protecting his business. You can disagree with his delivery method, but his point was valid and I'd probably do something similar if I were in his place. I know I wouldn't want an anonymous Internet poster potentially being construed as a representative of my business.

Offtopic --- Your avatar brings back fond memories. If only Virgil could get some screen time.

[TruePoker CEO]

Were people who asked D$D some very pointed questions to feel him out being eltitist ? No.

I think D$D has acquited himself well and seems well-versed in the action aspect of politics, especially DC. He should be a valued contributor to both 2+2 discussions and everyone's efforts to "right" the current political/legal climate around poker.

What would it mean to "right" the current legal framework ?Opinions are universal and posting them is what 2+2 is for.

What D$D was discussing went beyond posting and into action. That runs into a different standard. Sorry, if I did not accept his messenger offer at face value, but, through discourse here I think it has been refined and improved. Instead of D$D likely getting bogged down as a go-between between posters here and the PPA, it seems likely (?) tha PPA will directly put in a presence here.

Look, you may have some bone to pick with Mason's political style, or lack thereof, but he has done a great service by providing a forum for ideas to surface. Within that forum, posts and ideas are critiqued and generally constructively reviewed. That is not elitist, it is political discourse.

I spent years both in DC and working for labor unions and other populist-based political organizations. Grassroots does not mean sheep-like donations of money, but real democratically shaped policies and agendas. Pollyanna populism cannot survive or be effective. Democratically based efforts are difficult and rough to form and maintain.

The PPA came from Michael B's sincere beliefs, it definitely strayed thereafter and was co-opted along the way. Dedicated workers like TheEngineer and, mabe D$D, can help shape it back to serving the interests of poker players, not their advisors, suppliers or vendors.

(I clearly have an interest in how or whether there is "poker reform" legislation. As an offshore operator, I likely would have ZERO to gain from the Frank Bill. I would have a lot to gain from the Wexler Bill. We all, meaning operators, players and vendors, would stand to gain most rom a watering down of possible adverse regulatory language to secure a poker exclusion by definition.

I happen to think a regulatory effort is in the interests of "poker players". Is my personal/company interest necessarily that of "poker players", not really ... if players would prefer a US-based brick and mortar running the online poker market.)

I do support discussion of poker, politics and the legislative and it will never be a tea party if it is truly open and frank.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
uphigh, toast,

I think you guys are missing Mason's basic point: This forum is free and the PPA is welcome to have a representative post here. Berge and the other Legs mods will make sure that they are treated like any other member and not flamed, bashed or ridiculed. This is not a hard concept to understand and it's not a huge burden on the PPA to do this.

Do you guys really think that we would be better served having an ambassador to go to the PPA with our questions? That's really silly while this board exists. I'm glad D$D is meeting with Pappas and it appears that he has some of the same concerns as many posters here, but as he has stated (and Mason reiterated), he is merely speaking for himself. If the PPA is really concerned or interested in what this community thinks, then the PPA should come here, not expect each individual poster to come to them.

Just to be clear. I am not employed by 2p2 or associated with them in any manner except that I mod a few forums without remuneration. The views expressed above are my personal views and may not agree with those of 2p2 management or anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody would NOT want the PPA to have a representative on here. No one is arguing that. For whatever reason, no one from the PPA has joined. Someone apparently has access to the head of the PPA and can ask some questions. WTF is wrong with that person soliciting questions here? Who cares whether its NOT IDEAL? This is simply some sort of power struggle I'm unaware of and quite frankly don't care about, but Mason's attitude is just another example of his elitism, I would suspect. This is not new.

[MiltonFriedman]

"For whatever reason, no one from the PPA has joined. ...

I am curious, how "elitist" might it be of PPA to avoid 2+2 posters' direct questions for "whatever reason" ?

"WTF is wrong"? Leaving aside any philisophical point, like hosting a forum for posters to participate in discourse directly, Mason puts up a forum for people to come and post on. That builds traffic, which sells ads. Why would you want him to give up the traffic to be generated by a PPA direct appearance ?

[Grasshopp3r]

The inertia that is the PPA is not acceptable. I want action. I want grass roots organizing. I want our agenda advanced every day. If the PPA is not going to do that, with the zeal that is necessary, something else needs to take the flag.

