Does the PPA need 2+2?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same as in politics where it's not just registered voters, but those most likely to in fact vote, who are the most sought after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're getting closer.

The most sought after are the ones capable of registering new voters and getting them and the already registered to the right polls on time ready to vote your way.

This movement really is at the crutical "tipping point."

We either move forward and take a shot at winning or all dig in for the long hard slow fight.

Quite likely this is why this issue has been pushed to the forefront RIGHT now.

The PPA is NOT strong enought to stand on it own, nor really ready to "spring" into action.

2+2 and 2+2er's have done a good deal of the heavy lifting in the name of the PPA or not. To date the PPA for the most part gets all the credit.

But the PPA is excedingly weak now. As a Grassroots organization "we" have an expensive e-mail list of 800k names, a weak structure, over 2 years of time and something north of 4 million spent to date; and are still a fledgeling "infant" organization with less than 1/30 of the community and less than 10% active membership participation.

In political terms of where we need to be we have a decent outline and a lot of hope.

As I've said in the past this in no way takes away from the very hard work that has been done and the great progress that has been accomplished recently. We really do good PR!

The PPA is currently hamstrung for money. It is a sad fact of building your numbers from the least committed.

So we die an infant death and one of great promise but get strangled from our history and todling misteps, or we get back up and get ready to just train for the apporaching marathon.

As all things in reality it is up to "we" the members of the larger community and each of the smaller "communities" to decide if we have the heart for this fight.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

I am an online poker player. I do not play live poker and do not want to play live poker. Thus, the affiliate farms, online poker sites and poker magazines who profit from advertisements from online poker sites represent my interests just fine.
As for who needs who. The best situation for both is a symbiotic one. IMO, Mason needs to understand that and maybe work at bit harder to achieve it. Recently, the PPA has finally realized it and taken steps to achieve it. IMO putting TE on its board of directors was one such step taken by PPA.

[BluffTHIS!]

How can there be a mutual symbiotic relationship with a lopsided board representation? Why can't the online interests you mention be the ones to also work a little harder at this? Just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency?

[JPFisher55]

Bluffthis, who would be better on PPA's board? It has several poker pros, some industry reps, a noted politician and at least one, TE, player and organizer? Do you really think that more players will help? I don't think so. Would more B&M interests help? I don't think so and they may not be on our side.
So how is the board lopsided? All the members have an interest in online poker being successful, profitable and becoming legal in US to the point that some online poker providers can be based in US.

[Legislurker]

A lot of you want to use the NRA as a role model for the PPA. Fair enough. Just like the NRA has to get to hunters, the PPA has to get to the casual poker players. So how do you fit 2p2 into the analogy? Were not the gun manufacturers and with a few exceptions were not crazy militia members in the Montana woods. We are the gun show dealers. We(for the most part) make a damn good living off poker, either as just players, or as affiliates and players.
2p2 is where the shock troops are. We can either spread the word that the PPA is a good or bad thing. How many poker playing people can you reach for free in a day? Theres a few thousand of us here who can reach six figures easily on short notice. You can double that number maybe if you add up the other forums including the sportsbook ones.


D$D's outline of how much money has been spent for such pitiful results should make the question in the post rhetorical. Like gun show dealers who buy and sell with no oversight we have the most to gain or lose in this fight. And the PPA still does NOT have 2p2 behind it. Despite everyone standing up to rip Bluff how many people are 100% willing to vouch for whose side the PPA is on long run? Its not the players because they dont call the shots or have ANY
method of influencing decisions. So the PPA can keep trying
to reach around a large set of motivated individuals or enlist them by ceding some power and control. Whats the PPA's long term goal? To keep the same board and executive makeup in perpetuity? If we get to 2 million members, will they ever have a say? Are you going to disband if ANtigua does all our heavy lifting? Or are you really going to back up your words about representing poker players in all all legislative areas? If that is so, then make a start now by reaching an agreement with Mason and 2p2, if something reasonable can be reached, and set a DATE, a year or two away, when all the controlling board seats will be up for election. ALL.

