This forum is about as dead as games on FTP

[Percival]

Originally Posted by sba9630

Thinking that a "Bill of Rights" document would have kept FTP on the "straight and narrow" is stupid bordering moronic.

What's stupid, bordering on moronic, is doing nothing, and trashing those who present ideas other than the ones that were spoonfed to poker consumers (like yourself) from companies like FTP.

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

You seem to be confused yourself. Go to the theppa.org and read the mission statement of the PPA. The mission is now and always has been to get favorable laws for poker players. The mission is not now and never has been to police the industry for the benefit of poker players. Maybe you think it should, and maybe it will some day. But you can't fault the PPA for not policing the industry when that has never been its stated mission.

I never said (or even implied) that the PPA's mission should be to police the industry. suggest you re-read my original post.

What I did say was that if on-line operators had been more responsible about policing themselves, it's possible that Black Friday may never have occurred, and on-line poker in America might have gained federal legislation by now.

The PPA could have done more to remove (or reduce) a perceived incestuous relationship with operators, and could have done more to improve direct relations with consumers, that it now relies on more, but is getting less support from. The PPA always shrugged off concerns by poker consumers for being a 'bitch' of on-line operators, and now, it's reaping what it sowed.

My comments and perspective about the practices of on-line poker operators has remained consistent, both before and after Black Friday.

I don't drink the coolaid. I believe that poker consumers were being short changed regarding CS and safeguards, and there was never any effort, by any institution or business, to stand up for poker consumers while they were being shafted by operators before Black Friday. And while the PPA may not have ever said they would be that body to fight for consumer rights within the industry, the poker public (generally speaking) was always under the impression that the PPA was doing just that, fighting for their rights and protections.

Ask yourself this, would you be satisfied if nothing was ever done to correct the wrongs by on-line operators, and having Black Friday never have happened? If your answer is a resounding YES, then all I can say is, ...we see things differently.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by Percival

What's stupid, bordering on moronic, is doing nothing, and trashing those who present ideas other than the ones that were spoonfed to poker consumers (like yourself) from companies like FTP.


I never said (or even implied) that the PPA's mission should be to police the industry. suggest you re-read my original post.

I suggest you re-read his.

What I did say was that if on-line operators had been more responsible about policing themselves, it's possible that Black Friday may never have occurred, and on-line poker in America might have gained federal legislation by now.

This is definitely revisionist history in the making. I don't think it will make it, however. First, BF was the culmination of an effort started by the DOJ office for the Southern District of NY well back in the early part of this century. Unless circumstances were changed, it would have eventually happened no matter what the sites did or did not do.

Second, I seem to have a vague recollection of another big site besides FTP that served the US market. It was called PokerStars IIRC. I do not recall any reports of PokerStars stealing from its players .... or perhaps this is really just another "the rake is too damn high" complaint? If so, how did that in anyway have anything to do with BF?

The PPA could have done more to remove (or reduce) a perceived incestuous relationship with operators, and could have done more to improve direct relations with consumers, that it now relies on more, but is getting less support from. The PPA always shrugged off concerns by poker consumers for being a 'bitch' of on-line operators, and now, it's reaping what it sowed.

My comments and perspective about the practices of on-line poker operators has remained consistent, both before and after Black Friday.

The PPA is a political organization. Like most such organizations, it functions most effectively when producers and consumers are working together to get a change in the law. Do the contributions of gun and ammo manufactures mean they have an "incestuous relationship" with the NRA? If so, you would also have to agree its a pretty damn effective one, wouldn't you?

I don't drink the coolaid. I believe that poker consumers were being short changed regarding CS and safeguards, and there was never any effort, by any institution or business, to stand up for poker consumers while they were being shafted by operators before Black Friday. And while the PPA may not have ever said they would be that body to fight for consumer rights within the industry, the poker public (generally speaking) was always under the impression that the PPA was doing just that, fighting for their rights and protections.

I think the product you want to deny drinking is "Kool-Aid." I also think it is pretty lame intellectually to agree that the PPA was doing all along what it said it was doing (fighting for legal changes), but then claim that this was still a failure because some folks mistakenly believed the PPA was more like Consumer Reports than the NRA.

Ask yourself this, would you be satisfied if nothing was ever done to correct the wrongs by on-line operators, and having Black Friday never have happened? If your answer is a resounding YES, then all I can say is, ...we see things differently.

