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

[fnurt]

I don't understand why the interests of sites like PartyPoker are divergent from our own.

[TruePoker CEO]

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.

[Skallagrim]

BluffTHIS wrote: "Skall,

If you would actually read what I wrote earlier you could get enlightened. But here's the cliff notes:

1) Conflicted interests
2) Which lead to errors of ommission as to the broader range of goals most of us have
3) Lack of broad enough relevant expertise
4) Added to managerial incompetence of the past until Mr. Pappas' appointment (and which continues as to judicial issues)
4) Along with ongoing problems in transparency"

First, let me say that 3 and 4 are issues I agree with, and I also hope Pappas and the Engineer are well on their way to correcting those problems.

As to conflicted interests and errors of omission, I still dont get it (expect that their clearly have been errors along the way). I say that because, if I hear you correctly, you believe that the make up of the PPA board leads them to support some things that favor only one subset of the poker community. Yet there is clearly no point to a fight within the poker community at this time. UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS SOME MOVEMENT FORWARD TOWARDS ESTABLISHING POKER AS A LEGAL GAME, THERE IS NOTHING TO BICKER ABOUT!

Right now the PPA supports, as do I, the Wexler "skill games" bill. This bill helps us all and favors no one subset of the poker playing community or the businesses that provide the poker sites.

Even the more regulatory Frank Bill does not, as we speak, favor any one business concern (admittedly that could change if it ever has a real chance of passing).

So while it is possible to see that somewhere in the future the interests of partypoker etc.., pokerstars/FTP etc... and the big casinos, and maybe even us players could diverge, that is not where we are NOW. If the PPA were to support any one business interest over another or over the interests of us players, I will withdraw my support of them faster than you can blink.

But until then the goal for ALL OF US is the same: some recognized framework where playing poker online is clearly legal.

Until and unless we get to that point the interests of partypoker and me, as fnurt points out, are exactly the same.

And we are still so far from that point that I still dont see the relevance of starting an internal squabble over the membership of the PPA board, certainly not at this time (except of course, as it relates to competence in actually getting to that point).

So I still say lets not worry about the actual parameters of legal poker benefiting party more than stars, or cardplayer more than 2+2, UNTIL WE SEE THAT THERE IS A REAL CHANCE FOR LEGAL POKER. You and MM are not seeing the forest for the trees, IMHO, you are worrying so much about what they may do IF they achieve some initial success, that you seem to want to deny them that success. And denying them that success denies me the ability to play clearly legal poker. How does that serve MY interests?

Skallagrim

PS, I will also concede the points on transparency, but again dont see how that affects the average poker player's interests at this time except, again, as to competency.

PPS - TPCEO is right, although I dont see party actually working to get FTP prosecuted. Yet I am sure party would love to come back to the US with stars/FTP/and even true poker excluded. IF, IF, IF that were ever to be part of the PPA agenda, THEN I will, as I said, withdraw my support for the PPA. I suspect, however, that if forced to choose between no US market and a market that includes FTP etc... party would choose to have the market back.

PPPS: isnt Howard Lederer on the PPA board? Doesn't he have strong ties to FTP? How does this fit into the "PPA favors party" theory?

[BluffTHIS!]

Skall,

The high probability is that Franks/Weixler doesn't pass this year. In fact if you believe a story/interview on the G911 site, Franks believes that as well. So then we shift to the mid to long term. It is that longer term where it is *critical* to work on mulitple initiatives, like B&M and intra-state online at the state levels, which will heighten the visibility of the poker issue and help legalize online poker. But with a board majority who not only doesn't benefit from B&M and intra-state online poker, but whose interests can be harmed by legalization of same, then they are in fact harming the longer term chances of online poker.
Let's face it, if either intra-state online poker or better yet mulit-state (like the lotto), comes to pass, all those affiliate farms are SOL.

