Crticism of the PPA and its effects

[BluffTHIS!]

As many of you know, some posters don't appreciate my efforts to keep the focus on the shortcomings of the PPA until they, *as promised*, come back here to discuss same with us. I do this not try to drag them down, because I support legalizing online poker. But I think it very important that the PPA represent all its members interests, and not just those of the major online sites and advertising media dependant on them. This has been discussed at length before so I won't repeat it here. I also do this because of the flurry of postings, which are nothing other than spin, which try to take the focus off such criticism, and argue, wrongly I believe, that we simply must accept the PPA as is.

Now I will grant that this criticism on the internet, which can be freely read by anyone, could harm the PPA and provide fuel to our mutual enemies to some degree. But it is clear to many of us, that a PPA that addresses the legitimate concerns that have been raised in this forum, if a far better organization and one with a much greater chance of success. Thus we hope the criticism to be constructive and have a positive effect.

There is a case when that isn't so and criticism can only be harmful. And that is the case where the PPA will not change its structure, level of transparency, or presumed hidden goals not in accord with ours (no B&M state level focus and online only and tying casino/sports gambling to efforts to legalize poker). In that case, in which they won't change, then criticism can only be harmful.

Should the above be the case, then the PPA just needs to come here and state that forthrightly. In which case of course many of us will support the formation of a different organization that better represents all our interests, and isn't just a stooge for party poker and CP magazine. But if that isn't the case, and they are sincere as they have said in previous statements that they will come back here and discuss things with us when certain discussions between their attorneys and those of 2+2 are finished, then they need to state that as early as possible here. In fact even if those other discussions, focusing primarily on issues of transparency aren't totally finished, they can still at the same time engage us in a discussion of their goals and tactics and the makeup of their board. I fervently wish they would do so.



Now I will share the impetus for writing this post, which was another unwanted PM from jeter323 who has already been told that further PMs would be posted. Here is the PM he sent me:

[ QUOTE ]
get off your high horse...maybe the PPA doesn't help your specific concerns that much..BUT HOW THE HELL DOES IT HURT YOU? IT DOESNT AND ALL YOU DO, YOU SELFISH FOOL, IS CRY THAT THEY DON'T JUST KISS YOUR BUY, GET A LIFE..EXPLAIN HOW THE PPA ACTUALLY HARMS YOU?

[/ QUOTE ]


I will answer the question at the end of it. If the PPA doesn't represent all my goals, and only some, then it does harm my interests to some degree, even if it also advances others. And that is *especially* the case in which they tie legalization of poker to legalization of sportsbetting, which will flat out guarantee failure on all items on the agenda.

My eyes are open and I see clearly, and I simply won't pretend the emperor has clothes on when he is standing their stark naked. It only does more harm in the long run than good.

[satya]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think it very important that the PPA represent all its members interests, and not just those of the major online sites and advertising media dependant on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree - even though I don't see how the PPA is doing that. But, if they didn't work for the interests of finanical backers they wouldn't exist. You can't tell people "Don't give $$ to the PPA because they don't work for us" and expect anything positive to come of it. Real life doesn't work that way.

[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed at length before so I won't repeat it here. I also do this because of the flurry of postings, which are nothing other than spin, which try to take the focus off such criticism, and argue, wrongly I believe, that we simply must accept the PPA as is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, I don't mean to say that PPA is doing everything right. Clearly they are not. But you can't affect positive change from the outside with repeated bashings on an inet forum.

I don't much care what you or anyone else thinks, so haven't read 96% of the pro/anti PPA argument. However, seems to me that maybe your idea of what the PPA should be and be doing conflicts with their mission? And how does what "we" want, which I dunno about you, but for me is to simply play when and where I want to play, conflict with what CP and Party want? They want my money. I want to give it to them. (I think) we all want the US gov't to let us do it. I don't care if I get what I want via a carve out, a new law, regulation, or assassination. I really don't care. Perhaps you do. Nothing wrong with that.

Should the PPA change its goals, methods, and/or mission to please a few non-supporting 2+2 posters who bash the PPA no matter what it does? This forum has likely done more to prevent positive change than it has promote.

Is it +EV for the PPA to try to change opinions of a few naysayers on an inet forum? Every time they post something there's a bunch of "...yeah well you still suck because blah blah...." Why bother?

Mason can't publically support the PPA whether he believes in them or not. His opinions are his bread and butter - to some his word gospel.

The PPA has no track record. Should it fail, a public endorsment could hurt 2+2's bottom line. If ever, 2+2 and Mason will only endorse the PPA when they see definitive movement in the direction of success, financially and politically.

