FairPlayUSA discussion

[__hope__]

Originally Posted by johncan

Their #1 goal is the elimination of competition. They state that themselves.

I don't think this is accurate. They have published 10 principles. 2 of them are related to eliminating their competition. 8 of them are related to regulation of Ipoker.

[22riverrat22]

Originally Posted by Lovesantiques

Your organization "does not support or endorse any of the current legislation" and has also stated that it is not lobbying congress.

How do you propose to achieve your goals?

Why aren't you endorsing any of the current proposed legislation?

Is there something in it that your organization dosen't think should be?

Something that your organization feels should be in it but isn't?

In either case, what?

im also very curious, good questions

[caseycjc]

Originally Posted by Thew92

http://youtu.be/V3GLiCguBT8

Parry Aftab at the 2009 HR 2267 hearing. She finally gives support of the bill 3:15 in.

Parry Aftab,

"Licensing and regulating online poker is the most effective and responsible way to ensure the safety of America's children and consumers," Internet safety expert Parry Aftab said in a statement. "Given the growing ... popularity of online poker, we cannot afford to miss this opportunity to protect America's children and consumers. We must take action now."

I like her approach and think she's a big asset for Fair Play.

[johncan]

Originally Posted by __hope__

I don't think this is accurate. They have published 10 principles. 2 of them are related to eliminating their competition. 8 of them are related to regulation of Ipoker.

Look back and see what Erin posted multiple times at the beginning of this thread and tell me this is not their #1 goal.

If there is smoke there is fire

Everyone knows that we are going to get Ipoker it is just a matter of time.

They just want the whole pie or as much as is possible for themselves. I can understand this, but it is not good for the players

[thewhackness]

TY for responding to those other two even if the responses are a bit hazey. I understand that a PR firm (or whatever you guys are) aren't in the habit of direct, no bull****, yes or no answers.



This is a good question.

Originally Posted by Lovesantiques

Hi Marisa,

Thank you for taking the time to respond here. I do appreciate it.

And welcome to 2+2!

I've read what you posted, and that clarifies a lot. Thank you.

I'm a little confused here, though.

Your organization "does not support or endorse any of the current legislation" and has also stated that it is not lobbying congress.

How do you propose to achieve your goals?

Why aren't you endorsing any of the current proposed legislation?

Is there something in it that your organization dosen't think should be?

Something that your organization feels should be in it but isn't?

In either case, what?

I'm willing to support your goals, certainly. And I can certainly understand Caesars and MGM wanting to put their money into this. I have no problem with that. Or with their hiring your company to do the work and be the public contacts.

I'm just really not sure how you intend to achieve your, and our, goals if you aren't supporting current legislation and are not lobbying.

What am I missing here?

Thank you.

Lee

[FairPlayUSA]

[Note for the purposes of full disclosure: This is Marisa]

How do you propose to achieve your goals?

The goal is to make it clear that a broad, diverse coalition of people support the regulation of online poker. Specifically, we want members of Congress to understand there's a broad constituency in favor of regulating online poker.

The first step is to do outreach, which is what we're doing now. Not just here, but with parents, law enforcement officials, consumer advocates etc.

The next step is to organize and motivate our supporters to take action and make their views/voices heard to members of Congress. I'm sure many of you have already been doing this kind of stuff with the PPA and other organizations. I have no doubt that members of Congress have heard from poker players on this issue. But have they heard from Parents or law enforcement or consumer advocates about the importance of this issue?

Why aren't you endorsing any of the current proposed legislation? Is there something in it that your organization dosen't think should be? Something that your organization feels should be in it but isn't?

At this point we're educating and organizing around a set of principles. Many of the people we'll be reaching out to are probably a bit new and unfamiliar with the issue. We'd like to get them focused on the need to regulate online poker rather than a particular piece of legislation.

I'm just really not sure how you intend to achieve your, and our, goals if you aren't supporting current legislation and are not lobbying.

I hope I answered this question above?

What am I missing here?

That you have a voice that doesn't need to be filtered through a lobbyist? I'm sure that's obvious to you, but in all seriousness, our goal is to make it clear to Congress that the desire to regulate online poker is supported by a broad and diverse group of people. We don't need to support any particular legislation or hire lobbyists in order to do that.

[mpethybridge]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

They aren't going to apologize. They are PR professionals. They will spin it, as that is what they do. I don't expect any other behavior from them and I don't hold it against them.