Also look at what types of business necessarily have the most tied into the specific business models of online sites. It is the derivative type businesses like affiliate farms, certain advertisors, some software providers, etc. Thus they stand to have the most conflicts of interest and not be willing to work for what the broader membership of the PPA desires. Which is why they not only shouldn't be on the board, but certainly shouldn't constitute a majority of same.


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.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could care less who is on the PPA board

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot to learn.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Then enlighten me oh wise one, becasue I also do not care who is on the board of the NRA, the Reason Foundation, NORML, Moveon.org, or any other advocacy group who I support when their position is the same as mine.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]


Skall,

If you would actually read what I wrote earlier you could get enlightened. But here's the cliff notes:

1) Conflicted interests
2) Which lead to errors of ommission as to the broader range of goals most of us have
3) Lack of broad enough relevant expertise
4) Added to managerial incompetence of the past until Mr. Pappas' appointment (and which continues as to judicial issues)
4) Along with ongoing problems in transparency



Now let's examine the current results of the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for a clean position to start with the thought of going back trough the mixed quote version was making my eyes bleed.

1, 2 & 3. Are really one issue, and your perceived consequences. You say there is a conflict of interests. I say at best there is only the appearance of one. You have not shown one action of the boards to prove this is a real issue.

From going back and reading "PPA history", if you can call it that of an organization a little over 1 year old I retract my agreement in principal on mismanagement.

My reading of the history is the people who thought up the PPA thought that board members should be poker players of high visibility. The list of current board members is at: PPA Board I addition these are the people who stepped up and got involved when asked.

Let's look at the issue of management. The PPA has about 3/4 Million members. This is not an insignificant number.

I have be refreshing my contacts on the Hill, and I find that even with those friends working for representatives not currently working for us and from the offices of one that the representative had opposed us, the visibility of the PPA on the Hill is high and even those not yet in our camp respect the actions and professionalism shown so far. Again this is not a very broad sampling but very encouraging given my "natural market".

The speed issue. We all want what we want and as quickly as we can damn well get it. None of us "detractors", and I lump myself into that group some what, but and learning more, have done much to help the group in the year or so it had been in existence. Some including me have actually hurt it with our negative posts to the PPA forum. Someone last night at a bar league was asking me my screen name and when I told them, the person sitting next to them said, "so you're that guy!" He went on to tell me that if I hadn't been taking positive action now he might have punched me for some of my comments past about the PPA.

So to make it easy to respond here are my points.

1. You have only shown an appearance of a possible conflict of interest. Errors of omissions are like trying to prove a negative. We do not know what was tried and didn't work. We can't IMO not say had you only done this or that, that the PPA would be better off now.

3. Again show me that anyone with the fantastic missing key experience you speak of and I'll ask them what they have done to try and lend that help to the PPA. My poker analogy still is someone developed a game, you seem to think it's worth playing in. But you seem to demand some ownership of the game just to take the time to visit the game. Show me that you tried to join the game, and were denied a seat for an unfair reason. Don't tell me the dealer they hired is crooked just because you've seen only a few hands and don't like the card distribution you've seen in just a few hands!

4. On going transparency. Financial. The PPA as a non-profit is required to file Form 990 and Schedule A annually. As a lobbing group it is also required to file other public forms disclosing its lobbing and spending activities. As an non-member or introductory free member that is all you are entitled to in any such organization. But you haven't shown me any mismanagement for any of those documents.

Now let’s talk about the PPA's willingness to talk to it's members. In my short experience the PPA has been very good at answering questions I have. I expressed my concerns and the ED was willing to meet me. Whenever I have had a question he has answered it. Whenever I had someone who wanted to talk to him directly he has indicated that he is more than willing to talk to them.

Not one offer of help or suggestion has ever been rejected totally out of hand. After a month or so of communications with John and a couple of the old SF group, I am confident enough to say I doubt that any offer of help has been turned down flat.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with a real organization here, one with on going operations, it has plans the were made some time ago agreed to all that were present at that time and are currently under way or in progress. This is not an abstract issue or some sort of MBA class case study.

