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

[BluffTHIS!]

I have discussed many times the composition of the PPA board and why I feel it is in drastic need of being revamped in order to give it a broad range of relevant and competent expertise that it needs to have the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.

The poll I am including here is an attempt to see which of those industry concerns *are least deserving or undeserving* of representation on the PPA board. I have enabled the ability to vote for two choices. Also if you please, you can post and give your reasons for your votes. It would especially be enlightening if such reasoning included what a specific industry groups brings to the table that helps the cause of poker, and what it brings that harms the cause of poker. Or rather, is a specific concern benefiting the PPA and the goals that its members have in some way, or is it only interested in its own self-interest (specific business models again).

[Berge20]

Can I pick more than 2 please?

[BluffTHIS!]

Uh no. Otherwise it wouldn't be specific enough.


Note: I got asked via PM what an affiliate farm is. Affiliate farm is the name often given to mega-affiliates that are affiliates for multiple sites, and/or also have large networks of sub-affiliates, similar to network marketing type of organizations.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have discussed many times the composition of the PPA board and why I feel it is in drastic need of being revamped in order to give it a broad range of relevant and competent expertise that it needs to have the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.



[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO your entire question is not only out of line it is based on a false premise.

Do the current board members deserve to be there?

Well let’s see? They stood up when asked to join. I don't know how much seed money they were required to personally contribute or "bring to the table" but that is usually the buy-in to be dealt a hand at a board room table like this.

Your premise is in effect an attempted proxy fight. You think the board sucks. I get that.

But what do you usually need in a proxy fight to win?

You have to show that the current board and management are unfit and its actions have hurt the organization.

Other than expressing your dislike of the current board, or demanding certain people be replacing by your own personal slate or possibly one chosen in this forum, what exactly are you getting at?

You have yet to show any harm to the poker world done by the PPA to date. You might have a mismanagement claim, which I might have supported before the board made the changes it has recently. We've got a new HQ location, a new Ex. Dir., even a new board member from "our" ranks. The PPA's KY participation is under serious discussion based on a cost vs. reward basis. Efforts are already under way with the e-mail TE posted to get an initial gauge of interest and I imagine see how good the e-mail list is. TE says the PPA is going to address the new IRS reg. Efforts are well underway to have a meaningful marking of the Anniversary of the UIGEA. I'm told the member questionnaire John promised to send out to the members is out or on it's way. John came here and posted. He's answered questions, e-mails, and had a meeting with me. I don't know and didn't ask how many others he's met with. Let alone the thousands things the PPA is doing that I know nothing about. These are all positives aren't they?

Where is the damage? What would your dream board do differently or what would you have them do differently, that is much different than is currently underway?

You act like there was a secret conspiracy to keep certain poker interests off the board. Do you have any proof of this? You act like the interests of certain aspects of the poker industry are being harmed by the PPA; can you point to specific actions?

As I posted once before, sometime around the age of four I pretty much gave up on the idea that I was ever going to get everything I wanted all of the time. Hell you know I've posted that I'm a lifelong Republican. I volunteered over 250 hours in 16 weeks in a Presidential campaign. I knew I'd been doing a lot, but it was my wife who told me how many hours I'd donated. Yes that's about a year of 40 hour work weeks in less than a quarter of a year. I’ve done a lot of work since then that was below my going rate. Even the Federal job I reluctantly accepted was taken at a pay cut to what I’d been making before taking it. Am I totally happy with everything the party does all the time?

What the hell am I doing as a lifelong Republican? Am I off to KY to do everything I can to try and save a fellow Republican? No I want to burry the SOB so deep they will need part of the Rockies to fill the hole! Yeah I think the PPA can mobilize the effort to make a mark on National politics in KY for poker. At this point in my life if I could afford to go down their on my own dime, I’d already be there! 3 kids, one in College will cause you to loose a little of your freedoms. Perhaps if I hadn’t given so much to the GOP and wasn’t getting to the point where the AARP sends you that nasty birthday card on your 50th I’d go anyway. Maybe if I was a better poker player I could afford to go. Hey anyone want to stake me??? John Pappas are you reading this? I bet it would be a positive ROI and likely return your staking in the form of new member donations….

I'd say this to you. Can you show me proof that there were people willing to step up and join the effort in a meaningful way when the PPA was formed but were denied a seat at the table? No I don't mean that they might not have had their butts kissed enough or given enough control to bother getting involved, I mean being told NO.

Can you show me other than through past mismanagement where the interests of any portion of the poker world was disserved or one portion given special favor over the competing interest of another?