We certainly see things differently ... but other than that I really do not understand this part of your post. Did anyone besides the criminals themselves really know that FTP was looting its coffers before BF? Not even the DOJ knew it ... it did not come out till months later when FTP, unlike PokerStars, was unable to return US player funds. To say that BF would never have happened had someone looked for, discovered, and publicized the financial mess at FTP is one of the largest stretches of imagination I have seen in some time.

Skallagrim

[Percival]

I generally appreciate a good debate Patrick, but in your case, I'll go with it anyway.

Thank you reaffirming the PPA as a political organization, although it wasn't necessary. What is troubling about that fact is that the PPA proudly appointed (then embraced) two, Full Tilt founders to it's board of directors during a time when FTP was being harshly criticized by on-line poker consumers worldwide, for shoveling out sub-standard customer service. Why would you not avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest altogether, and keep accepting FTP cash contributions, without considering HL and CF for board positions?

I know that the PPA is a good cause, I've always felt that and have said as much. But that doesn't entitle it to a free pass, ...that doesn't mean that whatever actions it takes shouldn't be closely watched, if not scrutinized by both its membership, and the poker public. I'm a stakeholder like everyone else, and if I feel the political winds are blowing favorably in the direction of online operators that have done little for consumers, I'm gonna say something.

Regarding its mission, the PPA may feel it's free from any responsibility to say something (anything) when cheating or corruption occurs - whether it's purported to be by an on-line operator, or individual players that may have found a way to cheat the system. But like it or not, absent such a watchdog organization within poker, the public looks to the PPA for leadership. You (PPA) are, after all, the players' voice. So you can take a defensive stance, and admonish me for expressing concerns, but I promise you, it's unappreciated.

Your personal jabs and insults are not the first I've fielded from PPA representatives, I'm sure they won't be the last. True I have been harshly critical of the PPA for what I feel has been 'turning it's head' to wrongdoings in Poker. But I've tried to keep my criticisms directed at the PPA and not its individual representatives, who I do respect and appreciate for their passion about the PPA cause, and the game of Poker.

It'd be who of you to remember that there are those that may not always agree with the PPA and it's actions, but that share the same love and passion for growing and expanding Poker worldwide. Keep that in mind the next time you hit the 'submit reply' button before exhaling.

Eloquence is the poetry of prose, not sarcasm in disguise.

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by Percival

...Regarding its mission, the PPA may feel it's free from any responsibility to say something (anything) when cheating or corruption occurs - whether it's purported to be by an on-line operator, or individual players that may have found a way to cheat the system...

The PPA has put out statements when events of this nature have occurred.

...It'd be who of you...

...Eloquence is the poetry of prose, not sarcasm in disguise.

I'm gonna give you a pass on that one.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by Percival

I generally appreciate a good debate Patrick, but in your case, I'll go with it anyway.

Thank you reaffirming the PPA as a political organization, although it wasn't necessary. What is troubling about that fact is that the PPA proudly appointed (then embraced) two, Full Tilt founders to it's board of directors during a time when FTP was being harshly criticized by on-line poker consumers worldwide, for shoveling out sub-standard customer service. Why would you not avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest altogether, and keep accepting FTP cash contributions, without considering HL and CF for board positions?

HL and CF were on the PPA Board before I joined the PPA. So was Greg Raymer. At the time, PPA accepted contributions, indirectly, from both FTP and PS. While some criticized this relationship between the PPA and the sites, I saw it as the sites giving back a portion of their profits to help support the cause of openly legal online poker. That site money was put to good political use and allowed mere players like myself to work with and through a pro-poker organization without large personal expense. Without sites and players working together it would have been much more difficult to achieve the political recognition we have at this point.

When the fiasco at FTP was discovered, HL and CF were asked to resign from the PPA Board and they did.

I know that the PPA is a good cause, I've always felt that and have said as much. But that doesn't entitle it to a free pass, ...that doesn't mean that whatever actions it takes shouldn't be closely watched, if not scrutinized by both its membership, and the poker public. I'm a stakeholder like everyone else, and if I feel the political winds are blowing favorably in the direction of online operators that have done little for consumers, I'm gonna say something.

Regarding its mission, the PPA may feel it's free from any responsibility to say something (anything) when cheating or corruption occurs - whether it's purported to be by an on-line operator, or individual players that may have found a way to cheat the system. But like it or not, absent such a watchdog organization within poker, the public looks to the PPA for leadership. You (PPA) are, after all, the players' voice. So you can take a defensive stance, and admonish me for expressing concerns, but I promise you, it's unappreciated.