This brings me to my short list.

1. No one has shown in any case where the Mission Statement of the PPA has not been followed to the letter.

2. You have yet to show where any open and honest offer of help or dedication of resources has been flatly rejected.

3. Other than all of our collective hindsight has not proven any mismanagement. All we have is our outside opinion based on how successful we think we might have been had we been "king". In fact, I suggest that the Board has shown the required competence in addressing the management issue in a method that didn't destroy any of the momentum they had with a fairly sizable shake up of the organization.

4. Given what I have learned in the last month about the PPA, I feel they are on much more of a solid ground than I ever expected them to be given my initial outside impression. Not one of my suggestions has been flatly rejected. Many of my "new idea" were already under consideration or already being planned for implementation.

5. Ask not what the PPA has done for you, but what have you done for Poker. Is the first and most important test IMO.

Your Poll is a joke. It is meaningless. Your backhanded attempt to remove people who have stepped up and put forward the effort to date is childish. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION!

Again you have showed at best minor harm and point to a slight potential future conflict of interest. But you have shown no reasonable way to correct this "problem". The organization you claim is so totally diseased is IMO, much healthier than you claim. Your suggested remedy is the equitant of swatting at flies with a sledge hammer.

Again show me malfeasance, show me where any potential conflict of interest has in any way been concretely demonstrated. Show me where any open and honest offer of help has been flatly rejected. Until you show me any of those things give it up. Then even if you do find something, you are going to have to prove that a) it already isn't being addressed and b) that what ever solution to your issue is better than the status quo, given any possible distractions and expenditure of resources.

Until then, IMO this is a closed issue.

I am always willing to re-open the issue at a future time. Once we get to 2 million members with a good number of paid members, have state reps with some track records, and have given the new boards direction at least 6 months more like a year, I'm all for discussing the voting of members, advisory panels, elected boards the whole nine yards. But until then, actions speak louder than words. I have IMO, barely shown enough action to be a semi-credible voice in this matter and I think I've shown a little concrete action, but that is all a very little given the time and effort others have shown to date.

[BluffTHIS!]

DMD,

Another long post there filled with ad hominem and irrelevancies. And which didn't address my earlier arguments as before. And which ignores: the role and negative influence of conflicted interests, a failure to provide transparency, ineptitude in the past year regarding grassroots organizing and communication, and a failure to see the importance of working to facilitate judicial challenges that could benefit poker. In short there is every reason to believe that the current board that presided over those failures is inept and needs to be seriously revamped.

What are you? Their paid shill? Or just incredibly obtuse? (or scared like a lot poker players?)

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
DMD,

Another long post there filled with ad hominem and irrelevancies. And which didn't address my earlier arguments as before. And which ignores: the role and negative influence of conflicted interests, a failure to provide transparency, ineptitude in the past year regarding grassroots organizing and communication, and a failure to see the importance of working to facilitate judicial challenges that could benefit poker. In short there is every reason to believe that the current board that presided over those failures is inept and needs to be seriously revamped.

What are you? Their paid shill? Or just incredibly obtuse? (or scared like a lot poker players?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wow! A claim of ad hominem attacks followed by what a string of ad hominem attacks?

Sorry I answered each of your points posted and you didn't address a single issue of mine.

Lets make it simple. You claim harm but show no real evidence other than errors of omissions, and I guess you want me to attempt to disprove a negative. You have all these Skull&Bones theories about how the potential conflicts of interest are crippling the board, the PPA, and poker in general, but show not one action by the board that proves a single interest has been or even is planned to hurt Poker overall.

Since you have not shown one viable piece of evidence to show a single action by the board or PPA that has harmed the any interest of poker, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I offered a solution. Any one who wants to help out give it a try. If they are bringing so much to the table that they think that should earn themselves a position on the board there is nothing stopping them.

