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

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just chill and give it a chance. They've clearly started moving in the right direction. I hope we'll work with them for what we want while continuing to hold them accountable for results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. It is clear I couldn't have said it better myself. Even though I had to try. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

Bluff, we got it.

You don't like the current makeup of the PPA board.

Now be constructive or be quiet. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Tuff

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]


And I have a question for you and some others here. What is so damn wrong with Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson resigning from the PPA board and being replaced not with their cronys, but with some other qualified members like the Engineer? If some of those board members really cared more about the PPA instead of their own vested interests, and also wanted to put this issue to rest as you do, then they would resign on their own today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, your call for large change in the PPA structure is timely and needed; they have been mostly inconsequential and we all hoped for more relevance. However, you are saying we can only await voluntary board resignations, I think. My questions: is there no way for members to affect a large change in the board/rules/goals? If not, why? and anyone have a plan to allow member change?

Just saw the John Pappas CP 'interview' and he seemed to be a nice guy toeing the party line (no pun intended). He said the PPA "ultimate goal" is to pass legislation to clarify Fed laws which will somehow lead to our lawful play online. That's nice, but we all know Fed law already allows state regulated poker online, so why have Fed law as "ultimate"?. Let's hope they see it would therefore be ideal to have some easier fallbacks -- state petitions/initiatives to allow poker, court cases, donation/money raising plans etc. -- all ready to go (or going) if things get worse. UIGEA isn't the only or main law that we need to "fight".

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just saw the John Pappas CP 'interview' and he seemed to be a nice guy toeing the party line (no pun intended). He said the PPA "ultimate goal" is to pass legislation to clarify Fed laws which will somehow lead to our lawful play online. That's nice, but we all know Fed law already allows state regulated poker online, so why have Fed law as "ultimate"?. Let's hope they see it would therefore be ideal to have some easier fallbacks -- state petitions/initiatives to allow poker, court cases, donation/money raising plans etc. -- all ready to go (or going) if things get worse. UIGEA isn't the only or main law that we need to "fight".

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA is fighting at the state level in KY. Once successful, my hope is that we'll use this experience to expand to other states.

Also, intrastate poker may or may not be the cure we want. I don't imagine any state will establish a licensing procedure that doesn't make unlicensed sites illegal (essentially establishing a monopoly). Also, the position of the AGA is that Internet sites should have no competitive advantage over B&M casinos/cardrooms. I imagine the B&Ms have the same position. I can't imagine making a profit playing shorthanded limit with a $5 rake and no rakeback.

http://www.americangaming.org/Indust...tail.cfv?id=17

[ QUOTE ]

The AGA evaluates specific pieces of Internet legislation on a case-by-case basis as they are introduced in Congress. Any Internet gambling legislation must meet three tests to gain the support of the AGA: 1) The right of states to regulate gaming must be protected. 2) It must not create competitive advantages or disadvantages between and among commercial casinos, Native American casinos, state lotteries and pari-mutuel wagering operations; and 3) No form of gaming that currently is legal should be made illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should fight for intrastate online poker, but we do have to make sure we get what we want in the process.

The federal legislation out there now allows for competition and for offshore sites. We get neither at the state level. Therefore, I suggest we continue fighting for fair federal legislation, for fair state legislation, and to maintain at least the status quo.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just saw the John Pappas CP 'interview' and he seemed to be a nice guy toeing the party line (no pun intended). He said the PPA "ultimate goal" is to pass legislation to clarify Fed laws which will somehow lead to our lawful play online. That's nice, but we all know Fed law already allows state regulated poker online, so why have Fed law as "ultimate"?. Let's hope they see it would therefore be ideal to have some easier fallbacks -- state petitions/initiatives to allow poker, court cases, donation/money raising plans etc. -- all ready to go (or going) if things get worse. UIGEA isn't the only or main law that we need to "fight".

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA is fighting at the state level in KY. Once successful, my hope is that we'll use this experience to expand to other states.

Also, intrastate poker may or may not be the cure we want. I don't imagine any state will establish a licensing procedure that doesn't make unlicensed sites illegal (essentially establishing a monopoly). Also, the position of the AGA is that Internet sites should have no competitive advantage over B&M casinos/cardrooms. I imagine the B&Ms have the same position. I can't imagine making a profit playing shorthanded limit with a $5 rake and no rakeback.

http://www.americangaming.org/Indust...tail.cfv?id=17

[ QUOTE ]

The AGA evaluates specific pieces of Internet legislation on a case-by-case basis as they are introduced in Congress. Any Internet gambling legislation must meet three tests to gain the support of the AGA: 1) The right of states to regulate gaming must be protected. 2) It must not create competitive advantages or disadvantages between and among commercial casinos, Native American casinos, state lotteries and pari-mutuel wagering operations; and 3) No form of gaming that currently is legal should be made illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should fight for intrastate online poker, but we do have to make sure we get what we want in the process.

