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.

Maybe a few, but the vast majority of paying members had no trouble signing up. The time it took to correct the technical problems was unfortunate and somewhat embarrassing, but putting a lot of money into the tech side of the website was not deemed the best use of funds. And apparently trying to do it on the cheap created some issues. Hopefully those issues are now fixed. I assure you it was not for lack of trying or concern.

I disagree that TE's volunteered efforts over the years do not earn him "fealty." For all practical purposes "fealty" in modern life is synonymous with "loyalty." TE has earned every poker player's loyalty 100X over; no one has worked harder or is more committed to advancing player interests than TE.

I agree, however, that TE's efforts do not mean he is entitled to "one hundred percent support of one hundred percent of [his] ideas." TE would agree with that too.

No one is perfect and no one has the ability to predict the future. We all undertake analysis and then make decisions regarding actions. In this process there is much room for differing ideas and conclusions.

The problem is simply that far too often when someone disagrees with one of TE's decisions and when, after discussion, TE is unpersuaded to change his decision, that someone then stoops to accusing TE of not being truly concerned or of having a hidden agenda. THAT is where the trolling starts. It is BS, it is tiring, and it is not helpful to the cause at all.

Skallagrim

Actually, I would like to know exactly what happened as well. D$D has made nothing but rhetorical posts in this thread, and has been vague to this point.

I don't really think it's a derail, it's relevant, and I feel like D$D should put up or shut up. Popcorn's in the microwave, I'll be ready in 2 minutes.

And when someone stoops to calling someone a troll, or characterizing their posting as trolling when they and it is not, it is also all those things.

Just remember it is a derail if TE says it is a derail and it is only relevant if TE says it is no matter what others think.

Thanks for posting the definition of forum mod.

I asked him not to respond in this thread, as it will be an insane derail. I advised him to start a new thread if he wishes.

I expect no such thing. I welcome debate and do my part to help facilitate it. It's other who seem to have a problem if I do not to agree with them. That's fine....it comes with the territory, but don't say I'm not welcoming of dissenting discussion.

Thanks Skall!

I have no desire to derail this or any other thread or forum. You have a copy of what I posted in response and are welcome to forward it to anyone who asks you.

I think your heart was in the right place when you sought the position with PPA, but I also think PPA made the right decision. It was four or five years ago and what's done is done.

Thank you for that. It is perhaps a small point, and perhaps only relevant to me as to how you have characterized my motives over the years, but my initial contact with the PPA was simply to volunteer. Before that meeting date the position was posted to Craig's list and I felt qualified enough to at least apply.

I have followed the PL and FPP forums. I never felt the need to post until I saw the "no offer of help was refused... absolutely none". I felt I had to post.

Sorry if this is a distraction or "massive derailment". I'll go back to lurker mode once again.

I am talking about you in a personal capacity and not an official capacity.

So, you are saying, if you had it over,you would still go he IGC, lobbyist, stall route? Maybe D$d was not the ideal choice, but we are stuck with the limited options we have now by the mistakes made then. Five pro organizers would have reaped a bigger harvest than the money wasted on da'amato. Granted, that would have required decisions at the top to back players over founders reaping eight figures a year from the status quo.

Given we do not know what D$D offered, I do not think you can come to that conclusion and I do not think TE said that.

Geeze, did I say something that could be construed as supportive of the PPA and/or TE?

I have an idea what he did, and in 2007 we had similar ideas on how to expand the PPA. Before UIGEA, the PPA was a mess, and it got better, but failed to organize deep. Mason and 2p2 pushed for transparency and a better board, some pushed for litigating, and others, myself and D$D pushed grassroots.

TE saying the PPA made the right decision rubs the wrong way to many who have followed this since the beginning.

As we have derailed into history, it might be about thread lock time.