Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[Fedorfan]

i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[BluffTHIS!]

He is now free to return. Surely he can come back and do his thing without making demands of Mason or directing snide comments his way. But if he would rather talk to the tumbleweeds instead of the thousands of PPA members here, that's his choice.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
or directing snide comments his way.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please, whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

I happen to agree with you about the bot issue. What I am curious about though is this: I can understand constructive criticism of the PPA, but you seem to relish taking pot shots and crapping on it whenever possible. Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[BluffTHIS!]

LF,

I take botting very seriously. I didn't go to the PPA forum looking for something to bash them over. But when I saw that guy was a poster there, I felt I had to bring the issue to everyone's attention here.

As to your "better off" question, I would submit the question is actually whether we are better off with the PPA and its goals as it exists now, versus a different PPA or other organization. The choice isn't just a black and white, "PPA or no PPA" one, though that is what the affiliate farm interests who control the board would like us to believe to perpetuate their control and lack of transparency.

[LeapFrog]

BT, again, I agree with you about the Bot issue. I think it is ok to discuss the use of computer programs to prove skill, but I don't think it is to the PPAs benefit to even 'be seen in the same room' as the maker of a bot program.

My issue was that fact that you seem to take every opportunity to bash the PPA even when it doesn't relate to the topic at hand (see unnecessary tumbleweed reference).

BT, I believe that we are at a time critical juncture for online poker. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for the creation a 'perfect' grassroots organization headed (and funded) by poker playing soccer moms.

[Berge20]

Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I was (and am) a part of the discussion BT refers to. The fact that this guy endorses bots was made plain, as was the PPA position that use of bots at sites was to be condemned.

The PPA forum just has more respect for free speech than you do, apparently, Bluff. I would never support banning anyone from a free-speech discussion forum based on who they were or what they did elsewhere or what they supported.

If someone from FOF started (openly) posting here, should 2+2 ban them?

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. BT if you want to do more than just troll why don't you let the PPA know the bot dude is posting at their forums so they could take appropriate actions.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
LF,

I take botting very seriously. I didn't go to the PPA forum looking for something to bash them over. But when I saw that guy was a poster there, I felt I had to bring the issue to everyone's attention here.

As to your "better off" question, I would submit the question is actually whether we are better off with the PPA and its goals as it exists now, versus a different PPA or other organization. The choice isn't just a black and white, "PPA or no PPA" one, though that is what the affiliate farm interests who control the board would like us to believe to perpetuate their control and lack of transparency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the argument that the PPA has too much on its plate and must prioritize sucks. I hate having it used on me.

But even as an identified PPA critic, this is a little over the top. The forum there is what it is, now if he had been appointed even a State position or allowed to moderate a sub-forum, i.e. given some credibility or backing by the PPA I'd be screaming right with you.

As it is this is a non-issue IMO.


D$D

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

oddly many in the business community, some poker rooms and some pros think so. Most chose to remain silent because its not a popular thing to discuss. BluffThis is one of the few people whop are willing to go out on a limb to point out the hypocrisies, I think he should be applauded. Sure like most of you I dont always agree with how he does it, but it needs to be said none the less.

some thoughts -

1) If poker is carved out then the all the sites as we currently know them will likely have to sell to third parties in order to operate int the US

2) Poker will never be legislated so it is controlled by the feds, it is currently - and will likely remain - under the jurisdiction of individual states.

3) The PPA has too many ties to the needs of poker rooms, and not enough ties to the needs of players. Perhaps in the PPA called itself the PIA - Poker Industry Association - Bluff This and many others who chose to remain silent would have fewer complaints?

4) The best thing for us would be for the foundation of a true poker PLAYERS association which fought for our rights on a regional as well as national level - fighting for our rights on many causes while lobbying congress and providing healthcare benefits. Of course I dont think this is realistic and I am not expecting miracles, but that would be the ideal solution. The PPA has too many conflicts of interest to make this happen.