"We", or rather I, don't have to follow Mason's lead on this. I'm not saying he's wrong. He's not. If I were him I'd probably be taking the same line. I'm only saying his interests are different than mine.

People don't get political. ESPECIALLY the anti-social, type who predominate i-net forums. The majority of us, anti-social or not, don't get involved in politics and/or activism. Instead, we bend over. Constantly. It's how we got here. It's why we will likely (sans a huge influx of cash for the politicians) stay here for years to come.

Repeated public bashing of the PPA can be counterproductive because it encourages people already predisposed to bending over to continue to bend over simply because they have been given no other option!

Criticism isn't bad, its required for positive change. But when you don't offer an alternative you come across as just a basher/hater. Does it make sense to repeatedly criticize (how many of these threads to do we need?) when doing so has no effect other than to slow forward movement in the form of discouraging any action at all?

Why not instead, get involved in the effort? Granted, there's seemingly little way to get involved in the PPA. And, even if "we" do get involved with the PPA its unlikely that the minority (inet players) opinion will rule. Consensus doesn't work. See: UN.

If the PPA doesn't serve your interests, start your own group that supports your goals or find one that does. Give people something to do other than bend over and bitch and moan about the PPA not doing what "we" think they should be doing how "we" want them to do it.

[1p0kerboy]

What interests do you have that the PPA doesn't represent?

If I am interested in learning to fly a plane and the PPA isn't helping enable me to do that should I not support them?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
(no B&M state level focus and online only and tying casino/sports gambling to efforts to legalize poker)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming this is what you are referring to.

Look, the PPA has a goal of legalizing online poker. If you are not interested in that then that's fine; don't sign up.

The PPA can not simply use it's resources to achieve every little thing that every member wants. For you to say that they should is absolutely moronic.

And if you're not pro-online poker then you are against it. So now we all should categorize you in the Frist&co department.

[BluffTHIS!]

satya,

1) This criticism is only taking place "from the outside" because the PPA has refused for the past few months, to come here and let us be on the "inside" by having a dialogue with us about our concerns. The only dialogue that has taken place, and belatedly at that, is a private one on only matters of transparency with Mason's attorneys.

2) They may well have goals, and I've assumed so all throughout these discussions, that are either not as complete or indeed partially at variance with the goals of myself and others, and which they aren't willing to consider changing. However the PPA again has thus far chosen not to come here and make that clear.

3) Is is +EV for the PPA to come here and address such criticisms? The answer is that their failure/refusal to do so is an unmitigated public relations DISASTER as such things are here for anyone on the net to read, and speaks volumes about the competence, or lack thereof, of their board.

4) This criticism is only going on by myself and likeminded posters (of whom there are many), because in fact they haven't made clear all of their goals, whom they regard as their primary stakeholders to whom they should answer, and how their board should be thus composed. If they in fact were to come here and state the following clearly: "we will not make clear or change our organizational structure, goals and tactics nor discuss such issues with you", then for myself, I would probably mostly stop criticizing them, and would instead with others, work to form a different organization. Of course they wouldn't wish that to happen (although it would certainly be very difficult to achieve anyway), but they can't have it both ways where they claim to represent *all* of us, but refuse to allow us some role in influencing the issues mentioned. And another reason they wouldn't likely want to honestly say that is also because it thus makes it clear that they are in fact acting mostly at the behest of party poker, CP magazine and online sports betting interests.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Is is +EV for the PPA to come here and address such criticisms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would the PPA waste their time addressing your concerns? What makes you think you are that important?

Mason had transparancy issues with the PPA and they ARE addressing those.

Get off your high horse. Nobody here cares whether you support the PPA or not (as evident by the lack of response in this thread)

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
(of whom there are many)

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are they?

[BluffTHIS!]

pokerBOY,

Many posters here agree with my views, including some who are in the industry, attorneys or serious high stakes players. If you followed this forum actively you would know that. And there is nothing special about myself personally, but rather it is just the case that many like-minded posters are mostly content to let me do most of the "heavy lifting" since I am willing and capable of doing so. My views in this and other threads are either valid or not, and it is significant that you aren't attmepting to rebut them.

[1p0kerboy]

BTW I have no complaints AFA criticizing an organization but whining that they don't represent your specific ideologies/agenda is just asinine.

[BluffTHIS!]

So your position is that you don't know if there is anything to legitimately criticize, yet would assume axiomatically that any such criticism was illegitimate? That is a view shared by many other scared and unknowledgeable posters who don't consider the long term effects of the issues at hand.