Mason... Sir,

TheEngineer · #1 11-25-2007, 11:25 PM

[ 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 · #2 11-25-2007, 11:48 PM

[ 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 · #3 11-26-2007, 12:11 AM

[ 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 · #4 11-26-2007, 12:15 AM

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 · #5 11-26-2007, 12:24 AM

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 · #6 11-26-2007, 12:32 AM

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.

JPFisher55 · #7 11-26-2007, 12:45 AM

I'll gamble. What rule did TE break? When has he been disrespectful or unprofessional?
Also, I would like to know specifics about 2+2's issues with the Board of Directors of the PPA.
The excuse that our opponents will benefit by public revelation of these specifics does not make sense to me. Our opponents in the Bush Administration are not that smart. If they were that smart, then they could have drafted a law better than the UIGEA and avoided the mess that has come out of the WTO case with Antiqua. Also, they lost the election of 2006 and alienated many former Republican voters like myself. What specifics can they use and how? These specifics will not matter in any future litigation about the UIGEA, its regulations and/or the Wire Act. I doubt that they can expose 2+2 to any civil or criminal liability.
When 2+2 originally raised questions about the PPA, it raised some valid lack of disclosure issues. At the time, the PPA was behind on its required filings with the government. However, these issues have been resolved because the PPA is current with its legally required filings which have been posted on the PPA site. I have some trouble with what I, and many posters, perceive as a negative, even somewhat adversial, view of the PPA by 2+2. I would appreciate an update of the issues with more specifics than the overall composition of the board of directors of the PPA.
I can understand 2+2 not commenting on the proposed regulations under the UIGEA. Given its obvious bias, any comment from 2+2 would likely be disregarded by the agencies anyway.

Uglyowl · #8 11-26-2007, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll gamble. What rule did TE break? When has he been disrespectful or unprofessional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, I am having trouble as well, unless it is in the student shall never question the school principal type of disrespectful.

Zele · #9 11-26-2007, 02:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll gamble. What rule did TE break? When has he been disrespectful or unprofessional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, I am having trouble as well, unless it is in the student shall never question the school principal type of disrespectful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Mason, of course this is your site and you may set whatever rules you wish. That said, your recent actions seem increasingly petty.

NY60 · #10 11-28-2007, 06:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll gamble. What rule did TE break? When has he been disrespectful or unprofessional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, I am having trouble as well, unless it is in the student shall never question the school principal type of disrespectful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Mason, of course this is your site and you may set whatever rules you wish. That said, your recent actions seem increasingly petty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I cannot admit that I know all the ins and outs of the arguments presented in this thread, but I do know one thing for sure...THE JOURNALIST HAS JUST BECOME THE CENSURER and that can never be a good thing!