Mason... Sir,

[JPFisher55]

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.

[kailua]

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich…I appreciate your sincerity and commitment to the PPA and the advancement of poker player’s rights, but from your tone it now appears quite justifiable that Mason insisted that you identify your affiliation with each post.

[Uglyowl]

[ 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]

[ 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.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't understand why you'd dig up a semi-dead thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I agree with the above statement.

It is clear that Mason has a lot of grief with the PPA board makeup. It is clear that he is unlikely to change his mind.

But, he has allowed the PPA a reasonable opportunity to come on here and post. The previous hubbub seemed to be settled mostly to everyone's satisfaction.

The PPA is who they are, Mason is who he is. Neither is likely to change soon.

I personally don't see the PPA board as being much of an issue. Of course they have an interest in some aspect of legalized online poker. Who else is going to go to any great effort to help us out? Especially, who is going to put out any significant amount of money?

Mason doesn't agree with that idea. Fine, let's agree to disagree and move on.

Tuff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't understand why you'd dig up a semi-dead thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I agree with the above statement.

It is clear that Mason has a lot of grief with the PPA board makeup. It is clear that he is unlikely to change his mind.

But, he has allowed the PPA a reasonable opportunity to come on here and post. The previous hubbub seemed to be settled mostly to everyone's satisfaction.

The PPA is who they are, Mason is who he is. Neither is likely to change soon.

I personally don't see the PPA board as being much of an issue. Of course they have an interest in some aspect of legalized online poker. Who else is going to go to any great effort to help us out? Especially, who is going to put out any significant amount of money?

Mason doesn't agree with that idea. Fine, let's agree to disagree and move on.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the PPA hasn't shown any desire to allow further participation in the decision making processes. Suggestions are make in this forum, the PPA's forum, and to PPA officials; perhaps once in ten or less the reasoning for the decision is given, and too often the culture of "an inferiority complex" so infuses the official answer that any communication is lost.

I still have great hope for John and the PPA. I will no matter what, first offer any assistance requested or reasonably foreseen. I will not prostate my self nor silence my opinions on areas of improvement as a "price of admission."

This is no way to run a grassroots organization.


D$D<-- now using Firefox.. F! M$.

[chrisptp]

these threads, and others like them, strike me as a sad waste of time by intelligent people whose energy could be better spent promoting (in whatever way they see fit) the greater goal of legalized, regulated online poker.

i'd also like to know what rule TE broke.

[Skallagrim]

Well, it would appear an alliance between 2+2 and the PPA is out of the question, lets hope at least that the "truce" continues.

I have only one additional comment, directed more at the readers than the owners of 2+2: that the PPA board is open to challenge for not being 100% representative is something I have agreed with in general, but I still say "so what." Does anyone think the NRA is compromised by the fact that owners of gun manufacturing companies sit on its board? Or is anyone bothered that publishers of porn give financial contributions to the ACLU?

I see at this point no divergence between what the PPA board is fighting for and what I want: explicitly legal online poker. UNTIL I see such a divergence, I just cant help feeling Mason and Bluff are doing more harm than good, although I know this is not their intention.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

Im just greedy Skall. The entire UIGEA fiasco has given rise to something Ive seen a need for since my first trip to the casino. A player advocacy union/NGO. The PPA as is is not, and is miles away from being that. Its clear they have no intention now of ever being it. As for fighting the UIGEA they are there, ok, but iMega and Antigua have done more. Even the Russo guy in WA has. The PPA hasnt filed one lawsuit. Even a spurious one or 100. Florida is a big, glaring failure to convince me they were backing general poker. So Im sitting it out until they either co-opt Mason or go out on a limb ot convince me its going ot be a player's organization. Good work, I appreciate it, but I don't trust it.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please to see how he was unrespectful or unprofessional? Or what posting rule he broke. Seems to me he was respectfully stating an opinion. Then again TE seemed to be working hard over the Thanksgiving weekend so a short posting vacation is well deserved.

In response to some other comments, something should be pretty clear by now: 2+2 LLC doesn't give a damn about fighting for our rights to play online poker. Get over it.