[BluffTHIS!]

I just want to note again that either the PPA doesn't need 2p2, in which case all this arguing and discussion is pointless, or they do need 2p2, in which case *even if the criticisms and demands of Mason and posters like myself are totally unreasonable* you who disagree will seek to remove the source of those criticisms by working for board change and better transparency. Of course believing that the PPA does need 2p2 but refusing for reasons of pride/ego/whatever not to meet critics half-way is also an option. Just don't keep bitching at those of us who refuse to accept the PPA as it is, even while we note that the PPA has made visible improvements of late.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So how is the board lopsided? All the members have an interest in online poker being successful, profitable and becoming legal in US to the point that some online poker providers can be based in US.

[/ QUOTE ]


The majority of members only have an interest in certain forms of online poker, representative of the business models they derive profit from, and NOT all forms of online poker. And while you yourself have no interest in B&M poker (and I myself have little), the wider membership of the PPA surely desires the most playing options possible. *And* working for all those other forms of poker has the important synergistic effect of each helping the other. If you are content to be a stooge for certain vested business interests, and to dismiss the interests of those of us who have a wider range of goals, then that's your choice. But that choice does have consequences to the chances for success of your own interests.

And again I put it to you, just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency if it makes all these arguments go away and unifies us?

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to note again that either the PPA doesn't need 2p2, in which case all this arguing and discussion is pointless, or they do need 2p2, in which case *even if the criticisms and demands of Mason and posters like myself are totally unreasonable* you who disagree will seek to remove the source of those criticisms by working for board change and better transparency. Of course believing that the PPA does need 2p2 but refusing for reasons of pride/ego/whatever not to meet critics half-way is also an option. Just don't keep bitching at those of us who refuse to accept the PPA as it is, even while we note that the PPA has made visible improvements of late.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't accept the PPA as it is, thats fine. Many of us DON'T bitch at you for your viewpoint. If you have insight that I'm not aware of, great, lets hear it.

If I'm you, bluff, and I feel that strongly about changing the PPA, here's what I'd do.

1.) Lay out my points in a thread, and sticky it. Probably been done over time, or in various threads, but as the average Joe, I just looked and I don't see it. Maybe it needs to hit me in the face for me to notice, but I don't think that makes me much different than anyone else. So consider me you target audience. I need a thread, a sticky, and an occasional club to the head.

2.) Once you've laid out enough facts to convince me you're right, tell me what I can do with that information. Organize. One of TE's strengths is that not only does he give you ample information, but then he lays out what to do with that information. If you don't like the board members, convince me why I should agree with you, then tell me what to do. Write to the PPA? Threaten to withdraw my membership? Call somebody? Direct me to a petition? What?

3.) Follow up. Keep beating that drum, pounding that rock, whatever. Be relentless. Keep reminding me why this is important. Your target audience has ADD. We're online poker players and have the attention span of a nat. Its the hand you've been dealt, get used to it.

This is the issue I have with the way you and others like Mason have been handling the situation thus far. I don't understand why I should feel as strongly as you do, and don't know what I should do if I did feel that way.

Inform me, (and others) in a constructive, focused, well conceived manner and you might get exactly what you want.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
And again I put it to you, just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency if it makes all these arguments go away and unifies us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually worryed about the next "poker prince" and their demands. What is next the pub leagues?


D$D

[BluffTHIS!]

Losit,

FWIW I have been pounding these PPA issues to death for the past year. And these present discussions are just more of the same. The ball is in the court of those who disagree, but believe the PPA needs 2p2. If they want full backing for the PPA of all posters here including Mason, then THEY will take action to try to achieve that. Otherwise there is no point in arguing the issue and they should accept the limitations, small that they are, that Mason places on reps of the PPA.

And they should accept as well the lessened chances for success for the goals of the PPA. Changing out a couple board members with non-clones, and being financially/operationally transparent, is all that stands in the way. But so many posters here both don't care about those issues, and also bitch mightily when 2p2 and posters like myself don't accept that refusal to address those issues, and give the PPA 100% unqualified support.