FairPlayUSA discussion

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by caseycjc

This is their #1 "Principle" according to their list, something stinks, just sayin...

That's a good reason for them to be separate from PPA. Both organizations are working toward a similar -- albeit not identical -- goal. IMO it's ultrastandard that U.S. based B&Ms would like clear laws with enforcement mechanisms.

While their #1 principle is certainly not shared by PPA, it does align with anything Congress is likely to pass.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by __hope__

Seriously consider one person to a 2+2 account. What you are suggesting is too close to the way the infamous FTPDoug account was used which can appear to be shady.

FairPlayUSA is authorized to post here.

[Doc T River]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

FairPlayUSA is authorized to post here.

Given it sounds like the FairPlay account may be used by multiple people, how about each signs their posts so we know who we're talking to?

[Zenzor]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

We ought not be surprised that regulated, taxed US businesses would take issue with the fact that others were participating in a market from which they were barred from competing.

they did it to themselves

[DonkeyQuixote]

Ironically, CBS News is reporting that FPUSA's Internet Safety Advisor Parry Aftab had her house stormed by SWAT teams on Saturday:

(CBS/AP) NEWARK, N.J. - The home of Parry Aftab, a well-known Internet safety expert and lawyer, was swarmed Monday by New Jersey police and SWAT team members who responded to what proved to be a fake hostage report from an unknown male caller.

The caller, who authorities say was purposefully targeting Aftab, told police he was armed and had two hostages at Aftab's house in Wyckoff, a suburb about 15 miles west of New York City.

Police and SWAT units surrounded Aftab's home for about three hours Saturday and eventually shot in tear gas, but only found her cat inside."

Apprently, Aftab is a repeat target of some web-bullies because of her past public work against their activities.

Not sure how she gets to be an expert advisor on online gaming issues, but FPUSA can tell us, I guess.

[caseycjc]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

That's a good reason for them to be separate from PPA. Both organizations are working toward a similar -- albeit not identical -- goal. IMO it's ultrastandard that U.S. based B&Ms would like clear laws with enforcement mechanisms.

While their #1 principle is certainly not shared by PPA, it does align with anything Congress is likely to pass.

OK, so this is pretty much a lobbying group for Ceasers/MGM, that's fine but I don't think they are being truly transparent with regards to where their interests lie. This grass roots thing is just a flat out lie.

If they want to basically "criminalize" ip unless it's under their terms (I can't imagine what else strengthing the UIGEA would mean) then that's their perogative. I just won't support them.

[Golden]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Huh? How do you figure that?



PPA has made loud, public demands for the return of our money. I have myself in various media as well.

We are not regulators, you know.



Says who?



LOL at this one. This is simply not the case -- not even close.

Why did it take weeks, after the funds were being withheld for Ferguson and Lederer to be removed from the PPA board?

LOL at you for thinking I was talking about you when I said Higher Ups. Wasn't it in another thread where Papas, or whatever his name is was making over 200k?

Not regulators? Everyone knows that. Herp Derp! Fighting for the release of our money? Effort and time might be better spent on regulation, as anything the PPA does or does not do will not speed up the process of getting or not getting our funds back.

About the tarnished reputation, read a thread in NVG when the PPA is brought up. It isn't pretty.

You are the only part of the PPA I like, as I see you actually trying to do something. Now stop hijacking the thread

Why not go out and buy a Durr or an Ivey? People seem to care what they think, get one of them to endorse the PPA or FairPlay and people will blindly follow. Why not ask Negreanu? Sure he might be Canadien, but he probably cares a lot about this issue.

No need to respond Rich, as you'll obviously disagree with the facts, and this isn't your thread. Would love to see the PPA admit to the strategies they have done wrong.

[JPFisher55]

I do not agree with all the enmity toward Caesar and MGM.

First, none of the bills introduced in Congress or the Reid bills would have given them a monopoly over online poker. Many other large casino and racetracks entities could have received licenses to compete with these two companies.

Second, I would welcome online poker regulated by gaming commissions like Nevada's, New Jersey's or even my own Missouri gaming commission. Since April 2009, I have experienced so many bad beats playing at various sites including Poker Stars that I have become a break-even player who used to be profitable. However, stats, according to a program called SECT (which works with HEM) suggests that if my luck had been average, I would still make a profit. Given the actions of PS and FTP since 2009, I no longer trust the deal at any current online poker site. Call me a rigtard; especially on hands that see a flop, but never go all in.

No current poker site has ever released an audit of their hand histories showing that their deal is fair and random. No US regulated online poker site will get away with this failure.

So I welcome US licensed online poker. IMO, Caesars and MGM know that US online poker must have a sufficiently low rake for some players to profit and be legal and available in enough states for the operators to make a long-term profit. So, IMO US online poker player interests and the interests of Caesars and MGM closely align. So I welcome FairPlay USA.

[Doc T River]

Originally Posted by Golden

Why did it take weeks, after the funds were being withheld for Ferguson and Lederer to be removed from the PPA board?

LOL at you for thinking I was talking about you when I said Higher Ups. Wasn't it in another thread where Papas, or whatever his name is was making over 200k?

Not regulators? Everyone knows that. Herp Derp! Fighting for the release of our money? Effort and time might be better spent on regulation, as anything the PPA does or does not do will not speed up the process of getting or not getting our funds back.

About the tarnished reputation, read a thread in NVG when the PPA is brought up. It isn't pretty.

You are the only part of the PPA I like, as I see you actually trying to do something. Now stop hijacking the thread

Why not go out and buy a Durr or an Ivey? People seem to care what they think, get one of them to endorse the PPA or FairPlay and people will blindly follow. Why not ask Negreanu? Sure he might be Canadien, but he probably cares a lot about this issue.