As sba9630 said, when cheating became known the PPA publicly condemned it. But it has never been the PPA's mission to be both the Poker Advocates and the Poker Police.

Your personal jabs and insults are not the first I've fielded from PPA representatives, I'm sure they won't be the last. True I have been harshly critical of the PPA for what I feel has been 'turning it's head' to wrongdoings in Poker. But I've tried to keep my criticisms directed at the PPA and not its individual representatives, who I do respect and appreciate for their passion about the PPA cause, and the game of Poker.

It'd be who of you to remember that there are those that may not always agree with the PPA and it's actions, but that share the same love and passion for growing and expanding Poker worldwide. Keep that in mind the next time you hit the 'submit reply' button before exhaling.

Eloquence is the poetry of prose, not sarcasm in disguise.

There were no personal jabs or insults in my prior post. Attributes directed at a line of reasoning are not attributes directed at the person advocating the line of reasoning.

I understand that you would like to see an organization of players that advocates directly for better treatment of players by the online poker sites. So would I.

But unlike you I do not think such an organization, which by its very nature would be dividing the poker community into opposing camps*, should be the same organization that advocates directly for the political rights of the entire poker community.

Skallagrim

* And I don't mean just the division between sites and players. For example, how should a watchdog player organization handle the issue of HUDS? Many recreational players hate them and, to the extent they know about them, want their use banned or limited. Many pro or semi-pro players support the use of HUDS. So who should the watchdog organization support on that issue? - This may be a mundane example, but it makes the point. Political advocacy and consumer protection are very different objectives and I can think of no organization that really tries to do both and does either effectively.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

HL and CF were on the PPA Board before I joined the PPA. So was Greg Raymer. At the time, PPA accepted contributions, indirectly, from both FTP and PS. While some criticized this relationship between the PPA and the sites, I saw it as the sites giving back a portion of their profits to help support the cause of openly legal online poker. That site money was put to good political use and allowed mere players like myself to work with and through a pro-poker organization without large personal expense. Without sites and players working together it would have been much more difficult to achieve the political recognition we have at this point.

When the fiasco at FTP was discovered, HL and CF were asked to resign from the PPA Board and they did.



...

Skallagrim

Skall, it is nonsense to pretend that anyone watching the US poker industry during the Fall before Black Friday was unaware that FTP was kiting deposits.

Yes, "mere players" were able to leverage poker site money to advocate for whatever the poker sites allowed them to advocate for, i.e., a Federal-only "solution" instead of the much more feasible, politically acceptable State-level approach to get the legalization ball rolling.

It seems that through Black Friday you still viewed the world through rose-colored glasses when it came to your fellow Board members, Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson, even opining post Black Friday that it was reasonable to assume that FTP would repay players and denigrating any suggestion that a more realistic approach might serve players better.

You have also wrung your hands about any idea that player-funding might better serve the PPA mission than continued reliance on strings-attached funds from operator/software donors.

By the way, you invited inquiries about the PPA but have never responded to ANY posts asking where the PPA gets its funding NOW and since post Black Friday. Why is that ? Whose $ are paying the tab in 2011 and 2012 ?

I think the PPA NEEDS to be player funded, if you do not agree then you might consider why.

Can you work with/for a player-funded group, whose purpose is to pass online poker legislation wherever and whenever its passage suits players' interests, not necessarily those of Caesars or FTP or Stars or the IGC ?

For starters, it would help clear the air if the PPA could address why, in each instance it has NOT supported State poker licensing legislation, why it took that position.

Finally, you seem to lack the perspective, vision and courage needed for leadership, as you seem paralyzed by the prospect of the PPA taking a position that might displease some players. You likely make a good soldier and even better Congressional mouthpiece, (certainly better than trotting out Annie Duke again); but leave leadership and direction to other folks on the Board, please.

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Skall, it is nonsense to pretend that anyone watching the US poker industry during the Fall before Black Friday was unaware that FTP was kiting deposits...

It was widely known FTP was kiting deposits. It was discussed here and on other forums. I, like many others, felt that new processors would be found and the books would eventually be balanced. Minus seizures that the sites, including FTP, had absorbed.

