Does the PPA need 2+2?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I am concerned, the PPA never really "existed" until John Pappas came on board. So, whatever happend prior to that means absolutely nothing to me...NOTHING! The work that is being done now at the PPA far exceeds what little
that was done previous to John's appointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy I totally agree with everything you said including the value of most of the changes in the PPA recently.

But you fail to fully understand that John while not in charge was a large part of the PPA during the time when many of these problems happened.

So suggesting that the history is a simple pre-John and post-John issues weakenss your credibility.

I fully support the PPA and will continue to do anything asked of me, but I will not become a PPA apoligest no matter if that is volunteer or otherwise. Of course that "otherwise" might actually be eliminated because of my persoanl "integrity".


D$D

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy I totally agree with everything you said including the value of most of the changes in the PPA recently.

But you fail to fully understand that John while not in charge was a large part of the PPA during the time when many of these problems happened.

So suggesting that the history is a simple pre-John and post-John issues weakenss your credibility.

I fully support the PPA and will continue to do anything asked of me, but I will not become a PPA apoligest no matter if that is volunteer or otherwise. Of course that "otherwise" might actually be eliminated because of my persoanl "integrity".


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

D$D,

I respect and even value your opinion. Of the many threads and postings you have done, I appreciate when you offer an opinion on a topic.

Let me pose a question, however...You say; "But you fail to fully understand that John while not in charge was a large part of the PPA during the time when many of these problems happened." Let's say that you (hypothetically speaking) were on the "Apex Widget Corp's Board of Diretcor's" and Apex was in the middle of a financial scandal, does the mere fact that you are part of that BOD neccessarily have to mean that you were PART of the scandal? Of course not. Moreover, some people are just better leaders than others, and John seems to be the guy for the job.

I disagree wholeheartedly that my weighing in on the issue as to pre-John PPA and post-John PPA in any way weakens my credibility because I have been a member almost since the PPA's inception. I am well versed and in full knowledge of who is who and of the BOD's makeup. My statement that "the PPA never really "existed" until John Pappas came along" I percieve as accurate and I stand behind the statement. IMO, John's "leadership" qualities is what seperates him from the pre-John PPA era. I think it is a very narrow viewpoint to assume that John bore any responsibility to the "leadership" of the PPA simply because he was on the BOD's. John's vote while on the BOD was just that...one vote. Now, in John's current position, he can make unilateral decisions and act in accordance with his leadership role rather than just a member of the BOD. This is where I make my distinction. As a "leader" John is committed, focused and I dare say, effective. You don't neccessasrily HAVE to agree with me. We can agree to disagree, but to say that my statement "weakens my credibility" is, IMO, baseless.

Beyond that, I have come to enjoy your posts D$D. I didn't really at first, but in fairness to you, I went back and read many of your previous posts and learned about you a little more and have come to enjoy your posts.

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where I make my distinction. As a "leader" John is committed, focused and I dare say, effective. You don't neccessasrily HAVE to agree with me. We can agree to disagree, but to say that my statement "weakens my credibility" is, IMO, baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may have to agree to disagree, but not on this point. I have no quarrel with John at all. I really respect all he had done in a very difficult position. I respect him as a man.

But the "problems" at the PPA to a large degree are structal in nature. One man, no matter how hard he works, can over come them. In fact the overall effeciveness of the organization is actually hampered because the dedicated efforts of the extra special person are to some degree lost in over coming the problems not of their making. His extra hard work, dedication, and sucess ultimately mask the true nature of the underlying problems.

This has nothing to do with any "board" issues advanced by Mason or anyone else. Except in how that board has directed the efforts of the organization.

Your opinion of the recent sucess of the PPA is a reflection of John's skills. PR and communications is his speciality. If the PPA wasn't currenty exceeding in those areas then his "term" would be an abject failure. No fair person can claim that the recent history of the PPA is an abject failure.

But what is at issue is does the PPA currently posses, and no this is not a reflection of any dsire to gain employment but simply a reflection of my area of expertise, the nessecary talent and true belief from the board down in the value and ultimate sucess of becoming a true effective grassroots advoacy group.