You want to wage a proxy fight, let’s get it all out in the open. What is your claim to the "throne" why do you or what ever interest you represent or think isn't represented should be given control now? While you are at it tell me what they'd do differently. Give me a compelling list of reasons. I'm either a reasonable person or you might suggest one that is easily persuaded. Give it your best shot.

So far the current board has my vote, but I haven't signed my ballot just yet nor sent it in. My vote is up for grabs, convince me!


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

Like I said my vote is currently for the PPA board that is unless they reject TE's nomination, then all bets are off!!!


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

D$D,


[ QUOTE ]

Do the current board members deserve to be there?

Your premise is in effect an attempted proxy fight. You think the board sucks. I get that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The right question and yep that's my answer.


[ QUOTE ]

But what do you usually need in a proxy fight to win?

You have to show that the current board and management are unfit and its actions have hurt the organization.

Other than expressing your dislike of the current board, or demanding certain people be replacing by your own personal slate or possibly one chosen in this forum, what exactly are you getting at?

You have yet to show any harm to the poker world done by the PPA to date. You might have a mismanagement claim, which I might have supported before the board made the changes it has recently.

[/ QUOTE ]


And yes that's the standard for judging, and yes the recent improvements are indeed just that. But doing too little too late, being reactive instead of proactive, and having a board that lacks the type of expertise one would expect with a wide range of releveant experience, not just in *certain* segments of the poker industry, but also in politcs, fundraising and the law (yeah I know one is an attorney), are many reasons for judging this current board unworthy. Add to that, until the Engineer joins, a total lack, let alone a sufficient representation, of the base membership (which could and should include some state directors), the very evident *conflicts of interest* that DOMINATE the current board, and there the membership has all the reason in the world to judge that a serious shakeup, and not just a tweaking, of the current board membership is in order.

Besides the members of the actual board, the PPA should have various advisory panels on various topics. And they could easily use their forums with private such ones to facilitate getting such needed advice. There are many industry and politics insiders who post here who can't publicly be affiliated with the PPA, but would be willing to provide valuable advice and counsel in a private setting, *if the PPA asked them to*.


[ QUOTE ]
Where is the damage? What would your dream board do differently or what would you have them do differently, that is much different than is currently underway?

[/ QUOTE ]


The damage is that the recent changes took far too long and fall far too short of what is needed. The PPA should have been addressing the broader range of goals that the majority of members have, like B&M poker, intra-state online poker, neutering the regs, and especially, being proactive in fighting on the judicial front as opportunities presented itself instead of just focusing on legislation. This doesn't mean of course that at any current moment some goals don't deserve more focus than others, in this case being the pending legislation. But it does mean that at least minimal efforts needed to be made to lay the groundwork for other goals, *all of which would work together with a synergistic effect*.

Also, even though none of us think the PPA some type of scam, it also has done too little in the way of financial and operational transparency. They finally last year after much criticism here posted the previous year's financials. But where is last year's now that this one is mostly gone? Such transparency should be a required best practice of any such organization.



[ QUOTE ]
You act like there was a secret conspiracy to keep certain poker interests off the board. Do you have any proof of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's see. Do you see any members who are average poker players, but with needed expertise in the law, politics or fundraising? No is the answer. Do you see any representatives of B&M poker? No is the answer. The plain fact is that the current board precisely represents the vested interests of certain business models in the poker industry, specifically current and former online sites, advertising media dependant on same, and affiliate interests. All of whom have zero interest, as is plain from the PPA's actions (or rather lack thereof), in furthering other forms of poker.


[ QUOTE ]
You act like the interests of certain aspects of the poker industry are being harmed by the PPA; can you point to specific actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are all actions of omission with one *flagrant and gross* exception. Which was their short lived advertising campaign (until they yanked same after criticism here) that took the party poker line that the UIGEA outlawed all the sites staying in the US market, contrary to the legal interpretations of the privately owned sites, and which was solely a move to harm the business and legal interests of those private sites, in line with the *very bitter* criticisms of same directed at them by Mitch the Bitch Garber, CEO of Party Gaming. Errors of omission can not only be as great, but can be greater than errors of comission.



[ QUOTE ]
Can you show me other than through past mismanagement where the interests of any portion of the poker world was disserved or one portion given special favor over the competing interest of another?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answered this above, but note how casually you dismiss past mismanagement. That is HUGE. Too little too late won't cut the mustard.