I have some questions for you:

1) Did anyone, including yourself, know to what extent the kiting was taking place (the "Fall before Black Friday")?

2) If so, where were the warnings from you or anyone else? Feel free to quote them here.

3) Kiting hasn't been brought up in this thread until now, what's your point?

...It seems that through Black Friday you still viewed the world through rose-colored glasses when it came to your fellow Board members, Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson, even opining post Black Friday that it was reasonable to assume that FTP would repay players and denigrating any suggestion that a more realistic approach might serve players better...

After Black Friday, I like many others, felt that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker would pay back players. So far, I'm batting .500. If you thought otherwise, please paste your prior quotes here indicating your trepidation regarding player balances being reimbursed.

... and denigrating any suggestion that a more realistic approach might serve players better...

What "realistic approach" might you be referring to?

Also, please point out any "denigrating" that was done by Skallagrim regarding a "more realistic approach".

Finally, you seem to lack the perspective, vision and courage needed for leadership, as you seem paralyzed by the prospect of the PPA taking a position that might displease some players. You likely make a good soldier and even better Congressional mouthpiece, (certainly better than trotting out Annie Duke again); but leave leadership and direction to other folks on the Board, please.

How about taking your condescending attitude and sticking it. I realize you feel the state-by-state solution is best (likely because that's what your client(s) want), but you going into insufferable prick mode whenever someone disagrees with you is beyond getting old.

Are you PUI*? I ask because your posts seem way more obnoxious in the evening than in the morning.

*Posting Under the Influence

[Percival]

sba9630, don't read too much from DonkeyQuixote, I too have been on the other end of his POV. He's passionate about his issues and often (quite often actually) doesn't realize how offensive he can come across. But at least he has something to say, when so many have an opinion but never open their mouth.

[Percival]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

...I understand that you would like to see an organization of players that advocates directly for better treatment of players by the online poker sites. So would I....I do not think such an organization, which by its very nature would be dividing the poker community into opposing camps*, should be the same organization that advocates directly for the political rights of the entire poker community.

Skallagrim

* ...Political advocacy and consumer protection are very different objectives and I can think of no organization that really tries to do both and does either effectively.

neither Poker, nor the PPA are too big not to consider centralizing such a cause. And I believe the argument that there is no precedent, is a weak one in this case.

There are many things that have been learned from this past decade, not the least of which is that Poker (as an industry), showcased a drastic level of immaturity, yet propped itself up as a thoroughbred, right out of the gate. And most of the arguments that have been made (past and present), fail to site an acceptance of accountability for this.

I would argue that many of the concerns of lawmakers, stemmed from witnessing a blatant lack of regard for consumer protections by on-line operators, during the time that the Gov't was watching from the sideline. Do you know for certain that more responsible, self-policing by industry leaders, and better timing couldn't have prevented a Black Friday? No, you don't, you can only speculate. I mean, if I were a lawmaker, and saw that a healthy, corruption free industry was growing, and that there was a tremendous opportunity to gain needed revenue, ...I personally would not be so quick to slam the lid on it.

I wouldn't be so rushed to kill the idea of a PPA that is broader in scope. I mean, if it's not challenging, it's probably not that worthwhile, and I pray that the PPA doesn't continue fighting the same fight with dated ammo. Because if it does, it may look back in time, and see that it spent much effort swimming upstream, when it might have made better gains from remaining more open-minded about standing with (and not just for) its base.

BTW, saying my views are, "...pretty lame intellectually..." is insulting and condescending (if even subtle), and somewhat arrogant commentary. I believe you understood my point succinctly - that the PPA expressed little or no concern about FTP's insufficient treatment of it's customers, at the same time it was accepting cash contributions from FTP, then appointing two of it's founding members to the PPA board. That's dirt the PPA can't quickly wash from its hands.

And, "...revisionist history in the making..."? Or was that comment not directed at the author of the post you were responding to? Or implying that I had some sort of ulterior gripe about rake? C'mon Patrick, you're intelligent and well educated, and I'm hoping we can engage in a more respectful, albeit spirited, debate.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by Percival

neither Poker, nor the PPA are too big not to consider centralizing such a cause. And I believe the argument that there is no precedent, is a weak one in this case.

Considering the idea is one thing. Concluding it is a good idea is another.

And the lack of precedent is an indication that it is not a good idea. Alone, I grant you, it is not compelling proof. But it is consistent with experience: a divided force is never as effective as a united force.

