PPA Washington Fly-In October 22nd thru 24th

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]


And also ask them how it would look if one or more PPA board members who own large affiliate farms were to get indicted. I had another poster here point out to me privately that these large affiliate farms could be a prime target of the DoJ if it wants some more criminal prosecutions relating to transferring funds online from offshore sites.

Now while the actual results of such hypothetical prosecutions might actually help poker if they were favorable, it would seem to me that for the PPA to have board members under indictment would be a black mark and certainly would be spun by our opponents like FOF as equivalent to the PPA board having organized crime connections. No matter that such wouldn't be true, as spin and perception would rule the day.

Think this is farfetched? Ask Kaplan and Carruthers. And then ask yourself whether having Kaplan and Carruthers on the PPA board *right now* would be advantageous OR NOT.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup , Do you not know who they are? I don't, but I don't give a rat's a$$. specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites Do you mean large existing sites with a bunch of affiliates, or large affiliate organizations? and essentially no representtion of real poker players. I feel I am finally getting my interests represented, but then, some will argue I am not a real poker player. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I believe that until these problems are addressed and more improvement is made, I will ask you like I asked Bluff This, what is it you want them to do? It is unlikely they are going to change the board just to please you. they will be a deterrent towards any progress, and may eventually hurt the cause of making poker more accessible to everyone.

Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

Regards,

Tuff

[kitchma]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

I believe that until these problems are addressed and more improvement is made, they will be a deterrent towards any progress, and may eventually hurt the cause of making poker more accessible to everyone.

Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

PPAdc,

when will you address the issues that Mason mentions above? I don't think the questions that many on the forum have are going away. Do you?

-kitch

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask all our people who attend this to bring up the problems with transparency and the board makeup, specifically with the representation of the large affiliate sites and essentially no representtion of real poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]


And also ask them how it would look if one or more PPA board members who own large affiliate farms were to get indicted. I had another poster here point out to me privately that these large affiliate farms could be a prime target of the DoJ if it wants some more criminal prosecutions relating to transferring funds online from offshore sites.

Now while the actual results of such hypothetical prosecutions might actually help poker if they were favorable, it would seem to me that for the PPA to have board members under indictment would be a black mark and certainly would be spun by our opponents like FOF as equivalent to the PPA board having organized crime connections. No matter that such wouldn't be true, as spin and perception would rule the day.

Think this is farfetched? Ask Kaplan and Carruthers. And then ask yourself whether having Kaplan and Carruthers on the PPA board *right now* would be advantageous OR NOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This would be the best thing to happen for online poker players. It would look great for the PPA to have a large member or board member indicted for violating the Wire Act or UIGEA for actions supporting an offshore online poker site as long as the member and the PPA vigorously fought the indictment. Then the PPA would actually being doing something useful for online poker players.
But it will never happen. The DOJ is too smart and chicken to directly take on the online poker industry.

[BluffTHIS!]

JPF,

I noted that the results of such prosecution could in fact be good for us. But the important point is how an organization with board members under cloud of indictment would look to fence-sitters in congress. My money says such an organization and its arguments wouldn't look too appealing since now such a politician not only has to justify to his/her constituents backing bills that enable some forms of gambling, but also which forms are pushed by an organization that is lead by persons being criminally prosecuted. Good luck selling that even in blue states. And again, as is genearlly true in politics, it won't be the actual facts that carry the day, but perceptions.

[whangarei]

John this sounds great! I'm definately thinking of attending. You may want to send notices like this out in an email -- I doubt most members check the news on your web site.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? This would be the best thing to happen for online poker players. It would look great for the PPA to have a large member or board member indicted for violating the Wire Act or UIGEA for actions supporting an offshore online poker site as long as the member and the PPA vigorously fought the indictment. Then the PPA would actually being doing something useful for online poker players.
But it will never happen. The DOJ is too smart and chicken to directly take on the online poker industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. That would be outstanding for us, especially as those folks wouldn't make a deal....they'd fight it out.

As for PPA, I don't think it would matter; these folks would simple leave the board once indicted. No big deal.

[TheEngineer]

I'll be attending. I'm very encouraged that PPA is doing things like this.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As for PPA, I don't think it would matter; these folks would simple leave the board once indicted. No big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


You don't think it would matter? For our foes to be able to say that board members were criminals facing prosecution and that the PPA wouldn't in the minds of the now neutral fence-sitters, be tainted even if those members resigned after the fact? I suggest that there is no reason to even risk giving such potential negative spin to our opponents because those board members could resign *NOW* if they cared more about the PPA than advancing their own finanical affiliate farm interests.

[Legislurker]

So Tuff, we are supposed to show up, spend our money, lobby, and to convince people to listen to a board with very little player interest? Sorta like Gandalf going up in Isengard to discuss deep matters with Saruman and leaving us little hobbits out here on a barrel of tabac while our "betters" hammer out a deal that may or may not screw us. I think everyone WANTS to be on board in this, just we want some more information about the piloting.