I also don't see their incorrect use of the word "grassroots" as an important issue. Heck, let them run their PR campaign with spin, numbers, etc., as long as it helps to push an agenda that we can agree with. I only want to find out what that agenda really is to know whether or not I should support them.

Let me illustrate why I think it is important that we hold FPUSA to the truth--that it is an astroturf operation of Caesar's and MGM.

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

[Note in the interest of full disclosure: This is Marisa, the Executive Director of FairPlayUSA]

FairPlayUSA does not have an official position on this issue. Our position is that any operators allowed to operate should be strictly regulated.

Now it is perfectly possible for an independent advocacy group to legitimately hold this position.

But does it make sense that Caesar's would have this opinion? Do we really think that Caesar's does not have a position on who should qualify for a license?

In fact, we do know that Caesar's has an opinion, and that that opinion is that overseas operators and start-ups will NOT qualify for a license.

Thus, FPUSA's basic principle number 4 is different than the position previously taken by one of its principal sources of funding. If they were an independent group, ok, fair enough, maybe they have agreed to disagree. But they are not an independent group. The executive director, the honcho, the boss, the chief, the lady in charge, has created this organization out of whole cloth at the behest of her employers, Caesar's and MGM, who have hired her consulting business for that express purpose.

She has no independent opinions on online poker. She takes the positions that she is paid to take.

So, basically, when she speaks, it is Caesar's and MGM speaking. There is no difference. Caesar's, then, just posted in this thread saying that Caesar's has no official position on who should qualify for a license.

Raise your hand if you believe that.

See? This is the whole point of the FPUSA fiction: Caesar's can come in here, pretend not to be Caesar's and drum up support by taking positions that, if Caesar's said it directly, we would know is a lie.

This is classic plausible deniability stuff. If Gary Loveman started posting on 2+2 concerning online poker legislation, we'd have all kinds of tough questions for him about rake, rake back, rewards programs, competition, etc. etc. By sending marisa/erin/lindsay in here under the guise of representing an independent coalition, Loveman gets to ignore all of our legitimate concerns and questions, and have them say "FPUSA has no position on who should be licensed," when we know that limiting competition is the only thing Caesar's really cares about.

What we need to have happen here is for Caesar's and MGM to come into this forum legitimately, and not under the false pretense that there is actually a Fair Play USA coalition that is in any way independent of Caesars and MGM. otherwise, Caesar's is just going to keep brushing off our legitimate concerns with the ridiculously simple expedient of having the fictional FPUSA say, "oh, golly gee, we're just concerned citizens who have no opinion on that."

[FairPlayUSA]

I understand that a PR firm (or whatever you guys are) aren't in the habit of direct, no bull****, yes or no answers.

Just to be clear, you're not getting yes/no answers from me because the questions you're asking do not have "yes" or "no" answers from our point of view.

I'm giving you the straight answers on these questions. Just because there are nuances to our answers doesn't mean it's bull****.

And just because it may not be the answer you want to hear, doesn't make it bull**** either.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

That you have a voice that doesn't need to be filtered through a lobbyist? I'm sure that's obvious to you, but in all seriousness, our goal is to make it clear to Congress that the desire to regulate online poker is supported by a broad and diverse group of people. We don't need to support any particular legislation or hire lobbyists in order to do that.

Illustrating that many groups have an interest in supporting online poker...thats great and I hope you succeed.

I dont think your organization claims to actually give players a voice though, does it? The MGM/Ceasars' principles seem entrenched and not really open for a two way/grassroots collaboration. This is more of a vehicle to help players amplify Ceasars' and MGM's voice, isnt it?

Players will probably want to help with that all things considered, we are much happier having those interests support online poker than wrongly lobby for prohibition, but Fairplay pretty clearly isnt a voice for players.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

Just to be clear, you're not getting yes/no answers from me because the questions you're asking do not have "yes" or "no" answers from our point of view.

I'm giving you the straight answers on these questions. Just because there are nuances to our answers doesn't mean it's bull****.

And just because it may not be the answer you want to hear, doesn't make it bull**** either.

This is true. Some of these answers are nuanced.

Some have yes or no answers.

I believe your end game is both strengthening the UIGEA and regulating i-poker.

Would you support strengthening the UIGEA with the intent to regulate i-poker later if UIGEA strengthening were politically viable at a particular point in time but, for whatever reason, regulating i-poker wasn't?

If your view is that the UIGEA strengthening and regulating i-poker have to be linked, the answer is no. This would align with most (but not all) players here and would certainly conform with some of the 10 principles you have listed.