There are many things that have been learned from this past decade, not the least of which is that Poker (as an industry), showcased a drastic level of immaturity, yet propped itself up as a thoroughbred, right out of the gate. And most of the arguments that have been made (past and present), fail to site an acceptance of accountability for this.

The lack of US regulation of online poker has been consistently cited, by the PPA and others, as a huge factor in the failure of certain sites to behave responsibly. Forcing US players to choose from sites which were not answerable to US law allowed certain sites to continue to operate when they clearly would have been shunned had there been competing US sites that would have been far more answerable to players.

That said, there were (and still are) some sites that tried hard to be responsible. And there are some foreign regulatory jurisdictions that do seem to take their responsibilities seriously.

I would argue that many of the concerns of lawmakers, stemmed from witnessing a blatant lack of regard for consumer protections by on-line operators, during the time that the Gov't was watching from the sideline.

You might argue this, but I never saw any evidence of it. The lawmakers who actually cared about the consumer protection of US players were the same ones who supported US regulation.

Do you know for certain that more responsible, self-policing by industry leaders, and better timing couldn't have prevented a Black Friday? No, you don't, you can only speculate. I mean, if I were a lawmaker, and saw that a healthy, corruption free industry was growing, and that there was a tremendous opportunity to gain needed revenue, ...I personally would not be so quick to slam the lid on it.

Since we are talking at this point about "what might have been" we are both speculating. What is not speculation, however, is that no lawmaker, to my knowledge, ever made the argument you are making. Not one ever said: "well if the sites were more responsible I would support their being allowed to offer poker in the US."

But you keep bringing up the idea that somehow if the sites had been more responsible that might have prevented BF. That is clearly wrong. The DOJ did not go after PS because it was concerned about the speed with which PS fought online collusion. It never entered their mind at all. BF had nothing to do with any of the sites' allegedly (and in some instances not allegedly but proven) poor treatment of their customers. It was their good treatment of their customers that angered the DOJ: the fact that the sites continued to let US players play and devised ever more complex and shady methods of getting US players their money.

I wouldn't be so rushed to kill the idea of a PPA that is broader in scope. I mean, if it's not challenging, it's probably not that worthwhile, and I pray that the PPA doesn't continue fighting the same fight with dated ammo. Because if it does, it may look back in time, and see that it spent much effort swimming upstream, when it might have made better gains from remaining more open-minded about standing with (and not just for) its base.

Fighting for the legal ability to play online poker is, by its nature, swimming upstream. The odds have always been against us. Yet we have persevered and we have made significant gains compared to where we were 5 years ago after UIGEA's passage.

The question you pose, it seems to me, is whether our political standing would be stronger if we had diverted resources and time to demanding that FTP provide better customer support ... I still fail to see how that would have improved anything, especially given, as I said before, that the PPA has consistently argued that US regulation/legislation was needed for proper protection of poker players' rights as consumers.

BTW, saying my views are, "...pretty lame intellectually..." is insulting and condescending (if even subtle), and somewhat arrogant commentary. I believe you understood my point succinctly - that the PPA expressed little or no concern about FTP's insufficient treatment of it's customers, at the same time it was accepting cash contributions from FTP, then appointing two of it's founding members to the PPA board. That's dirt the PPA can't quickly wash from its hands.

I never said your "views" were intellectually lame. I said one argument of yours was. And it still is.

The PPA always condemned any cheating or stealing from players. Always. This was always cited as one of the main reasons for needing a new US law. In light of that, would things have been any different had PPA also said: "and FTP has a really slow, really bad, customer service department"?

BTW, you still have the timeline wrong. HL and CF were on the Board of the PPA from almost the start. When I joined I had little reason to think either of them were dishonest and I think most everyone else thought the same way. When evidence surfaced calling that belief into question, their resignation soon followed. With the benefit of hindsight, I, and many others, may have been all too gullible about that - but hindsight is always 20/20.

And, "...revisionist history in the making..."? Or was that comment not directed at the author of the post you were responding to? Or implying that I had some sort of ulterior gripe about rake? C'mon Patrick, you're intelligent and well educated, and I'm hoping we can engage in a more respectful, albeit spirited, debate.

No, it was not directed at you, but at your recitation of history. It was pointing out that you were ignoring the important parts of the history that led up to Black Friday and emphasizing a minor, possibly irrelevant, part. As a result of that you draw conclusions about why BF happened that are clearly not the case when the whole history is considered. Doing that is essentially the definition of "revisionist history."

