Well that isn't exactly true.

Elaborate? Being vague doesn't help any readers in search of information.

Yes, it is.

D$D offered to provide services for hire, then offered to volunteer. PPA did not accept his offer for a variety of reasons.

I prefer not to reopen that discussion ITT, as it's not on topic. D$D can start a new thread if he wishes.

May have been refused for the best of reasons, but does not change the fact your original claim turns out to not be true. But I agree we do not need to know the reasons in this thread.

No need for another thread. I'll only add that I and a couple of other people have offered to volunteer a number of times whenever we had time or when there seemed to be a need. I only posted to correct a false statement.

More to the point is that the PPA has in the past and seems determined to in the future to pay for services that its talented membership can provide.

It was not true, though. As acceptance of his offer would have been a net negative for the organization and the movement, I do not consider that offer to meet the definition of help. So, no offer of help has been refused.

That being said, it was a few years ago and I don't wish to attack D$D over it now. I've met him and I'm sure he'd a fine person. The situation was what it was. It's unfortunate that he brought it up and put me in a spot where I had to address it, as I'd otherwise never had brought it up.

You have a future in politics Rich!

When caught in a lie ... redefine terms!

DeadMoneyDad;

If you're going to make a statement like that, how about giving exact, specific details of what was offered and then refused?

This response illustrates perfectly why we did not accept your offer.

Thanks...I appreciate the support, but let's not have D$D derail this thread any further.

Clinton said it best, "It depends on what the definition of is is."

How do you know it's a post of support? I can't tell one way or the other.

Glad you cleared up that there is no conflict of interest and never has been.

I thought the exclusive focus and direction of legislative efforts/resources exclusively to Capitol Hill for 5 years and the apparent failure to focus sufficiently, if ant all, on State level legislation and regulatory developments MIGHT have been perceived as such a conflict.

However, we disagree that strategic choice, maybe dictated by the PPA's 98% funding by IGC, was any sort of conflict at all.

Similarly, the strategic decision to NOT challenge the UIGEA or DOJ's policy on Wire Act application to online poker was dictated entirely by a legal analysis, not available resiources or a dependence on views provided by learned counsel, paid by IGC donated funds.

There are other examples, but as a Board member you can always rationalize why there was no conflict at all on ANY issue, by defining "player interests" however you need to do so in your view.

I think your post fairly shows why/how a membership organization must be member-funded to avoid perceived rationalizations such as your post. So long as it is entirely dependent upon IGC funding, the PPA will be a captive of that group, just as much as FPUSA ia a creature of its financial backers.

This does NOT mean that the PPA Board has done a bad job at all, they played the hand they were dealt by available funding methods pretty well; it is the funding method that must change to avoid depndence on non-player backing/interests.

So your position is that if the PPA Board takes actions which do not reflect your opinion of what PPA actions should be, those actions must be the result of the IGC telling the PPA Board what to do.

Your logic, as usual, is faulty; and so, also as usual, your position is wrong.

Skallagrim

Actually, my track record on the ongoing development of ipoker regulation at the State level, in the face of annual failure to develop regulation at the federal level, has been pretty good. I'll stand on that theme regarding the "lack of any insights".

I also think you fail to appreciate where the PPA has actually had some real success, in DC, in blocking implementation of regs for 6 months or co-opting the legislative agenda with good defensive results. I do think that earmarked donations to that effort by the PPA would be a really GOOD idea. I don't expect the PPA to move legislation/regulatory matters, I am happy if they play good defense in DC.

(Do I think the PPA is a federal legislative powerhouse ? Are you kidding ?)

(You utterly fail to get the gist of my views on where and how legalization efforts should focus. Online poker has always been a business/revenue issue ; traditionally gaming is an issue at the State level. FWIW, the "social issue" opponents still hold high ground on the Hill and defense is still needed there. Feel free to ignore what I write, you don't get it anyway.)

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" ?

Maybe there is no disconnect between the IGC-funded PPA focus on select issues/strategy and its prospective memebership donor base, which currently donates what >2% of funding ?

Membership funding would help, not hurt, the PPA in its choices of what is in the member/players' interests.

Everything I'm hearing on the state front is that they're seeking to maximize revenue by limiting competition and by charging rakes as high as the market will bear.

BTW, here are Pappas' slides from the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) conference this weekend: http://theppa.org/ppa/2012/01/10/ncl...io-ppa-010812/

The PPA accepted the IGC's strategic direction (along with it's funding), to focus almost exclusively on DC lobbyists to move Federal legislation. In doing so chose to forgo focusing on building any type of lasting real membership organization.

Same faulty logic as DQ's:

Most tin-foil hat theories begin life the same way. See if you can spot the flaw.

As to the direct point, as sad as it is to say D$D, nothing, absolutely nothing (beyond reaffirming God and the Pledge of Allegiance) gets done on Capitol Hill without the work of lobbyists.

Forgo the lobbyists and spend more money on grassroots efforts? Sounds ideal. But all it would have meant is that our collective voice would be little louder before being ignored on Capitol Hill.

Skallagrim

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.


,