Your straw man is weak. I never said forgo lobbyists.

The either or decision you suggest was the PPA's choice not mine.

Right now if the PPA had a secure funding source for a couple of years, as a board member would you vote to spend it all of lobbying? Or would you vote to spend some of the money on building the organization?

If someone gave me a $50M personal gift (nothing to do with PPA), it would help my lifestyle quite a bit. Alas, no one has given me $50M. Therefore, you should conclude that I'm refusing to accept $50M?

The ship has sailed on player-funding..............it was the move to make in 2007 when the iron was hot, money had not been wasted on Da'mato et al, and there were other potential allies. It costs money to organize like that, I don't know the specifics of what D$D was asking, but if it wasn't him, a professional(s)was still needed.

Instead, we got Pappas and the stall effort. It kept the status quo moving for five years, and laid the groundwork for the possibility of federal legislation. It wasn't the worst outcome, but it was a very inefficient use of time and money for years.

Look, appearances matter. To most people looking back, it is very EASY to construct a picture of IGC/affiliate farmer interests being put above players. Those are the interests who gained the most from keeping the Stars/FTP/Cereus/small room status quo going. You can insult us all you won't, but appearances and results are damning. There was never serious effort put into grassroots, litigation, or expanding alliances to other groups who might have helped by offering control and access to players. One has to ask why. Maybe we are wrong, but there is a case to be made.

And current practices still support it. There hasn't been one move by the PPA to realign itself away from the IGC. Maybe its not possible, but yet again all we can go by is what we see. Player-funding is impossible, but IGC funding is over........whither now?

Why haven't we seen a press release yet that the PPA is seeking help in advancing poker from casinos, lotteries, tribes, or other entities? Is it that expensive to buy an ad in the LVSun, Tampa's paper or even call up a reporter and pitch the story? Why not try and shame some players who made out like bandits from FTP, Stars or whatever site for not helping in the papers? There are myriad ways to show an effort..........

You say the PPA is not the IGC's creature, prove it............in action.

What are you talking about? Where did Donkey mention giving you, or anyone, $50M? And I don't see how it relates to the part of donkey's post you quoted.

Hardly what I was "concluding".

..... time to set your strawman argument ablaze:

Rather, I was refuting the curious idea that a 98% IGC-funded PPA , because it never, ever, ever had any conflicts of interest or constraints on serving player interests, should be reasonably assumed as good at discerning and representing player interests as a player-funded PPA.


,

Thanks, I see his own 4 talking points are there ..... Although I have historically disagreed with "doing nothing" as a litigation strategy, I am glad to see that the PPA vehmently eschews that apprioach legislatively, at least federally.

However, wether the PPA can sell States a strategy of "do nothing now" at the State level because, "believe it or not" the federal legislation is going to pass, is problematic at best.

What were the other folks there saying ?

(I think both these posts belong in the State lotteries thread, not here.)

It did not, it was simply a typical "strawman" argument thrown up to avoid the substance of the post supposedly being addressed

Rather than address what was actually said in my post about the benefits of player-funding, you chose to delete everything and concoct some bizarre strawman language and, pretend it is a quote I posted ?

Flat out dishonesty, the sort that would get someone disbarred if that stunt were pulled anywhere other than in Skallandia, that Kingdom where you enjoy sovereign immunity.

I will repeat the quote you could not actually respond to:

"This is actually on point for this thread.

1. The PPA needs funding to operate.
2. The IGC provides what, 98% of the funding ?
3. Should players "reasonably assume" that there is no connection between that 98% funding and what views/actions the PPA board determines are in the "players interests" ?"

We have your assertion, that there never ever ever was any rationalization by the PPA Board of where player inteests lay, in order to assure continued funding by the IGC.

To be frank, it would be more realistic to expect that some less-than-ideal choices WERE made because those choices were what DaddyWarbucks/IGC/FTP was willing to fund.

There would have been nothing to be ashamed of in that course ; THAT pitch, which you cannot bear to make, would support an appeal for player funding. It would be much more credible than some rosy-hued pretense that "everything went according to plan, we took the IGC money and went ahead optimizing player interests at the PPA."

