Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Legislation

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-28-2007, 04:23 PM
Skallagrim Skallagrim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Live Free or Die State
Posts: 1,071
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I was (and am) a part of the discussion BT refers to. The fact that this guy endorses bots was made plain, as was the PPA position that use of bots at sites was to be condemned.

The PPA forum just has more respect for free speech than you do, apparently, Bluff. I would never support banning anyone from a free-speech discussion forum based on who they were or what they did elsewhere or what they supported.

If someone from FOF started (openly) posting here, should 2+2 ban them?

Skallagrim
  #12  
Old 11-28-2007, 05:22 PM
*TT* *TT* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vehicle Chooser For Life!
Posts: 17,198
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we (as online players) are better off without the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

oddly many in the business community, some poker rooms and some pros think so. Most chose to remain silent because its not a popular thing to discuss. BluffThis is one of the few people whop are willing to go out on a limb to point out the hypocrisies, I think he should be applauded. Sure like most of you I dont always agree with how he does it, but it needs to be said none the less.

some thoughts -

1) If poker is carved out then the all the sites as we currently know them will likely have to sell to third parties in order to operate int the US

2) Poker will never be legislated so it is controlled by the feds, it is currently - and will likely remain - under the jurisdiction of individual states.

3) The PPA has too many ties to the needs of poker rooms, and not enough ties to the needs of players. Perhaps in the PPA called itself the PIA - Poker Industry Association - Bluff This and many others who chose to remain silent would have fewer complaints?

4) The best thing for us would be for the foundation of a true poker PLAYERS association which fought for our rights on a regional as well as national level - fighting for our rights on many causes while lobbying congress and providing healthcare benefits. Of course I dont think this is realistic and I am not expecting miracles, but that would be the ideal solution. The PPA has too many conflicts of interest to make this happen.
  #13  
Old 11-28-2007, 05:43 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: I can hold my breath longer than the Boob
Posts: 10,311
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA forum just has more respect for free speech than you do, apparently, Bluff. I would never support banning anyone from a free-speech discussion forum based on who they were or what they did elsewhere or what they supported.

If someone from FOF started (openly) posting here, should 2+2 ban them?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]


And just how much "free speech" are you legally or morally entitled to either here or in the PPA forums? Does the PPA have to accept just anyone as a member even if that member reflects badly upon them? Think allowing David Duke to be a member in good standing of your political party even if you place "limitations" on him.

Note to Kew: I admit I did not read discussion about that guy and only saw a) he is a poster, and b)has made recent posts and is thus a welcome member. Which is all that matters.

Note to Berge: being in politics I can't see how you don't think it important to the public perception of your member in Congress, of whom he associates with. It's the same principle here. And while this issue might be far down the list of issues with the PPA, and thus why you think it a cheap shot or petty, notice that precisely because the PPA forums don't get squat for traffic that the poster in question appears to have a much bigger presence in, and thus backing of, the PPA, to a random observer.
  #14  
Old 11-28-2007, 06:32 PM
Skallagrim Skallagrim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Live Free or Die State
Posts: 1,071
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

Guilt by association, eh Bluff? I was taught a long time ago the fallacy of that kind of thinking. I never suspected you of being one of those "politically correct" types Bluff, but apparently you are, or your dislike of the PPA has led you to become one.

Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech and I am proud to stand up for it. Even the right of David Duke to speak, yes. Even a bot enthusiast. I will NEVER agree that policing (should I say "purging") posters or members for their willingness to toe the party line is a right or good thing to do.

In response to TT:

I have to say you apparently havent read the legislation, or at least have not followed the details of what is supported and not supported.

If the Wexler skill games bill is passed AS WRITTEN it will be glory days for online poker all over again. All current sites could stay, new sites, even from the US, will develop.
No new taxes, no new regulatory agencies...I challenge you to find one fault in the Wexler bill. And this is the bill that is gaining momentum in congress, thanks entirely to the efforts of the PPA and NO ONE ELSE.

The other bills talking of POSSIBLE vast regulation are stalled, do not comply with the WTO decision, and are far from their final versions. The PPA supports moving those bills forward and addressing these legitimate concerns.

Under the US Constitution's commerce clause, ONLINE poker MUST be the subject of federal law. The Feds could (they have not yet) explicitly turn the subject back to the states. But until they do that, it IS a Federal matter because it is Interstate Commerce, no legal question here at all. Also, the WTO demands a Federal law on the subject.