I think it really is as simple as that.


D$D

[Skallagrim]

Well Bluff, it seems that this is the issue: " It is that longer term where it is *critical* to work on mulitple initiatives, like B&M and intra-state online at the state levels, which will heighten the visibility of the poker issue and help legalize online poker. But with a board majority who not only doesn't benefit from B&M and intra-state online poker, but whose interests can be harmed by legalization of same, then they are in fact harming the longer term chances of online poker. "

This is a debate over tactics, and a stretch in my opinion. Right now, even under the UIGEA, intra-state online poker is possible, yet it does not exist. It does not exist because it is not economically feasible for the private sector, and except for TuffFish's initiative, does not appear on the radar of any state legislature. You have to have access to a large pool of players. An in-state poker site could only do that in a large state (CA or NY) and even then would have to ban their residents from playing at any other site... That is not in my interest at all (not to mention that it would be a blatant violation of the WTO).

Although you are right that increased exposure to poker helps the cause, nothing increases this exposure more than the WPT, HSP and WSOP, nor will it.

So, as much as I appreciate your bringing up these points, I cant agree on this one. IMHO the PPA would be wasting time on this kind of initiative.

And yes, its clear that this year will not bring success legislatively. But it took our opponents over 10 years to get the highly flawed UIGEA. I still believe that through the kind of effort put out by the Engineer, especially now that he will be an actual part of the PPA, we will achieve that success at some point, probably after January '09 when there is a new president and a substantial change in the congress that reflects the diminished power of the moralist right.

B&M poker issues are vastly different form online poker issues. I am most concerned with the online issues. The PPA is fighting that fight, and I still havent heard a good reason not to join them in it.

Skallagrim

[fnurt]

[ 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.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The high probability is that Franks/Weixler doesn't pass this year. In fact if you believe a story/interview on the G911 site, Franks believes that as well. So then we shift to the mid to long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passing either bill has always been a long shot. Getting it out there in front of the public and keeping it there for the term has been great for us. PPA did a lot to make that happen, as did each and every one of us. Us staying on the offense has kept folks like Goodlatte on the defensive; he promised a bill this year to finish where UIGEA left off. Not only did that not happen, but he's been very quiet about the whole subject.

I said when I started the weekly action thread that we'd be successful this year if we could still easily play poker online and if we laid the foundation for our future long term fight. I think we did all that. And, the legislation is still out there for this term....it could easily find its way onto a popular bill via paygo.

[ QUOTE ]
It is that longer term where it is *critical* to work on mulitple initiatives, like B&M and intra-state online at the state levels, which will heighten the visibility of the poker issue and help legalize online poker. But with a board majority who not only doesn't benefit from B&M and intra-state online poker, but whose interests can be harmed by legalization of same, then they are in fact harming the longer term chances of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kentucky ballot issue is all about B&M casinos, and the PPA was enthusiastic to to join in. In fact, John spent a good part of last weekend getting our initial alert prepared to go out on Tue. morning, which it did. And, while TuffFish's proposal has met its share of resistance from within the online poker community, the PPA has still given his proposal space on their home page.

[ QUOTE ]
Wait you say. The Engineer will soon be joining! Which when his vote is added to those of the chairman and the reps of the sites still in the US market *could* overrule the CP/Party Poker/Affiliate Farm block. Right? Wrong! Look on the PPA website and you will see that they have added another person, one Mary Magazine, an attorney *without* relevant legal experience (unless you think being a traffic court judge is), whose vote will offset that of the Engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt they asked me to join (and I didn't lobby or even ask...the last thing I care about is glory or credit...I just want us to have freedom and liberty) to outvote me on every issue. We'll see how things go once I officially join, but I've seen no evidence of the board shutting John down on anything.

The board has empowered John to run the show, just like every other non-profit board does. I don't imagine he would have taken the job otherwise. He's spending money and other resources on B&M issues as well as online ones.

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.