No need to respond Rich, as you'll obviously disagree with the facts, and this isn't your thread. Would love to see the PPA admit to the strategies they have done wrong.

You are seriously suggesting Ivey? He's damaged goods. Not as damaged as Lederer or Ferguson, but damaged nonetheless.

[Golden]

Originally Posted by Doc T River

You are seriously suggesting Ivey? He's damaged goods. Not as damaged as Lederer or Ferguson, but damaged nonetheless.

You are right, not the best choice, but was just saying that someone high profile is needed.

[PokerXanadu]

The ten Principles of FairPlayUSA, and my questions:

1. Strengthen the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 to unambiguously eliminate illegal Internet gambling.

As the number #1 principle, is it also considered the most important? Would you accept and support a bill that does this alone, in advance of passage of bill to license and regulate online poker in the US? Would this also include extension of federal law to make all internet gambling except US licensed sites expressly illegal? What about intrastate-only sites?

2. Provide tools to crack down on unlicensed foreign operators who do not comply with U.S. law; removing U.S. banks as the enforcers under UIGEA and empowering law enforcement to shut down illegal operators.

Does this include any law enforcement tools against players? Do the tools include government Internet censorship?

3. Give states and tribes the authority to accept or prohibit online poker and mandate sophisticated tools to block consumers in those prohibited areas.

Will this authority be conferred specifically on state legislatures or at the discretion of the executive branch of the states? Will states or tribes that prohibit (opt out of) participation in the federal online poker also be prohibited from implementing intrastate/intratribal-only online poker?

4. Establish a strict gaming regulatory framework for licensing and enforcement of online poker in jurisdictions that want to be part of a federal network.

What mechanisms will be included for the input or participation of players in the development of the regulations? Will the licensing be open to all comers who can meet normal licensing procedures, or restricted to a select group of US companies?

5. Require licensed operators to offer state-of-the-art problem gambling controls that give players the option to limit their wagers, deposits, losses, and playing time.

Will players be able to easily change or reverse their self-options across the licensed sites?

6. Mandate that operators of licensed online poker sites maintain a complete record of all transactions and player identities, and that they comply with existing U.S. laws on federal bank secrecy and suspicious transaction reporting.

Will the mandate include player access to all their transaction records and identity information? Will there be a mechanism for players to correct mistakes? Will player information be protected from credit reporting agencies and government agencies beyond those related to federal bank secrecy and STR?

7. Require that technologies currently used successfully in other age-sensitive industries be used to combat underage poker play.

8. Mandate technological safeguards to ensure that games are fair and honest, offering the same strict regulatory scrutiny as commercial poker rooms.

Will players have recourse to the court justice system for cheating, fraud and other injustices against both licensed sites and other players? What will be the mechanism for players for redress of wrongs for false accusations by the sites (e.g., what if a site falsely accuses a player of cheating and seizes their account)? Will sites have the authority to determine player dishonesty, or only to freeze player accounts pending investigation by a regulatory authority or court?

Will independent RNG inspections be mandated?

9. Allow states to capture much-needed revenue from a licensed, regulated, federal poker network.

Will you support legislation that allows states to set their site taxation, rather than one set tax rate nationwide? Do you support any particular method of site taxation, e.g. deposit tax, rake tax or revenue tax?

10. Mandate that players' deposits be maintained in escrow accounts and available on demand.

Booyah.


One more questions: What provisions in federal legislation would you consider deal-breakers?

[FairPlayUSA]

Originally Posted by __hope__

Seriously consider one person to a 2+2 account. What you are suggesting is too close to the way the infamous FTPDoug account was used which can appear to be shady.

We understand the concern. We wanted to introduce ourselves as an organization, and will be mindful of not appearing "to be shady."

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

We ought not be surprised that regulated, taxed US businesses would take issue with the fact that others were participating in a market from which they were barred from competing. I'm not saying I liked it or supported it, of course. I did not. Rather, I'm saying it was not an unexpected outcome. In fact, I cited this many times as a logical reason to expect the pre-Black Friday status quo to fail.

It's easy to look at this solely from the standpoint of the players. Unfortunately, that's just a small part of the broader battlefield here. Congress is certainly not looking at this solely from the standpoint of players, either.

The PPA should represent solely the players. Pay Players First is a player issue. It may be the ONLY issue on which players stand alone vas interested parties. In the past you inexplicably were afraid to be seen as an Interest Group, get over it and advocate specifically FOR players only.

Stop carrying other folks' water for them for free, because they can give the PPA something concrete or carry it themselves.

FPUSA will clearly call ALL the shots on anything else likely to pass federally, including its "First Goal". protectionism for US licensed companies afraid to compete against foreign companies in a free market.

The PPA should aim for something concrete FOR PLAYERS. Otherwise, it is co-opted and irrlevant to the end product issuing forth from sausage-making on the Hill.

[__hope__]

BTW FairPlayUSA, if it's not already painfully clear, DonkeyQuixote is a troll of the first order.

[FairPlayUSA]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

That's a good reason for them to be separate from PPA. Both organizations are working toward a similar -- albeit not identical -- goal. IMO it's ultrastandard that U.S. based B&Ms would like clear laws with enforcement mechanisms.

While their #1 principle is certainly not shared by PPA, it does align with anything Congress is likely to pass.

Originally Posted by thedinergetsby

So you're efforts will rely on Grassroots organizing and PR to sell your legislation, instead of direct lobbying?

Do you have any plans to get some licensed lobbyists in the future to assist your efforts?

We are not a lobbying organization and do not have plans to hire paid lobbyists.