Your view that the PPA should have some kind of consumer protection division is neither intellectually lame nor revisionist history. It is a viable position that has some merit (because protecting consumers always has merit).

The question remains, at least in my mind, whether the foremost objective of the PPA, namely changing US law, would be helped or hindered by adding this new role.

You have still not convinced me that the foremost objective would be helped by adding this new role. I still have my concerns that in fact it would be hindered, at least at this point in time (once new laws have been passed, for example, my conclusion could easily change).

To change my mind now, however, you will have to put forward some better arguments than you have so far.

Skallagrim

[Percival]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Considering the idea is one thing. Concluding it is a good idea is another.

And the lack of precedent is an indication that it is not a good idea. Alone, I grant you, it is not compelling proof. But it is consistent with experience: a divided force is never as effective as a united force. Skallagrim

Impossible is a word found only in the dictionary of fools. - Bonaparte Napoleon

History is full of the most improbable success stories, from situations that seemed impossible from the start. And the lack of precedent is only an indication that it hasn't been done (or done effectively) before. You just can't presume that because something hasn't been done before, it can't be done now.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

The lack of US regulation of online poker has been consistently cited, by the PPA and others, as a huge factor in the failure of certain sites to behave responsibly. Forcing US players to choose from sites which were not answerable to US law allowed certain sites to continue to operate when they clearly would have been shunned had there been competing US sites that would have been far more answerable to players.

That said, there were (and still are) some sites that tried hard to be responsible. And there are some foreign regulatory jurisdictions that do seem to take their responsibilities seriously.

You could have just agreed that the industry was immature. And there are exceptions (aka PokerStars).

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

...The lawmakers who actually cared about the consumer protection of US players were the same ones who supported US regulation.

Well I certainly hope so, otherwise, the fight would be all for naught.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Since we are talking at this point about "what might have been" we are both speculating. What is not speculation, however, is that no lawmaker, to my knowledge, ever made the argument you are making.

OMG!! That's self contradicting, and a double negative does not make a positive Patrick.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Not one ever said: "well if the sites were more responsible I would support their being allowed to offer poker in the US."

Did you EVER in life, come across someone that didn't tell you about what was really on their mind? That's SOP in politics Patrick, and you know that.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

But you keep bringing up the idea that somehow if the sites had been more responsible that might have prevented BF. That is clearly wrong.

What is clearly wrong, is your presumptive posture. And what is right, is remaining objective (actually, for the PPA, first becoming more objective, then, remaining objective).

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Fighting for the legal ability to play online poker is, by its nature, swimming upstream. The odds have always been against us. Yet we have persevered and we have made significant gains compared to where we were 5 years ago after UIGEA's passage.

The question you pose, it seems to me, is whether our political standing would be stronger if we had diverted resources and time to demanding that FTP provide better customer support ...

Wrong again Patrick, another presumption. Diversion and demand are your word choices, not mine.

When you accept cash contributions from someone (anyone) that has a reputation for disregarding the very people that you claim to be in business to help, then your business' character and integrity are called into question.

Answer this if you know: did anyone from the PPA EVER express concerns with HL and CF about the potentially compromising position from accepting contributions, while FTP was being bombarded with ongoing, CS complaints? If yes, what was their response? If no, why not? The 'why not' is where my criticisms are born. I hardly think that expressing concerns with FTP founders that are PPA board members is the same as 'diverting time and resources and making demands' on them. Saying nothing is not much different than complicity.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

I still fail to see how that would have improved anything, especially given, as I said before, that the PPA has consistently argued that US regulation/legislation was needed for proper protection of poker players' rights as consumers.

After all this time, and everything that has been learned in recent years, it's disappointing knowing that the PPA is so freely conceding that it needed Government intervention. True, federal legislation would have removed most (if not all) obstacles to legalizing on-line poker. But consumers don't need government to tell them what protections they desire, or should be entitled to. The players themselves should decide that.

So why does the PPA feel that the Government should decide about player rights and protections? In a sense, it seems like the PPA's mission is, in and of itself, a double entendre. Its literal objective is to reach political end-roads with respect to legalizing on-line poker. But its actions describe itself as a 'poker players alliance' that is submissive to government. Government's role should be to aid, not lead. The industry can, and should, look out for itself.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

I never said your "views" were intellectually lame. I said one argument of yours was. And it still is.