I, like you, do not care who gets credit for any sucess. Realistically fully legal on-line poker will not change my life one bit. I love the game and strongly feel the passion to do all I can to protect "poker rights" even to advancing the "cause" beyond the current plans. But if an effective Federal on-line poker ban was implemented tomorrow it would not change my life much if at all.

I do not derive a significant income from poker. I have won enough to cause me to have to file as the amount is no longer insifnificant. But I have never had a dime at risk. I built my bankroll from scratch through freerolls. I play because I can as I have the time and enjoy the game imensley. This give me a much different perspective than anyone with any profits to protect or projected income stream from the various potential outcomes of legislation to advance or protect.

I can find all the legal home games, play in pub leagues, play in charity events, and travel to B&M's to satisfy my all my desires to "enjoy" the game. Of the population of the poker community I am not an on-line poker is worthless group, which is about 1/2 of the total population. But neither am I part of the "the world would end" without on-line poker group.

This too is one of the structrual issues NOT addressed by the current PPA philsophy and strategy. Given the numbers not addressing this "blind spot" can and will lead to either a much harder job for the PPA or lead to it's failure.

There are a number of serious "structrual" issues concerning the "vision" of the PPA, even under "new" leadership. Some are being discussed but none IMO are currently being given the thought and attention they deserve.

Constant truning them into pissing matches like the one with TE and Mason, popularity matches like TE's meaningless polls, or simply disregarding them in the hopes that they go away as has happened too often in the past, is not a model for sucess.

Over taxing John has really lead to helping better identify many of these problems, because it is clear even from recent history that because he is spred so thin many "awsome opportunities" continue to be missed or given short shrift, and only in hindshight does the true value come to light.


D$D

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If this forum didn't exist who knows when the PPA could have ridden in and "saved" the day. This forum borught the issue up and got action by the PPA. I doubt that Mason wants sole credit for this "sucess", as it was everyone here in some ways.

But to try and suggest that 2+2 "haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA"; is about as fair as the PPA getting full credit in the news story.

We've got to start working to fix the problem and not always trying to fix the blame (or credit). But like volunteers in all aspects you can not continue to rely on their hard work without showing them a little appreciation from time to time.
D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

The article that you are referring to specifically states:

"Luckily for online poker players, the stealth-like inclusion of anti-online gaming legislation {did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice}." The key phrase here is, "did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice." This is an entirely accurate statement! I don't even know why this has become even part of the issue. Someone from the PPA had to 'NOTICE' the bill's language or there wouldn't have been action taken. Perhaps we should include the following statement to be even MORE specific: "Thanks to the eagle eyes of 'Catlover', a poster on the 2+2 poker forum, owned and operated by Mason Malmuth and others, the PPA were able to act on the proposed legislation." Isn't that exactly what happend? Now that is over the top. Why include all of this extraneous information. IMO, the statement made in the article you presented, D$D, assigns the PPA credit for 'noticing' the proposed legislation and properly gave them credit. If 2+2 WANTS to go into the business of organizing a poitical activist group working on behalf of Poker Players, then they would recieve the credit. Ultimately, the poster 'Catlover' rightly deserves the credit for bringing this issue to all of our attention. Thank you Catlover!

Truth be told, the PPA uses several different sources to become informed about current political activity...It has to come from somewhere. Unless the PPA has some crystal ball that we are unaware of, the PPA, along with ALL other political action groups uses multiple sources to collect information. This forum is most definately a part of that collective information gathering process, but to credit them for the ultimate 'action' taken on behalf of the PPA is like saying that news sources should credit 'Catlover' for bringing the issue to all of our attention. You have to ask yourself, "who deserves the credit and how much is assigned to whom?"
I take absolutely nothing away from this forum at all. I think that 2+2 has done quite a bit for poker players, but someone has to be in the business of running forums and others have to be in the business of running political action organizations. In reality, this forum is just a piece of the puzzle overall. Let's not get carried away by asserting that this forum deserves as much credit for the action taken for the MA proposed legislation getting as much attention as it has as the PPA in actually acting on the legislation. You see what I mean?

Let's give credit where credit is due.