If your view is that they are both important planks and you may be willing to take what you could get at a given point, the answer would be yes. Most players would disagree, but it is what it is.

Im not sure there is a third answer here.

[apology7]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

but Fairplay pretty clearly isnt a voice for players.

Obviously. It's been stated before itt by the Fairplay rep herself that this group is not concerned about players rights (aside from providing a safe legal environment). What do those bashing them not understand about their position? In my opinion they have been pretty clear about what there actual agenda is.

I think it's good we have the PPA as we're going to need both sides of the spectrum to get reasonable legislation passed.

[FairPlayUSA]

[Note for the purposes of full disclosure: This is Marisa, Executive Director of FairPlayUSA]

But does it make sense that Caesar's would have this opinion? Do we really think that Caesar's does not have a position on who should qualify for a license?

In fact, we do know that Caesar's has an opinion, and that that opinion is that overseas operators and start-ups will NOT qualify for a license.

If you want to know what Caesars thinks, you should ask Caesars. I do not, and FairPlayUSA does not, speak for Caesars or MGM.

Despite how you might feel about it, there is a distinction between the companies that provided the seed money and the organization itself. I won't be speaking on behalf of anyone other than FairPlayUSA. So if you ask me questions that only an operator or member of the industry can answer, I'm not going to be able to give you an answer.

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

[Note for the purposes of full disclosure: This is Marisa, Executive Director of FairPlayUSA]

If you want to know what Caesars thinks, you should ask Caesars. I do not, and FairPlayUSA does not, speak for Caesars or MGM.

Despite how you might feel about it, there is a distinction between the companies that provided the seed money and the organization itself. I won't be speaking on behalf of anyone other than FairPlayUSA. So if you ask me questions that only an operator or member of the industry can answer, I'm not going to be able to give you an answer.

So, you're stating that you came up with FairPlayUSA on your own, and then went to Caesars/MGM for funding?

You categorically state that Caesars/MGM and/or other entities did not create FairPlayUSA?

[FairPlayUSA]

I dont think your organization claims to actually give players a voice though, does it? The MGM/Ceasars' principles seem entrenched and not really open for a two way/grassroots collaboration. This is more of a vehicle to help players amplify Ceasars' and MGM's voice, isnt it?

Well, from our perspective it's an opportunity for players to be part of the effort to build a diverse coalition.

And no, we don't claim to be anyone's voice, we're a vehicle to amplify the voice of lots of different interests on this issue.

I think the distinction here is whether you see yourself as part of a larger coalition outside the poker playing community. A coalition that includes companies in the gaming industry, law enforcement officials, parents, consumer advocates etc. We're asking you to be a part of it, you'll have to decide if our mission and goals speak to your concerns or not.

Players will probably want to help with that all things considered, we are much happier having those interests support online poker than wrongly lobby for prohibition, but Fairplay pretty clearly isnt a voice for players.

No, we're not a voice for anyone. We're a coalition of different interests seeking supporters for our principles and mission. You either support it or you don't. And if you need more information to try to make a decision we're here to try to answer some of the questions.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

[Note for the purposes of full disclosure: This is Marisa, Executive Director of FairPlayUSA]

If you want to know what Caesars thinks, you should ask Caesars. I do not, and FairPlayUSA does not, speak for Caesars or MGM.

Despite how you might feel about it, there is a distinction between the companies that provided the seed money and the organization itself. I won't be speaking on behalf of anyone other than FairPlayUSA. So if you ask me questions that only an operator or member of the industry can answer, I'm not going to be able to give you an answer.

Can you tell us who designed Fairplay's 10 principles if wasn't Ceasars or MGM? I sort of assumed they provided the principles and then Fairplay was designed to try and garner support from a broad coalition around these principles, but Im curious how these were designed if it wasnt Ceasars/MGM who came up with them?

Originally Posted by apology7

Obviously. It's been stated before itt by the Fairplay rep herself that this group is not concerned about players rights (aside from providing a safe legal environment). What do those bashing them not understand about their position? In my opinion they have been pretty clear about what there actual agenda is.

I think it's good we have the PPA as we're going to need both sides of the spectrum to get reasonable legislation passed.

I was responding to a specific FP post where they said they would give players an unfiltered voice. Its not meant to bash them.

FP has been very upfront about potentially disagreeing with players, thats fine. I think some of us are just still trying to figure out where they stand on some of these issues so we can figure out where the disagreements and where the common causes are.

EDIT: I see FP has responded, thanks for the clarification.