fyp, if I am wrong on this read I apologize, stranger.

FWIW, The AGA webinar Tom Ridge is addressing on March 1st is FREE and you can register on the AGA website. Maybe someone can ask him directly about the need for "cybergaming law enforcement/prohibition, even without regulation" , since Marisa can't be bothered.

You really think she would attempt a gimmick account?

I'm aware it probably seems that way. New account pops up and posts are mostly FPUSA related. I have browsed this forum (specifically the strategy threads) for years from the outside. TBH having cats as friends and nitpicking legislative posts for hours everyday doesn't really get me excited (If I am wrong on this read I apologize).

and I think it would be a great question.

I think they are exactly what they say they are. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

Would somebody wake me up when FairPlayUSA finally decides to really do something and come out in support of a bill?

They ARE really doing something. They are a paid front whose task is to build "public" support arguing that ONLY federal action can resolve the grave law enforcement dangers posed by federal inaction or even worse, State action, which would be ineffective to police all the evils of online poker (and would likely lessen the market share their funders hope to secure).

They are NOT paid to endorse legislation, they are paid to work the "federal" issue. Other folks, who are drawing money from the same trough, are paid to lobby directly for X or Y bill.

At someone's suggestion, I googled Marisa McNee keith olbermann, so, no, I would not be surprised if Marisa used a gimmick account in the issue campaign here.

I meant it when I said I apologize if that were not the case with your account. So .... sorry, bad read.

Others have done it.

Okay, how about something meaningful?

Well, I had used an apropos PR term quoted from Wikipedia to describe FPUSA's function/role in understandable terms:

"Fluffing can mean:

A practice in public relations of spinning a topic to present it in the most positive light",

but the term as a noun was edited out because it has deemed to have an impermissble double meaning.

I was talking about FairPlay doing something meaningful, not you doing something meaningful.

hey marisa,

I think you have an opportunity here (like right now and this week, it's here) to earn some support in the poker community; and it's playing to your strengths as a coalition of law enforcement types and poker players.

now i'm not a professional wordsmith or idea... maker; i just have a crude marble block of a concept here, but i think we've got something with this mississippi intrastate bill. you see, it would benefit the poker playing community to have sites filled with honest players who adhere to a set of fair rules. and i'm sure law enforcement folks aren't keen on fraudsters breaking fairness rules in order to directly take advantage of honest players, whether it's for $50 or thousands.

our friends and supporters in law enforcement could greatly help to ensure the fairness, safety, and strong reputation of regulated online poker games in the united states. an article or press release or however such messages are made, calling for mississippi and iowa to include strong criminal penalties for people who use this newly regulated environment to take advantage of and defraud honest poker players would be fantastic. pressure on those legislatures to set a strong precedent for safety in online poker now would be best for everyone's interests except the cheaters.

maybe go with an angle like 'right now there are professional cheaters who steal from and take advantage of honest poker players who are currently left by the gvt to play on these unsafe unregulated offshore sites. these people defraud honest poker players with impunity because the offshore sites have no legal recourse to go after the thieves.'

current 'unregulated' offshore sites can only ban the player, the ip, and seize funds. this isn't enough to deter professional scammers; they play on other people's accounts and limit their exposure because getting pinched when security catches up is an acceptable calculated risk. the current system of having no criminal repercussions for stealing from honest poker players over the internet is poor for deterring cheating and poor for the game's reputation.

with stiff criminal penalties against cheaters, a shared interstate blacklist, and site security procedures we're all familiar with,, the risk-reward for any player knowledgeable enough to be a successful "pro" cheater would clearly shift to MAXIMUM RISKY (dibs on screenname)

i think we'd all be better served if the first regulated internet poker playerpools in the united states were markedly safer because of the increased accountability the sites and regulators have to honest players (something even the best offshore sites could not possibly have provided). it benefits players obviously, it benefits law enforcement folks and those concerned with safety because a proper criminal deterrent ensures significantly less online fraud will take place, and it would even benefit mega casinos looking for federal regulation by making regulated online poker both be and appear to be a much safer option than the status quo.

anyway thanks for listening, and i hope you're not taking these guys too seriously

well said, screaminasian!

Hi Marisa:

I just noticed that calvinayre.com has a fairly negative article about some aspects of FPUSA. Do you have any comments?

http://calvinayre.com/2012/02/24/pok...t-freeh-ridge/

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi ScreaminAsian,

Thanks for the comments and thoughts. Very helpful.

-Marisa

Hi Mason,

Not particularly. And I'm not sure I would call it an article, maybe more of an "opinion piece" if one was in a generous mood?

I guess the only thing I'd mention is that FPUSA is a coalition of different stakeholders and the Board is meant to be representative of those stakeholders. As such, Freeh and Ridge aren't meant to provide "a well-rounded picture of the wide range of issues surrounding the legalization of online gambling."

The coalition itself is meant to do that through all the different stakeholders. It's also true that it's not a question of whether the players can trust Freeh or Ridge (they aren't mean to represent the players interests here), so it's seems rather pointless and irrelevant to write an "article" about whether the players can trust Freeh or Ridge.

The relevant question is whether the players can trust Raymer or Sexton to adequately voice the players' concerns within the coalition-- and I think they probably can.

All the best,

Marisa