The PPA always condemned any cheating or stealing from players. Always. This was always cited as one of the main reasons for needing a new US law. In light of that, would things have been any different had PPA also said: "and FTP has a really slow, really bad, customer service department"?

This is a reiteration that the PPA looks to the Government for the answers. You say my "one argument is lame"?! But you (PPA) are doubling down on an argument that, "the U.S Government is needed for proper protection of poker players' rights as consumers".

The Government is not the answer to the problem. With respect to player protections, governments role should be to help facilitate the implementation of protections that are formed, and continuously refined by a broad cross-section of players and forces, within the industry.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

BTW, you still have the timeline wrong. HL and CF were on the Board of the PPA from almost the start. When I joined I had little reason to think either of them were dishonest and I think most everyone else thought the same way. When evidence surfaced calling that belief into question, their resignation soon followed. With the benefit of hindsight, I, and many others, may have been all too gullible about that - but hindsight is always 20/20.

This is a view of someone that, either had their nose pressed up against the looking glass, or just wasn't paying attention to the things that were impacting players. I call BS on your hindsight comment as it stinks of a lack of accountability. If the PPA didn't know, it should have. And if it did know that there was a festering, conflict of interest, then that is something the PPA would never own up to. Either way is messed up.

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

The question remains, at least in my mind, whether the foremost objective of the PPA, namely changing US law, would be helped or hindered by adding this new role.

You have still not convinced me that the foremost objective would be helped by adding this new role. I still have my concerns that in fact it would be hindered, at least at this point in time (once new laws have been passed, for example, my conclusion could easily change).

To change my mind now, however, you will have to put forward some better arguments than you have so far.

Skallagrim

You seem to be stuck on this idea that expanding the scope of the PPA would somehow diminish its effectiveness, or somehow dilute future political efforts and gains. That's a defensive posture, and a mindset that fails to accept a greater challenge for the sake of embracing a familiar, status quo.

The Poker Players Alliance has a unique opportunity that it can embrace, or let slip away. The challenge may be difficult, but the rewards could offer exponential empowerment for players in the future. Why settle for just gaining federal legislation of on-line poker, when there's an opportunity to empower players in that process? Yes, it may be a difficult task already, and there may be a tendency to defer additional challenges until a later time, or for someone else to take on. But I think the time is right, the moment is now.

[gymrat22]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

I'm guessing part of that is because the players that are playing now don't even know the PPA exists. The rest of them just don't care anymore.

Yeah,that's exactly what I'm finding in the B&M rooms,at least in Florida.Even the guys that you KNOW used to be full time grinders...don't really seem to care.
Or if they care,they believe that the interstate online poker idea is dead.That if it does come back,it will be intrastate only,and with live rake amounts,run by and for the B&M's.
I was participating in the Daily Action Plan before I moved from NC to FLA,and since I was in a non-poker state before I moved here,I naturally assumed that almost all former online players were backing the PPA to the hilt.
Wrong.I was watching a piece on global warming the other day on MSNBC.Now as much as any of us would like to see online poker back tomorrow afternoon...we all have to admit that the steady warming of Earth presents a much greater challenge to life as we know it,than does Poker Stars moving to Las Vegas.
And the commentator made what I thought was a very telling remark.He said"I don't think we will see action on global warming anytime in the near future...simply for the fact that the political parties don't see anything in there FOR THEM!!
And that's the way it is.Like it or not.And I don't like it,and neither do a whole bunch of us out here.We aren't going to get federal movement on online poker...not because we haven't done OUR job,no,we did our job.We petitioned congress for re-dress....and failed.Why? Simply put,there is no public outcry for online poker.
Oh they'll take our small(considering) amount of funds we give away...and no matter how many tweets we send,how many e-mails we send,they don't see a benefit in it for themselves.Nothing.And keep taking our money,and sponsoring legisliation that they all know is going nowhere,and then come back to us for more money.This is what the congress in this day and age does best.Nothing.And lie.That is their only "contributions to society they make.
There is no way on this earth we can outspend the Koch Brothers.They can give more to the super Pac's in one day,than we can raise in two years.And that,along with about 50% of the public behind them...is enough for a basic tie in the election polls.
I, along with 315 million Americans,have no idea how this will all play out,but in the minds of a growing number of people...it aint gonna be pretty. I'm just sayin