On the other hand, I can't figure out why Mason is so opposed to the PPA if he is unwilling to take the flag. This board provides him with the tools to organize and take control of the opposition to the gambling moralists.

Inaction is a losing strategy.

Now, unless this violates some sort of law, here is what 2+2 should do:

1. Set up forums for every state or major metro area for the purpose of grass roots organization. Set up forums for organization methods. There are willing and able leaders amongst our ranks.
2. Advance the issues through local, grass roots means. Organize members to act through both parties.
3. National structures will follow, whether it is 2+2 taking control of the PPA or being stronger and more effective than the PPA.

[uphigh_downlow]

[ QUOTE ]
uphigh, toast,

I think you guys are missing Mason's basic point: This forum is free and the PPA is welcome to have a representative post here. Berge and the other Legs mods will make sure that they are treated like any other member and not flamed, bashed or ridiculed. This is not a hard concept to understand and it's not a huge burden on the PPA to do this.

Do you guys really think that we would be better served having an ambassador to go to the PPA with our questions? That's really silly while this board exists. I'm glad D$D is meeting with Pappas and it appears that he has some of the same concerns as many posters here, but as he has stated (and Mason reiterated), he is merely speaking for himself. If the PPA is really concerned or interested in what this community thinks, then the PPA should come here, not expect each individual poster to come to them.

Just to be clear. I am not employed by 2p2 or associated with them in any manner except that I mod a few forums without remuneration. The views expressed above are my personal views and may not agree with those of 2p2 management or anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issue with the 'demand' for PPA to have a rep communicate here. But I do have a problem with anyone who insists on an "all or nothing" approach, and while they do nothing constructive to achieve the end-result, they pounce on every half-measure.

A start is better than nothing. Usually thats how things get done.

Bashing the PPA and posters soft to PPA just seems like the favourite pastime of some armchair generals here, and thats what was the last straw for me today.

Its quite obvious to me now that tpt ownership have their own agenda which is not completely aligned with the agenda of the poker playing community And while I cannot have any objections to it( who could fault Mason etal to look out for their personal interests), I do hope that more in the community are aware of the distinction and the power struggle, so we can make decisions that are in our best interests, rather than putting blind faith in places, it doesnt belong.

This is clearly obvious when you see that Mason hopes no questions get sent to PPA thru DaD. The player community needs to see that Mason is watching out for his interest, and we should watch out for our own. And there might be overlap in some areas, but they surely are different sets of interests. I dont think that distinction has been made out in the past, and I hope to cause some more debate on it.

What I have more of a problem is with some posters who are part of the community, and yet act out in a way that benefits ownership and hurts the player community.

The community wants dialogue, and if it can be initiated one way or the other without the whole shebang, then there is no need to jump posters for making such suggestions. It sounds like intellectual, elitist, rhetoric without application in the real world.

Either these posters do not care about 'our' ( player) interests, or they just like the sound on their own voice.

And for that reason I suggested that they make their own threads for their ramblings, instead of hijacking others' threads that are action based.

[BluffTHIS!]

ughigh et al.,

Some of you really don't seem to have a grasp of the situation. It is precisely Mason and 2p2 that does not have a vested interest in any particular business model of poker, whether it be B&M or online. If anything, he is as unbiased as it comes regarding these things (and I do realize that 2p2 takes ads but that is a small part of their biz). However when he is asked to give an unequivocal backing of the PPA in order to help that organization, his reputation is on the line if he should vouch for them to the posters of 2p2 and that endorsement isn't 100% warranted. And since he has had and still does have strong reservations, as I do, about the structure and makeup of the PPA board as well as other issues, he has said he still can't give that endorsement, though he is willing to continue to engage the PPA in dialogue. If you and others had followed everything here the past year you would know all this.

Also I want to make a critical point. The critics of the PPA like myself are not badgering them just because of ineffectiveness, or a "half start" as you call it, but rather because the PPA does not support all of the goals that many of us believe it should have. So then what you have is not only a political ineptness in the past year, but a strategy that doens't even attempt to achieve the goals most of us have.

Instead, the PPA, whose board is dominated by CP magazine and online sites, seeks only to advance the narrowest of agendas, and not even competently at that.

