New Organization supporting online poker legislation - Page 21 - Poker Legislation

**mpethybridge** · 07-27-2011, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

We completely understand your point of view.

Also, it's not my point of view. It's the English ****ing language's point of view. You can't have a point of view about the definition of a damn word--it is what it is, no matter what your hourly rate for claiming otherwise is.

Land Of The Free? · 07-27-2011, 12:59 AM

Why are these questions being completely ignored?

Please address these questions, they are conditional to my support and that of most members on this forum and I will keep quoting these posts systematically until they have been addressed.

Thank you

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

The ten Principles of FairPlayUSA, and my questions:

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

Booyah.

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

[QUOTE=mpethybridge;27821158]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troveur

This is an excellent point that I think needs to be addressed.

Until I saw the FPUSA's contradictory statements quoted above, I was pretty excited to have a new organization supporting online poker. But within minutes of joining 2+2, FPUSA made these two inconsistent statements. This is hugely insulting to the 2+2 community.

FPUSA, please provide evidence that you are actually a grassroots organization. Specifically:

In what state is FPUSA incorporated?
Who signed the articles of incorporation?
Do the incorporators have any relationship, including an attorney client relationship, with Caesar's or MGM?
If so, which incorporator(s) and what is that relationship?
Has any incorporator of FPUSA previously been employed by Caesar's or MGM? If so, in what capacity, and when did that relationship end?
Please identify all of the members of the Board of Advisors, and their affiliation, if any, with Caesar's or MGM.
Please name each paid employee of FPUSA with management responsibilities, and for each such employee, state whether that person is or has been an employee, officer or agent of either Caesar's or MGM.
Describe the process by which the 10 principles on your website were formulated, and identify each employee, officer or agent of MGM or Caesar's who was involved in deriving those principles and the extent of his or her involvement.

In my opinion, it is vitally important that FPUSA's answers to these concerns clearly demonstrate that the organization is independent of Caesar's and MGM. Otherwise, FPUSA cannot be considered a grassroots organization, and will be shown to have been nothing more than an astroturf operation.

In view of Caesar's lousy reputation among players for poor customer service and unreasonably high rakes, and its support for online poker legislation that limits competition and player choice, players should not support any organization that is taking its marching orders from Caesar's.

Nathan Zamora · 07-27-2011, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

Also, it's not my point of view. It's the English ****ing language's point of view. You can't have a point of view about the definition of a damn word--it is what it is, no matter what your hourly rate for claiming otherwise is.

You tell em, my fundamentally logical friend!

DrewOnTilt · 07-27-2011, 01:44 AM

FairPlay/Erin/Lindsay (note that I really hate this account sharing business, but whatever) - you need to understand that there are plenty of people here who want to support you, but we are a battle hardened bunch.

There have been many, many people pop up in this forum over the years and claim to have the answer to everything. All of them have gone busto or been proven to be biased or promoting some other agenda. This is what you are dealing with. If you want support of this community then you need to be VERY straightforward as to your goals, supporters, and agenda.

Does everybody remember the National Right to Online Gaming dude? The guy showed up in this forum just before UIGEA was passed and claimed to have boots on the ground in DC and inside info on the UIGEA but ended up just being some scumbag affiliate who was seizing the opportunity to draw attention to his little web site.

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...fpart=all&vc=1

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...fpart=all&vc=1

http://www.nrg.org/ used to have a bunch of badly written pro-gaming "articles" and is now defunct. Plus he had some bombastically-titled web site like www.saveonlinegaming.com (or some other ridiculous URL) that ended up being just a poorly disguised linkfarm.

apology7 · 07-27-2011, 01:55 AM

lol guys...

I find the comments to the FairPlay shill downright hilarious (and truthful) but we all know beggars can't be choosers.

Stop acting so pious and understand that the mega-casinos are going to be the ones to get this done. They don't care about the players. They care about our rake. Whatever. If you want to play ipoker in the states then these guys are your best bet. Looking on the bright side, we don't even have to crawl in bed with them, it's not as if our voice really matters.

Nathan Zamora · 07-27-2011, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apology7

lol guys...

I find the comments to the FairPlay shill downright hilarious (and truthful) but we all know beggars can't be choosers.

