Please allow me to introduce myself

[RikaKazak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just so you know, the official 2+2 position concerning the PPA is neutral. It will not become positive until issues with your board are improved. This means that you can post here and interact with other forum posters, but you cannot solicit memberships or ask for money in any way.

Also, so there is no confusion as to exactly who you are, we also ask that you finish each post with your name and position with the PPA.

Mason Malmuth
Owner and Publisher
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
www.twoplustwo.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Does 2+2 publishing LLC have an "official" opinion on either the Wexler Bill or the Frank Bill???? I have not heard..

IMO there is no "neutral"...To me neutral is negative..When the reason in the make up of the Board and a "potential" conflict interest..This IMO is not "neutral" but clearly "negative"..

FWIW I fully support the PPA..I am yet to see evidence that the PPA is not working in and for "my" best interests..The PPA Fly-in IMO was a huge success a proof of the PPA intentions..

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuetral in political terms is.....we're fighting for the same cause and I don't like you

OR

We're fighting for the same cause but I disagree on this particular bill, I'll let it slide and stay nuetral because in the future I expect you to return the favor.

There is TON TON TONSSSSS of "nuetrals" in politics.

[RikaKazak]

My feeling on this thread.

Mason came off HARSH!...must be bad blood or something.

PPABryan comes off like a political guy...never answering the question yet dancing around it (like "how long till you think it'll be legalize"..."ummm....earlier the better" no [censored] sherlock)

Whatever...if poker sites really wanted it legalized they wouldn't of been so stupid and thrown TONS of money at this BEFORE the bill passed. (I do think they want it legalized, but they were too stupid or arrogant or cheap to actually do something about it..everyone knows, for enough money this bill wouldn't have gone through)

[catlover]

I believe the issues with the PPA are serious, and Mason is right to take them seriously. Sometimes, taking an issue seriously requires one to do something that appears nasty -- and I think that's what's happening with Mason. I can say from personal experience that while Mason can be harsh at times, he generally has a good reason for it.

That said, Bryan appears to be sincere, and the issues are not his fault, as well as above his level. So I'm glad he's come to the forum.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
My feeling on this thread.

Mason came off HARSH!...must be bad blood or something.

PPABryan comes off like a political guy...never answering the question yet dancing around it (like "how long till you think it'll be legalize"..."ummm....earlier the better" no [censored] sherlock)

Whatever...if poker sites really wanted it legalized they wouldn't of been so stupid and thrown TONS of money at this BEFORE the bill passed. (I do think they want it legalized, but they were too stupid or arrogant or cheap to actually do something about it..everyone knows, for enough money this bill wouldn't have gone through)

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's stop this one right now.

No amount of money would have kept Bill Frist from attaching the bill to the must-pass Port Security Bill. One man made this happen. It did not come up for a vote on its merits. It was not debated. No one could have stopped it.

I'm all for revisionist history, but get your facts straight.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the issues with the PPA are serious, and Mason is right to take them seriously. Sometimes, taking an issue seriously requires one to do something that appears nasty -- and I think that's what's happening with Mason. I can say from personal experience that while Mason can be harsh at times, he generally has a good reason for it.

That said, Bryan appears to be sincere, and the issues are not his fault, as well as above his level. So I'm glad he's come to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are the issues "above his level"? Apparently the PPA wants to organize poker players, but not give what is required to do so. If his job is to interact with this message board, why isn't answering why the PPA isn't endorsed by 2p2 "at his level". As far as the PPA's presence here goes, that is issue #1. 2-10 as well. The question isn't going away by ignoring it, and a lot of people simply will not up their participation and support of
the PPA until it occurs.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the issues with the PPA are serious, and Mason is right to take them seriously. Sometimes, taking an issue seriously requires one to do something that appears nasty -- and I think that's what's happening with Mason. I can say from personal experience that while Mason can be harsh at times, he generally has a good reason for it.

That said, Bryan appears to be sincere, and the issues are not his fault, as well as above his level. So I'm glad he's come to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are the issues "above his level"? Apparently the PPA wants to organize poker players, but not give what is required to do so. If his job is to interact with this message board, why isn't answering why the PPA isn't endorsed by 2p2 "at his level". As far as the PPA's presence here goes, that is issue #1. 2-10 as well. The question isn't going away by ignoring it, and a lot of people simply will not up their participation and support of
the PPA until it occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason has stated here that he wants wholeasale board resignations plus 2+2 LLC representation on the board. I don't think Bryan can do this.

[TheEngineer]

Also, there have been many recent posts wondering why the PPA hasn't done specific things, often with a tone implying that they were incompetent for not having done so. I do concur that there were plenty of "sins of omission" in the past. The past is the past.