The federal legislation out there now allows for competition and for offshore sites. We get neither at the state level. Therefore, I suggest we continue fighting for fair federal legislation, for fair state legislation, and to maintain at least the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to make Bluff's point even again for him, but here is where we need the board changed at the PPA. Conflict of interest. We want consumer friendly poker sites, not B&M style Tuffish gay sites with one table. Not some backroom deal where we get some sort of redacted poker access to horrible rakes and no promotions. We want poker left to the market, and eventually to make it legal everywhere. Which the online rooms nor B&Ms want. If its going to be for the players, players need to call the shots.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to make Bluff's point even again for him, but here is where we need the board changed at the PPA. Conflict of interest. We want consumer friendly poker sites, not B&M style Tuffish gay sites with one table. Not some backroom deal where we get some sort of redacted poker access to horrible rakes and no promotions. We want poker left to the market, and eventually to make it legal everywhere. Which the online rooms nor B&Ms want. If its going to be for the players, players need to call the shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you think online sites want a free market? It seems like that's exactly what they want. PPA certainly isn't trying to get state-run monopolies....they're clearly advocating an open market. Sure, it will be taxed, and there will be some regulation, but none of that necessarily leads to high rakes and no rakeback. If they were, I wouldn't have agreed to join the board.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to make Bluff's point even again for him, but here is where we need the board changed at the PPA. Conflict of interest. We want consumer friendly poker sites, not B&M style Tuffish gay sites with one table. Not some backroom deal where we get some sort of redacted poker access to horrible rakes and no promotions. We want poker left to the market, and eventually to make it legal everywhere. Which the online rooms nor B&Ms want. If its going to be for the players, players need to call the shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you think online sites want a free market? It seems like that's exactly what they want. PPA certainly isn't trying to get state-run monopolies....they're clearly advocating an open market. Sure, it will be taxed, and there will be some regulation, but none of that necessarily leads to high rakes and no rakeback. If they were, I wouldn't have agreed to join the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because at heart every capitalist wants to be a monopolist.
I don't trust representatives of sites or B&M casinos to pursue players best interests. They want to use our voice, give us some voice. If it came down to only allowing 2-3 operators in a very rigid market, Party would take that. FT would. Stars would. If any of them could be included as an insider and shut out comepetition they would. Youre about the only reason they get even a semblance of trust to start doing better. Eventually, the board makeup is untenable, you have to see that i hope. At what point do players get to control their own union?

[Skallagrim]

We dont even have enough clout to get a bill out of committee and you guys want to fight over the details of legal poker's future. STOP. Just support the Wexler bill OK, if poker is a game of skill then all the other s--t does not matter. Let the casinos and the racebooks fight over who gets to supply the "gambling" market. Poker as a skill game will get as much regulation as the bridge and scrabble sites.

Second, oh yeah permafrost, just what I want, a one-state monopoly site. That really deserves all of our effort now doesnt it. Me and a few hundred other people paying more rake than at a B&M site because thats the only way a state can make money off it.

Oh, and since we are having so much success politically, lets spend some of our extra time fighting over how to make a perfect PPA board, because once we have the perfect board our enemies will simply all bow down before us.

A little more of this and I will give up on the PPA and everything else and just wait for Harrahs to buy its way (politically) into a monopoly market that I am sure will have nothing but the best interests of us players in mind.

"A house divided cannot stand."

Skallagrim

[4KingAceHole]

[ QUOTE ]
And I have a question for you and some others here. What is so damn wrong with Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson resigning from the PPA board and being replaced not with their cronys, but with some other qualified members like the Engineer? If some of those board members really cared more about the PPA instead of their own vested interests, and also wanted to put this issue to rest as you do, then they would resign on their own today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, can you tell us what Linda Johnson's "vested interests" are?

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party's position is that PokerStars (as well other sites)break some unspecified law by giving US players access to online poker. Having abandoned the US market, rather than seek judicial clarification of the UIGE's scope, Party's management seeks to choke of that market and its players.

That sort of public posture and position is scarcely in your interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Party surely wants legal access to the lucrative US market.

They believe, rightly or wrongly, that present law makes it too dangerous for them to do business here.

So presumably, it's in their financial interests to seek changes to present law. It's hard to imagine what change they could seek that we would not view as favorable.

You seem to think Party made a poor decision by vacating the US market. So what? What position are they going to take, as part of the PPA, that would not be aligned with our own?

Logic would suggest that it's the companies which still do business here - and thus, have a competitive interest in ensuring that Party and others don't re-enter the market - who would pose a potential danger. And, uh, aren't YOU one of these competitors?

From my perspective, it seems to me that people simply harbor vindictive feelings towards Party for leaving the market, and aren't really thinking about whether they're a useful ally in a political sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

At last count, 29 people have said that sites which left the market are least deserving of a seat on the board, but I'm still waiting for an explanation of why PartyPoker's interests are supposedly so divergent from our own.

I think this bolsters my argument that resentment is the main force behind those votes.