Where in the context of making poker explicitly legal is there a difference between what the sites want and what the players want? You guys always and repeatedly bring up this subject, BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PPA SUPPORTS SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE SITES (or the "affiliate farms") THAT IS AT THE SAME TIME BAD FOR THE PLAYERS. As they say in Missouri "show me."

Finally, great idea to have an organization that is just a players organization. I would join it in a heart beat. I could probably even give it $25 or $50 (once it can take my credit card). SO I SUGGEST YOU START SUCH AN ORGANIZATION: go and raise the money, get the word out, hopefully Mason will help, at least let you openly advertise, maybe even for free, here on 2+2. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

The PPA is the only thing that is out there, it has done some very good things so far, has failed at other things, and it can still be made better, but it would not exist at all (and thus we would still have nothing but a bunch of whining forum posts to show for the cause) BUT FOR THE EFFORTS OF SOME INDUSTRY INTERESTS WITH THE MONEY TO GET THE THING GOING.

Really, can you honestly think the poker world would be better without the PPA? Love the current online situation? Even if you are personally OK with it, wait till the DOJ goes after Poker directly - it is only the efforts of the group of us, which currently is being advanced in an organized way only by the PPA, that is slowing that, and even then it will not work without continued support.

So go ahead and trash the only thing out there working to protect the game. You guys who live near casinos will be OK, and you guys who never need to move money online will also be happy (until they take the next step when this one doesnt stop you). And who cares about the rest of us anyway?

Of course, I am forgetting, there will be true players alliance financed by BluffThis and TT that will make all of our current troubles meaningless and, like the fabled cavalry of old, come riding in from the west to save the day. God I feel so much better now.

Skallagrim
  #15  
Old 11-28-2007, 06:42 PM
KEW KEW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,883
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
Guilt by association, eh Bluff? I was taught a long time ago the fallacy of that kind of thinking. I never suspected you of being one of those "politically correct" types Bluff, but apparently you are, or your dislike of the PPA has led you to become one.

Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech and I am proud to stand up for it. Even the right of David Duke to speak, yes. Even a bot enthusiast. I will NEVER agree that policing (should I say "purging") posters or members for their willingness to toe the party line is a right or good thing to do.

In response to TT:

I have to say you apparently havent read the legislation, or at least have not followed the details of what is supported and not supported.

If the Wexler skill games bill is passed AS WRITTEN it will be glory days for online poker all over again. All current sites could stay, new sites, even from the US, will develop.
No new taxes, no new regulatory agencies...I challenge you to find one fault in the Wexler bill. And this is the bill that is gaining momentum in congress, thanks entirely to the efforts of the PPA and NO ONE ELSE.

The other bills talking of POSSIBLE vast regulation are stalled, do not comply with the WTO decision, and are far from their final versions. The PPA supports moving those bills forward and addressing these legitimate concerns.

Under the US Constitution's commerce clause, ONLINE poker MUST be the subject of federal law. The Feds could (they have not yet) explicitly turn the subject back to the states. But until they do that, it IS a Federal matter because it is Interstate Commerce, no legal question here at all. Also, the WTO demands a Federal law on the subject.

Where in the context of making poker explicitly legal is there a difference between what the sites want and what the players want? You guys always and repeatedly bring up this subject, BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PPA SUPPORTS SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE SITES (or the "affiliate farms") THAT IS AT THE SAME TIME BAD FOR THE PLAYERS. As they say in Missouri "show me."

Finally, great idea to have an organization that is just a players organization. I would join it in a heart beat. I could probably even give it $25 or $50 (once it can take my credit card). SO I SUGGEST YOU START SUCH AN ORGANIZATION: go and raise the money, get the word out, hopefully Mason will help, at least let you openly advertise, maybe even for free, here on 2+2. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

The PPA is the only thing that is out there, it has done some very good things so far, has failed at other things, and it can still be made better, but it would not exist at all (and thus we would still have nothing but a bunch of whining forum posts to show for the cause) BUT FOR THE EFFORTS OF SOME INDUSTRY INTERESTS WITH THE MONEY TO GET THE THING GOING.

Really, can you honestly think the poker world would be better without the PPA? Love the current online situation? Even if you are personally OK with it, wait till the DOJ goes after Poker directly - it is only the efforts of the group of us, which currently is being advanced in an organized way only by the PPA, that is slowing that, and even then it will not work without continued support.

