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

[MassPoker]

I seriously cannot believe what I am reading. I completely concur with Skall on this one. BT, unless a person posts something objectionable on the PPA forum, they will NOT be banned simply for who they are and what they may or may not represent. What you are implying is that the PPA admin should become the moral police.

While I personally agree that bots are reprehensible and objectionable, that's my opinion (and as much as I hate to admit this, it's the ONE thing you and I may agree on!) That said, I completely disagree with banning any member until such time that a post is objectionable (such as solicitation of those materials detailed above).

I think we all get that you are anti-PPA BT... This is no secret, and while I personally disagree with your position on the PPA, I affirm that you are 100% entitled to state your opinion. It's just too bad that you have no intention of being more open minded and willing to work toward common ground.

In specific answer to your question as to whether the "PPA should accept membership from a Bot provider/user", I agree with Skall... I believe membership should be open to anyone regardless of who they are, however, as I stated earlier, if they begin to solicit bot products on the forum, then the PPA admin should intervene. Period...Amen!

All In,

Randy C~
Massachusetts Representative
Poker Players Alliance

[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 specific answer to your question as to whether the "PPA should accept membership from a Bot provider/user", I agree with Skall... I believe membership should be open to anyone regardless of who they are, however, as I stated earlier, if they begin to solicit bot products on the forum, then the PPA admin should intervene. Period...Amen!


[/ QUOTE ]


But it's OK for that guy to advertise with a link to his site in his profile though isn't it?

As for his being a member, it revolves around his discussion of botting, which I think you agree is cheating. So despite the assertions of KEW above that this has been dealt with, can you say that the guy in question is prohibited from talking about bots in a positive way, which is talking about cheating in a positive way?


And since you answered one of my questions, why don't you answer another about the affiliate farm board members while you're at it?

[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.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the powers that control the PPA wouldn't be willing to relinquish control ever so it could become a player's association? Thats my opinion, I just don't want it to be true. It would really help our cause if we could have some pros make some statements against the PPA's current incarnation. I guess the cosy deals they have with the sites may prohibit that, but anything to prod the PPA to reform. Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there is an idea!

Lets start a public campaign against the only entity in the entire world doing anything at all to help us get legal US online poker. That should do wonders to speed along legislation favorable to us.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Tuff

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe an open letter to a newspaper stating some opposition from the rank and file player about the PPA could be put together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there is an idea!

Lets start a public campaign against the only entity in the entire world doing anything at all to help us get legal US online poker. That should do wonders to speed along legislation favorable to us.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. I like the PPA as it is. If you want to start a campaign to rename it the "Online PPA" then have at it. But as an online player the PPA represents my and the majority of its 800,000+ members' interests quite well. BT, TT, Mason et. al. by all means feel free to start a B&M PPA if you like.

[BluffTHIS!]

It's so funny and ironic in this thread how the supposed "free speech rights" of cheating scum botters are defended, but not the free speech of PPA members who disagree with specifics of how the PPA is run.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
It's so funny and ironic in this thread how the supposed "free speech rights" of cheating scum botters are defended, but not the free speech of PPA members who disagree with specifics of how the PPA is run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find it either funny or ironic. For one because it's not true: noone is saying you don't have the right to voice your opinions about the PPA, and many are saying the scumbotters shouldn't be allowed to post on the PPA forum. But what good are facts in such an asinine thread as this? Also because this whole thread is a joke and a another red herring attempt by you to discredit the PPA. That is the irony -- the PPA is the only organization fighting for our (online poker players) rights yet supposed kindred spirits like you make 100s of posts criticizing them.

whangarei <-- really ashamed I let myself be drawn into a debate with BT in the lamest thread ever

[Skallagrim]

You are really good at this game of sophistry, Bluff - but, at the risk of letting truth back into the discussion, perhaps you can point out a post that actually seeks to stop YOUR free speech rights, as opposed to just disagreeing with your opinion?

Skallagrim