The reason so many of you dislike this criticism is because you are so damn desparate that you can't see the forest for the trees. There are many competing business interests in the gaming industry. But we poker players have an interest in having the widest possible choice of legal options to play, be it online or in our own states at B&M venues. And by promoting such a broad agenda, the individual elements could lend each other a synergistic strength that any one individual goal would have a hard time gaining.

The bottom line is that Mason and 2p2 generously provide this forum for 100% honest and open conversation. But if you or others expect an uncritical/unmerited endorsement of the PPA, then you are the ones being unrealistic. And it is unrealistic as well, as pointed out by others in this thread, to expect anything productive even for grassroots action to come of using middlemen, when the PPA is welcome, as it always has been, to have an official rep or reps here to talk to us. But they have to be willing to discuss 100% of the issues openly and honestly.

For all of you who seem to have some anger at Mason or other critics, I would suggest that you direct a healthy portion of that at the owners of CP magazine who have hijacked the PPA in order to look out primarily for their own interests and those of certain online sites whose advertising they depend on. Ask them why they need 4 out of 6 non-chairman positions on the board, with the other two filled by players who have contracts with online sites. Ask them whether they are willing to give up that control of the PPA and allow the board to have a wider range of members who represent the average joe players, and who have relevant expertise in the law and politics. Some of you wish to ignore these issues because they are difficult. But the very best grassroots political tactics in the world won't help an ill-conceived overall strategy.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
"For whatever reason, no one from the PPA has joined. ...

I am curious, how "elitist" might it be of PPA to avoid 2+2 posters' direct questions for "whatever reason" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps elistist, perhaps lazy, perhaps stupid....Who knows? But who cares? Thats not the point.

[ QUOTE ]
"WTF is wrong"? Leaving aside any philisophical point, like hosting a forum for posters to participate in discourse directly, Mason puts up a forum for people to come and post on. That builds traffic, which sells ads. Why would you want him to give up the traffic to be generated by a PPA direct appearance ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you're getting at. Can you elaborate?

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
ughigh et al.,

Some of you really don't seem to have a grasp of the situation. It is precisely Mason and 2p2 that does not have a vested interest in any particular business model of poker, whether it be B&M or online. If anything, he is as unbiased as it comes regarding these things (and I do realize that 2p2 takes ads but that is a small part of their biz). However when he is asked to give an unequivocal backing of the PPA in order to help that organization, his reputation is on the line if he should vouch for them to the posters of 2p2 and that endorsement isn't 100% warranted. And since he has had and still does have strong reservations, as I do, about the structure and makeup of the PPA board as well as other issues, he has said he still can't give that endorsement, though he is willing to continue to engage the PPA in dialogue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is demanding 2+2's endorsement? Perhaps my reading comprehension is awful, but that is not what OP was asking is it? I thought he wanted a LIST OF QUESTIONS (and Mason inexplictably told the rest of us not to provide such a list.). This is my only problem with Mason's statement, but the INTENT behind it is what is more ominous. I don't know exactly what that intent is, but I suspect its based on SELFISH MOTIVATIONS, because there can be NO OTHER justification for making such a ludicrous statement. If there is, please fill us all in.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that Mason and 2p2 generously provide this forum for 100% honest and open conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely ridiculous. They are not doing this out of generosity; they are doing it to profit and because they love it. (Which by the way are COMPLETELY VALID REASONS; but I'm sick of hearing comments like this making them sound like Saints -- they're just really friggin smart people that have capitalized on a subject matter they love).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you or others expect an uncritical/unmerited endorsement of the PPA

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, never said this.

[ QUOTE ]
For all of you who seem to have some anger at Mason or other critics, I would suggest that you direct a healthy portion of that at the owners of CP magazine who have hijacked the PPA in order to look out primarily for their own interests and those of certain online sites whose advertising they depend on. Ask them why they need 4 out of 6 non-chairman positions on the board, with the other two filled by players who have contracts with online sites. Ask them whether they are willing to give up that control of the PPA and allow the board to have a wider range of members who represent the average joe players, and who have relevant expertise in the law and politics. Some of you wish to ignore these issues because they are difficult. But the very best grassroots political tactics in the world won't help an ill-conceived overall strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

All fair enough, but again, so what?????