So go ahead and trash the only thing out there working to protect the game. You guys who live near casinos will be OK, and you guys who never need to move money online will also be happy (until they take the next step when this one doesnt stop you). And who cares about the rest of us anyway?

Of course, I am forgetting, there will be true players alliance financed by BluffThis and TT that will make all of our current troubles meaningless and, like the fabled cavalry of old, come riding in from the west to save the day. God I feel so much better now.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank You

clearly deserves a big QFT...
  #16  
Old 11-28-2007, 06:59 PM
whangarei whangarei is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: I :heart: Stars
Posts: 857
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. BT if you want to do more than just troll why don't you let the PPA know the bot dude is posting at their forums so they could take appropriate actions.
  #17  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:01 PM
Uglyowl Uglyowl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: They r who we thought they were
Posts: 4,406
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't generally QFT, but this is an exception. QFT
  #18  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:05 PM
whangarei whangarei is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: I :heart: Stars
Posts: 857
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i agree, but would also point out that this legislation forum has felt a bit like a tumbleweed net town without the engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't generally QFT, but this is an exception. QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully tomorrow the saloons and brothels will reopen [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
  #19  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:05 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: I can hold my breath longer than the Boob
Posts: 10,311
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

Skall,

1) [ QUOTE ]
Openly discussing ideas with people you disagree with, even people you despise, is a hallmark of free speech

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

2) [ QUOTE ]
BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PPA SUPPORTS SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE SITES (or the "affiliate farms") THAT IS AT THE SAME TIME BAD FOR THE PLAYERS.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong standard. The right standard standard is are they working for all the goals that the wider membership has, instead of just the narrower set that benefits the affiliate farm interests that control the board. Errors of omission. Keep ignoring them if you wish.

3)[ QUOTE ]
PUT UP OR SHUT UP

[/ QUOTE ]

="rally 'round the tattered flag boys! no matter the commander is not the sharpest we could have!"

Working for internal change in the PPA *is* putting up. I and others are looking at the long term and big picture, while most of you can't see the woods for the trees and yet keep demanding we follow you blindly.

4) [ QUOTE ]
Really, can you honestly think the poker world would be better without the PPA? Love the current online situation? Even if you are personally OK with it, wait till the DOJ goes after Poker directly - it is only the efforts of the group of us, which currently is being advanced in an organized way only by the PPA, that is slowing that, and even then it will not work without continued support.

So go ahead and trash the only thing out there working to protect the game. You guys who live near casinos will be OK, and you guys who never need to move money online will also be happy (until they take the next step when this one doesnt stop you). And who cares about the rest of us anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]


I've made it clear before that a) I play fulltime, and b) do so online. So I do care about online poker, but the *specific forms in which it is currently offered*, i.e to the liking of the affiliate farms, isn't what I wish to be limited to. And the reason I think it important as well to work on B&M issues is the synergy that comes from same to benefit all forms. Keep ignoring that too if you wish merely because online poker in its current or pre-IUGEA form is all you personally care about.


4) I am going to repeat a question now I asked in another thread, which is: are the affiliate farm interest board members so desperately critical to the PPA's success that there can't be substantive board change?

You and other keep putting it all on the critics of the PPA instead of seeking to remove the sources of that criticism by demanding board change and better/meaningful transparency and a wider set of goals.

5) Bottom line: the WTO and judicial issues, which the PPA has little role in, are what are more likely in the short term to bring about success for our cause. Granted the PPA is seeking to leverage the WTO issue to advance the pending legislation, but they are only taking advantage of an external factor and weren't the ones who brought that issue to the fore. And in the *long term*, the issues I and other critics have raised matter a lot. They even matter in the short term because our enemies can paint the PPA as only an industry interest group instead of a real grassroots organization.
  #20  
Old 11-28-2007, 07:16 PM
KEW KEW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,883
Default Re: Should the PPA accept membership/backing from bot providers/users?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeh BT, this is just a cheap shot that has nothing to do with how the PPA runs and operates.

You make your valid criticism look much worse when you stoop to petty levels, such as this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. BT if you want to do more than just troll why don't you let the PPA know the bot dude is posting at their forums so they could take appropriate actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE PPA BOARD MEMBER(emphasis added) was notified an appropriate steps were taken...BT did not even give the PPA enough respect to read a few posts down from the OP before launching his defamatory attack..
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.