All In,

Randy C~
MA Rep PPA

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not get carried away by asserting that this forum deserves as much credit for the action taken for the MA proposed legislation getting as much attention as it has as the PPA in actually acting on the legislation. You see what I mean?

Let's give credit where credit is due.



[/ QUOTE ]

This forum continues to exist are the main place of congregration for those deeply committed to the "protection" of poker. This is NOT because Mason and 2+2 planned it that way because of great business foresight, nor is it even a desire of 2+2 LLC to lead the effort.

This forum has it's percieved value because the PPA forum is a tomb. I can and have generated move views in the PPA forum in a day than has been seen in the previous month, but it isn't a hundredeth of what the impact is here.

TE is sadly mistaken if he feels he can resurect his following here there in any time soon. He's tried in the past.

The specifics of how the actions that lead to the "prompting" of the PPA into action as you say are unimportant to the news story and would indeed detract from the story.

But lets be honest, right now the PPA needs all the help it can get. 6 months from now this may or may not be the case. But it is true today. IMO the PPA is not strong enough today to take the position it has in this simple matter of desigination of TE as affiliated as associated with the PPA board.

But as a look at the future concering the issues invoved I do understand the strategy of making a stand here. I just don't agree with it.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE is sadly mistaken if he feels he can resurect his following here there in any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think PPA needs a viable, uncensored forum for free discussion of ideas, but I could not care less about a "following". I just want to play poker online. Unfortunately, lately I've been spending more time with this political BS than I have on working on the only thing in this that I actually care about. I'll cease that and will stick to my passion -- explicitly legal online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
He's tried in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect.

Why do you mention my name in all of your posts? I really don't like dealing with all this internal political stuff. I just want to play poker. Can you please express your opinion without mentioning me? I just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your numerous wordy posts. It takes time from what's important.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

If Mason wanted you gone he'd make you gone. If you don't like what he says then ARGUE WITH HIM. He has a remarkably thick skin himself from what I've seen over the years, and he and David actually have put up with a lot of personal attacks that one wouldn't think the site owners would.

Don't be quitter and move to where very few are really listening. Politics includes not only dealing with opposing parties, but also with internal factional differences. DEAL WITH IT dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi BluffTHIS!,

He did have me gone for a while.

I spoke with the same individual Mason said he spoke with in his earlier post concerning this issue. I guess I'm still "welcome" here, so I'll be here posting sometimes. However, I've decided to spend the vast majority of my time here encouraging everyone to to their part to advocate for online poker, as that's my passion. I'll leave the internal issues to whoever's interested in them.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TE is sadly mistaken if he feels he can resurect his following here there in any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think PPA needs a viable, uncensored forum for free discussion of ideas, but I could not care less about a "following". I just want to play poker online. Unfortunately, lately I've been spending more time with this political BS than I have on working on the only thing in this that I actually care about. I'll cease that and will stick to my passion -- explicitly legal online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am truly sorry that I do not do a better job of communicating my opinions. I have spoke to John about this issue of a better PPA forum many times, and as recently as today spoke to Bryan about it. We agree much more than you seem to understand from our conversations in this imperfect medium.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's tried in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect.

Why do you mention my name in all of your posts? I really don't like dealing with all this internal political stuff. I just want to play poker. Can you please express your opinion without mentioning me? I just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your numerous wordy posts. It takes time from what's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have made no attempt to help the PPA forum become more useful? You have not stated nor at least suggested that you might leave this forum?

The PPA not only needs a more viable forum, it also needs a better from of non-public communications with the broader membership and grassroots ativists. John and I spoke of this issue in July or August. We wouldn't be having this discussion in an open forum had any actions been taken sooner. Yes I know that again the PPA is not made of money and John and the consultants are really busy, but that repeated answer is beging to wear thin.

To me, you seem to show an sttitude that has grown with your increased "stature" both here and in the PPA ogranization, that you less and less need nor should be subject to critism.

You have regardless if you want it or not have made yourself the issue too often IMO. But, as I've said many times we are too very different people.

I do not criticise in any way to try to tear anything down nor diminish the value of the efforts, dedication, nor passion expended. I value the PPA as much as anyone IMO. I will continue to "push" the PPA to strive to do better no matter my position in or out of the organization.