And here's a different and very good way to look at things. If the board, other than its chairman Sen. D'Amato whom I currently have no problem with (but will if his buddy Fred comes out explicitly against us after he endorsed him), were being picked by all of us here today, what kind of persons would be looking for to fill it? Would we be looking for 4 members who are owners/past owners/writers of one specific poker publication, two of whom are domestic partners and a couple of whom are also invested heavily in the affiliate business that depends on one certain business model? And then would we round it out with only 3 others who represent various poker sites? Or would we be looking for at most one or two from each of those groups and seeking other non-industry members with better and greater experience in the law, grassroots politics, fundraising and business? If we had such a picture of the "ideal board" and then compared it to the current one, I think most here would find the current one severely lacking.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]


Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

[OldNantucker]

Who is currently on the PPA board (or whre can I find this info) and what reasons would any of them have not to fight for online poker rights?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]




Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the worth of having stepped up and built the value of the organization that currently exists? You keep insisting that because of the current affiliations of the board it can not move forward.

Of these prospective board members where were they when the PPA was formed? Did they volunteer their time, resources, and credibility? Has this vast resource been freely offered or tried to talk to the ED or board members when it was formed? How about recently? Or is the position been "we want x amount of seats just to talk"?

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."

We're a single issue group and you want to re-create all of the worst of our current 2 party system to play in that enviorment? With freeroll members, various levels of members, and some small number of big donnors who do you propose to vote this.

I've been in board rooms, good bad and in the middle of a fight for control. I was even in FlA for the re-count. How fancy are you going to try and make this?

While it might be true that for an individual "what doesn't destroy us makes us stronger". IMO that just isn't true in this case. IMO your cure is worse than the current effects of the desease you're trying to cure.

If cooler heads can't prevail and everyone pitch in to their own abilites and tastes with out this "I'm going to take my ball home" attitude I was right in my teaser post in FT's forum. Poker is doomed.

Seems simple to me. Donate you time and the resources you can. If you think you have something valuable enough to try and negociate something more go for it. But this king of the hill game you're playing is getting out of hand. I don't know for sure we as the PPA's members as a whole can walk and chew gum. Now on the eve of battle you want to add a whole nighmare of races amongst ourselves for State Rep unpaid jobs, so we can then vote on an advisory pannel? To tell the people who've done the work so far to do what is working and not do what isn't. OMG you sound like most of the thinking you get talking to people who've been in D.C. too long. Who's going to pay for all of this?

By the way where is this fancy gold plated boardroom any way? We're a infant non-profit, not a Fourtune 500 company. Besides you sound a lot like Gordon Gecko trying a leveraged buy out. But do you really think there is at this point that much to fight over and possibly destroy at this time? IMO you want to do this, I'm all for it come after the November elections in '08. Lets get some state reps in the field see who can carry the politicl water, see if we can operate as we should. Spending the time and effort to wrest the control now in the manner you're speaking of is IMPO insane. Heck you'd start with a problem I'm sure with already appointed state reps. Don't you have to toss them out as well as they were appointed not elected. Who you going to trust to count the ballots? Hire an outside accounting firm?

Lets get real. If one or all of your chosen few have the vast resources, go talk to John talk to the board members individually or in any number you can get them to listen. Work it out behind the scenes. But this my way or the highway crap is getting old and time is very short.


D$D

All opinions expressed in this and all my posts are soley my own. All spelling and gramatically errors are my own and due to sleep deprevation. I've spent the last 48 hours or so out pimping the PPA for free. I use my e-mail program as a spell checker and comcast's e-mail server is down and I'm tired of the password pop-up comming up every minute and me typing have my thought into the password field. I have no affiliation with 2+2 or the PPA other than the free services offered by each. Yes I met with John. I have had no with him conversations beyond how the PPA might avail it self of any talents I might have that he or it finds useful. If nominated to the board I will not accept any such offer should anyone be dumb enough to offer me such a nomination any time before 60 days after election day 2008. If you want to question my motives for my opinions feel free. I wear flame retardant underware. This is my fourth crack at this reply. Timed out twice and trashed the other two. I'll likely edit this after some sleep so enjoy it while you can. Go ahead quote it. Just for prosperity's sake!

[uphigh_downlow]

[ QUOTE ]

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."


[/ QUOTE ]

Hit the nail on the head, as far as TPT LLC manouvering is concerned. I cant believe I was gullible enough not to see through this just a week ago.

Such tactics are only going to weaken TPT's ( ownership etal, not the community) credibility.

They have already lost one lost believer here, and I have good reason to suspect there are more.

BluffThis, you would have a much better chance at causing positive change, with positive contributions and I dont mean with your keyboard.

When you are passionate about an issue, you find innovative ways to find common ground and work on the matter at hand, rather than grandstanding.

I think TheEngineer is a good example.

I'm not being too simplistic or desperate. Its just that when you have two teams. One talks a lot and thats all it does. The other is not great but gets some work done. You go for the latter.