We have a process in place now that no one seems to be using. I speak with John Pappas weekly and communicate with him via email almost daily. If you need anything from the PPA, please let me know and I'll communicate it. Just PM me or email me. It's that simple. I'm not on the board to have something to talk about at parties. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I'm on the board to represent our interests and to fight for our rights. I have no other interests in the seat.

Look at Mass. It came up and I was asked to get PPA involved. I immediately contacted John Pappas and Randy C. Then, thanks to Randy's hard work, we had an organized campaign within a few days.

Don't assume they know already....if you want it, let me know (preferably via PM).

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]

Look at Mass. It came up and I was asked to get PPA involved. I immediately contacted John Pappas and Randy C. Then, thanks to Randy's hard work, we had an organized campaign within a few days.

Don't assume they know already....if you want it, let me know (preferably via PM).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty good argument in support of Mason's position. Regular players have a better idea of what's happening than the PPA Board. That is exactly the opposite of how it should be. I wonder how many Board members besides Engineer know about the Florida situation. It has been talked about here for months and months yet the PPA has not seen fit to do anything to influence the compast that is about to screw Florida poker players.

I really want to support the PPA, but they need to step up and accomplish something tangible first.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My feeling on this thread.

Mason came off HARSH!...must be bad blood or something.

PPABryan comes off like a political guy...never answering the question yet dancing around it (like "how long till you think it'll be legalize"..."ummm....earlier the better" no [censored] sherlock)

Whatever...if poker sites really wanted it legalized they wouldn't of been so stupid and thrown TONS of money at this BEFORE the bill passed. (I do think they want it legalized, but they were too stupid or arrogant or cheap to actually do something about it..everyone knows, for enough money this bill wouldn't have gone through)

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's stop this one right now.

No amount of money would have kept Bill Frist from attaching the bill to the must-pass Port Security Bill. One man made this happen. It did not come up for a vote on its merits. It was not debated. No one could have stopped it.

I'm all for revisionist history, but get your facts straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your facts are correct up to a point.

The poker community has been behind the curve at every step of the way. Maybe it was individual greed, or coroporation indifference, but there was no concerted effort by the "poker community" to fight back against the tide of political opposition to gaming.

The one power well organized enough at the time, B&M's, were atcually against us in the UIGEA. It looks like now from recent industry efforts that B&M's have realized that on-line poker isn't a large threat to their bread and butter business. The problem is, it seems, poker as a whole may not be as valuable in terms of total gaming to the B&M.

That is a future challenge we face. B&M's along with the unrestricted gaming crowd have little interest in a "poker only" bill, for them with a longer time frame in mind, total unrestricted on-line gaming is the big prize. The B&M's can wait for enough pressure from the World to help them accomplish their goal. In the mean time on-line poker is a market some might want to enter, but under the current enviroment they are just as happy to sit back and keep the lid on the boiling pot.

In some ways, the B&M's loose a lot of their leverage if we get a poker only bill. There is a little to be gained by the B&M's from a poker bill, but they have also found out that on-line isn't a total threat to their current business. If you look at the "table" from a long term B&M owner's perspective, keeping a "netural" stance on on-line poker is the safe course.

The other problem is the AGA already has banking interests, and major ones on their board. I know it is considered only a theory of mine that the US banking industry, until they figure out a legislative model to get a bigger share of the on-line pie, will continue to oppose on-line poker if for no other reason than foreign banks profit and they don't. When you consider that currently B&M's and US banking interests are alined then you begin to understand that unless we become a real force in politics our fate as poker players is and will continue to be largely determined by others.

Our best weapon is the fact that we do have in general the numbers in total to be an effective force. The 365 Billion dollar question is can we organize ourselves to matter. We are the only pro-gaming group that has an issue to currently mobilize the number of people to be a real grassroots force.

All the other pro-gaming groups, as well as the PPA currently, are industry lead or sponsored. We'll have a Million members by the end of the year. IMO those numbers are soft but large enough to build an effective force.

Unfortuantly the PPA has a lousey past track record. Yes John et. al., are doing all they can to change that, but it will take a whole lot more people devoting the time and money of some portion of their poker lives over the next year, IMO, to be sucessful.

How many of you are really willing to give up a couple of hours and the associated money a week, from playing poker to playing politics, over the next year or so to make this happen?

How many of you that want to go back to making a nice living from all the fish that populated the waters pre-UIGEA are willing to help restock the lake?

That is the real question.



D$D

[catlover]

One issue is that the PPA does not appear to be able to notice pending state legislation. It missed the WA bill entirely. And this board alerted it to the MA bill, rather than the other way around.

In that regard, this website and company may be of interest: http://www.statenet.com/leg/govtaffairs/