John identified a number of issues he planned on addressing when he "took over" the PPA. Internal communication was at the top of that list. Your appointment was to a large degree was an attempt to quash the problems here. You yourself have stated that you represent this forum to the PPA not the other way around.

When you become as is sometimes the case, perhaps in preception only, an abject apologist for the PPA and it's decisions you "take sides" and the wrong one from your stated goals and intentions.

The PPA doesn't have a viable form of effective communications with its membership let alone the broader on-line poker community. This forum is prehaps the single most viable from of on-line communications with the core of people dedicated to legislative action that currently exists. Worse yet the PPA has pretty much ignored any chances of reaching the other half of self identified US poker players.

To often as evidenced by many actions both past present and from the future plans I am aware of the PPA has contunied to be happy gathering the "low hanging fruit".

Making a semi-stand on this stupid little issue, from my perspective, shows a continued mis-understanding of reality or an overblown sence of the srength of the "power" of the PPA.

So continue to view me as more critical than I feel I am. My own importance in this effort is ultimately unimportant to me and the overall sucess or failure. But from having gone out from behind the monitor, and from having lead a few sucessful political efforts, let alone from my own opinion of interpersonal relationships I can tell you we all need to work much harder. Perhaps myself the most.

I may have a completely cracked "crystal ball", but my instincts have served me well in my life. I will also suggest that while I only claim, like you, to only be expressing my own personal opinions, I can claim that I am not the only one that feels many of these issues are important. How many others their are I make no claim to know. I do suggest that very little effort has been focused on the 1/2 of the poker world that doesn't play online by the PPA to date.

So please do not take offense from my "pushing" the PPA in general and my "tweaking" of you personally. You for a long time were and will continue to be one of the most "visible" faces of the PPA on-line. With that comes a great deal of responsibility. I am sorry to say, much more than you seem to realize.

I am trully sorry that you feel you have had to spend too much time of this BS. But IMO as much as you feel this was forced upon you, I see it was as much your own making.

Again you deserve all the respect in the world for another thankless position as much as anyone else who has taken on anyone of the various thankless positions in this group effort.

But just as no organization can rest on it's laurels neither can you. I am sorry to say that the advice you have received to get a "thicker" skin have been largely ignored at your own peril.

You may feel I commened you or damn you with faint praise, but I feel I speak to you as a friend who wishes you nothing but more sucess, not less.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's tried in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect.

Why do you mention my name in all of your posts? I really don't like dealing with all this internal political stuff. I just want to play poker. Can you please express your opinion without mentioning me? I just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to your numerous wordy posts. It takes time from what's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have made no attempt to help the PPA forum become more useful? You have not stated nor at least suggested that you might leave this forum?

The PPA not only needs a more viable forum, it also needs a better from of non-public communications with the broader membership and grassroots ativists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I've made attempts to help make the PPA forum more useful. In my mind, that's a major issue with PPA right now. That's not the same as saying I've "tried in the past".

[ QUOTE ]
When you become as is sometimes the case, perhaps in preception only, an abject apologist for the PPA and it's decisions you "take sides" and the wrong one from your stated goals and intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely explained the rationale behind some PPA choices. You have a different vision for PPA than many of us do. You stated yourself that your life won't change without online poker. Mine will. Drastically. Sometimes it seems like you're here to play politics. The rest of us want to play poker.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

I merely explained the rationale behind some PPA choices. You have a different vision for PPA than many of us do. You stated yourself that your life won't change without online poker. Mine will. Drastically. Sometimes it seems like you're here to play politics. The rest of us want to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well between the two I am much better at politics than I am at poker. I apologize again if my true meaning is not clear. Removing poker from my life would indeed would leave a big hole. Perhaps I could fill that with live poker, perhaps not. But I do not derive a large part of my income from poker. Poker is a passion not an income source for me. Sorry to be crass, but as I explaned to Tuff, I do not need an additional source of income. Fair or not I can and do as my passions dictate. There is very little that would dramatically affect my life that I do not control other than the health of my family.


D$D