Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[Skallagrim]

Bluffthis responded:

"Skall,
1) Quote:
Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech

Botting is cheating. Period. And the PPA doesn't need to discuss things or deal with cheats for any reason. It can only hurt their image to do so. If you want to be a chump and champion the rights of botters go ahead though."

This is classic misdirection and blatant guilt by association. If this were a test you would get an "A" for rabble rousing technique and possibly a job with the Bush Admin now that K. Rove is gone.

Where did I anywhere a) say botting is not cheating, or b) champion the rights of botters to do anything other than SPEAK freely?

Sigh, when I was younger everyone knew the phrase "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This was a classic and revered AMERICAN value. Look at us now.... the country is going downhill fast IMHO.

The rest we have been through before Bluff, and I was mostly responding to TT not you. I say show me where the PPA's actions have served the industry interests over the players, and you almost admit that you cannot by turning it around and saying the question should be why havent they a wider set of goals ... they can barely handle the goals they have now, and, I think as do most others, that preserving the ability to play online is the most important goal right now.

I have said before that I dont disagree with your criticisms of the board's POSSIBLE bias, and that I appreciate it when you do actually try and "work from within" for change. That was not even remotely what you did with your OP, however.

The PPA was started by industry groups, no question. THANK GOD SOMEONE STARTED SOMETHING. Our enemies can no more use that against us than, as I have said many times, that censorship advocates can trash the ACLU because porn producers give the ACLU money. The average guy accepts that as par for the course. I believe it will have no bearing on the PPA's effectiveness.

In sum, transparancy is a dead issue (all their required filings are there), the board is not a mirror of the poker community but until they do something NOT in my interest I feel I have no cause to ask the folks who started the thing to resign from it, and it will take time for the PPA to grow where it can devote real time to B&M issues.

As Berge said Bluff, your PPA criticisms are not uncalled for. Your OP in this thread, however, was.

Skallagrim

Oh, and on the litigation bit - the PPA has already gotten involved with some litigation, give it a little time and I think you will see it doing a lot more in that area.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In sum, transparancy is a dead issue (all their required filings are there)

[/ QUOTE ]


Where is "there"? Can you link to a portion of their website with same? Or do you mean they have filed same with the gov't while not sharing with the members?

And you really believe that satisfying the minimal legal requirements is all that is involved in transparency? I have never doubted that the PPA met its legal filing obligations. But that isn't what I, nor Mason I suspect, mean by meaningful transparency.