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

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 2+2 believes that "these folks" and other things will become some of the "talking points" (to quote another post) of the opposition, and, in our opinion, these will be very effective talking points at that.

Let me state again that we have nothing against affiliate farms. We are now doing some of that ourselves. But we do think that having these groups on the PPA board has the potential to become a very big negative. Don't underestimate the viciousness of the anti-gambling forces.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I too feel that the only way this issue could hurt is from retarding the effectiveness of the PPA to reach and ultimately speak for the larger poker community if not the ability to gain traction there.

We do not have to cater to the B&M's to gain a better grasp of the live poker community. As it is a direct appeal to the B&M industry to help us gain their might IMO be unsucessful.

The on-line community has and does see the better efforts of the recent activities of the PPA, but the "average" recreational player who used to inpart make up the larger group of former on-line players and fish, who beleive that on-line poker is illegal, unprofitable, and or rigged, see the PPA as both useless and ineffective.

There are much easier ways to reach this larger "natural market" than through the B&M's IMO.

So while I userstand the issue I feel resigniation is not the only answer to attempting to solve this issue.


D$D