Of course no one offered me $50M. That's the point. The fact that players aren't donating en masse does not prove a failure on PPA's part. The fallacy here is the assumption that players would fully fund any group, as it leads to erroneous conclusions.

Allow me to provide an example. From 2007 until May 31, 2011, I've donated at least 40 hours per week (and often much more) to this effort. I've paid my own way to D.C. on more than one occasion to meet with lawmakers on this. Since June 1, 2011, I've been doing this with compensation, but significantly less than I made as an engineer. I've easily donated well over six figures in in-kind donations. Despite that, you and a few others have made it your mission to troll me. That's up to you all, but it is illustrative of the nature of the community.

Many simply enjoy being critics and contrarians. They can proudly claim they aren't sheep and have the added benefit of not having to actually do anything but complain. I'm glad most of us are standing up for ourselves and fighting as one, but there's no evidence that players are willing to fully fund anything.

No. What should draw you to that conclusion is that Skall and I are on the Board. Neither of us would go along with anti-player actions. In fact, if I ran this organization out of my own pocket, I'd be just as focused on federal efforts as we are now.

Pardon me if I don't fall down and kiss your feet.

Okay, you raised the point of Skall's political integrity, competence and judgment as an argument here, not me.

To answer your claim in the context of this thread topic, the idea players can/should rely on something other than their own funding is misplaced trust. Skall for example seems capable of rationalizing anything when real questions are raised about strategy or choices by the PPA and its Board.

To cite Wikipedia:

"In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable-- or even admirable and superior-- by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt)."

Many of the choices and strategic direction came while two owners of FTP sat on the PPA Board, while the PPA depended on FTP and Stars funding for legal advice and political advisors for the PPA through the IGC conduit.

It is time to break from that past, I trust your sincerety, but not Skall's strategic or political judgment or post-hoc rationalizations. I have never called PPA actions "anti-player"; rather PPA decisions on strategies and choice were not the better choices for PRO-player interests in many instances.

Anyone reading my post with an unjaundiced eye can see that I was not even responding to you directly.

Actually, I try and avoid responding to you directly wherever I can.

Admittedly, the phrase used in my example of a fallacious argument ("It is impossible that I am wrong or that anyone can intelligently disagree with me, THEREFORE") all-too-frequently applies to you. None-the-less, it was not even remotely interpretable as "quote" of yours.

I note that you, on the other hand, have a long history of altering my posts and often deliberately and deceptively taking my words out of context in order to make them look like they say the opposite of what they originally said.

Quite frankly, I believe your obsession with me is showing true signs of becoming unhealthy. If you want to engage in real discussion, even argument, creating words like "Skallandia" and using phrases like "rosy-hued pretense" are not going to achieve that end. They are phrases of "projection" IMO. From Wikipedia: "According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You cannot simply accept that I believe and can argue quite compellingly that YOU ARE WRONG.

For my part, I can accept the fact that, with respect to state efforts, it is theoretically possible that you are correct and time will tell. You, however, cannot accept the fact that it is even theoretically possible that I might be correct. So instead, time and time again, you attribute all sorts of character flaws to me; character flaws that you then repeatedly demonstrate as your own by the wording in your posts.

Sad.

Skallagrim

Your own example is more proof that player can and will do more than you give them credit for. I for one don't enjoy being a critic. I really don't. My only reason for any involvement in any of this is my love of the game, and my desire to be able to play it online.

Like some I am disappointed that many of the suggestions made in these forums made over the years to spend a little effort to strengthen the organization were not followed(no not just mine). Because IMO had they been followed the PPA would be better prepared to function without the IGC funding.

Not accepting what you were never offered cannot be laid at the feet of the PPA, but what can be laid at your feet is the fact that people posted complaint after complaint about not being able to sign up and the PPA leadership did not seem to do anything about it for the longest time. Finally, PPA hired someone and the problems seemed to still persist. Do you think the PPA might have more paying members if such problems were addressed from the start?

It is great that you have donated so much, but that does not earn you fealty or one hundred percent support of one hundred percent of your ideas. And your seeming to expect that is how you come across. When that does not happen, your hackles get raised and you get very defensive. That is not helping you or the PPA.