Stop acting so pious and understand that the mega-casinos are going to be the ones to get this done. They don't care about the players. They care about our rake. Whatever. If you want to play ipoker in the states then these guys are your best bet. Looking on the bright side, we don't even have to crawl in bed with them, it's not as if our voice really matters.

Fan those flames! Give up your right to revolt! America isn't a country anymore, its a business!

DrewOnTilt · 07-27-2011, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apology7

lol guys...

I find the comments to the FairPlay shill downright hilarious (and truthful) but we all know beggars can't be choosers.

Stop acting so pious and understand that the mega-casinos are going to be the ones to get this done. They don't care about the players. They care about our rake. Whatever. If you want to play ipoker in the states then these guys are your best bet. Looking on the bright side, we don't even have to crawl in bed with them, it's not as if our voice really matters.

So you are saying that we should just give up and let things happen as they may? Um, no thanks. If the players collectively voice our concerns then there is a small but decent chance that someone of influence will listen. If the players collectively do nothing then there is a 100% chance that no one will listen.

Thew92 · 07-27-2011, 02:11 AM

http://youtu.be/V3GLiCguBT8

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

dadonk · 07-27-2011, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

Initial resources for the launch of FairPlayUSA have been provided by Caesars and MGM.

10-1 these are the first 2 online poker sites after some kind of legislation passes.

anyway, good to see more action and support for online poker.

Yuth · 07-27-2011, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

Also, it's not my point of view. It's the English ****ing language's point of view. You can't have a point of view about the definition of a damn word--it is what it is, no matter what your hourly rate for claiming otherwise is.

Erin knows all about grassroots campaigns. She went to RootsCamp for Christ sake!

apology7 · 07-27-2011, 02:29 AM

I just think there are more constructive things to do than nit-pick over the usage of 'grass roots' and attack this organization twenty minutes into the FIRST thread.

It's also quite obvious FairPlay is not concerned with the rights of players, just look at their website. They are pushing the issue from a much different and more precise angle than the PPA is. You guys act as if a few angry 2p2ers in the legislation forum are going to change the minds of billion dollar casino corporations. The agenda has already been set, let the cards fall how they may...

RonMexico · 07-27-2011, 03:01 AM

LOL @ grassroots. Sounds exactly like CALA.

rwperu34 · 07-27-2011, 03:25 AM

I think you guys confuse having a say with getting everything you want.

rwperu34 · 07-27-2011, 03:34 AM

This;

Quote:

They would be better off saying WE (meaning the casinos) also have the support of the 1+ million members of the PPA.

As you mention regulation our (players and casinos) interests will quickly break apart over games, rake and what not.

obg

EDIT: Basically you cannot let the company run the union (consider players akin to the union here).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...94&postcount=8

Lovesantiques · 07-27-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

My attitude is also shaded by who they are:
http://middlecoastllc.com/about

This "new non-profit grassroots organization" is being run by a company of for-hire political media consultants. And so far it has no Board of Directors representative of the interests of their "grassroots" participants.

If the real answers to our questions are good for players, then fine, I'm glad to have them on our side. But I would have expected career publicists to be ready for key questions before going public.

Great find! Thank you.

It is interesting that, as mpethybridge points out, this "grass roots" organization appears to actually be 2 big corporations fronting professional consultants.

But, they are being honest as to who their backers are. I give them credit for that.

FairPlayUSA - I think that if you stopped using the term "grassroots", which clearly doesn't apply here as most/all of us use the term, it would help your cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseycjc

No offense but you sound very desperate and a lot of major companies are relying on this very attitude.

We don't even know (yet) if their priority is to strengthen UIGEA and then maybe poker or visa versa.

The casinos would like nothing more than to see the UIGEA laws made stronger, then maybe see about poker.

That's unacceptable for me. There seems to be a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Yes, a lot of questions need to be answered. But to say that Caesars and MGM want to see UIGEA laws made stronger, then "maybe see about poker" - this doesn't make sense to me.

Seems to me that the 2 have to go hand in hand. Fully legalize on-line poker, along with cracking down on the - now clearly defined - illegal sites. Too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

What I mean is they (congresspeople) don't need us. They could careless whether online poker gets regulated or not, and most probably don't care enough to bother strengthening the laws against online poker. Our issue simply doesn't matter and isn't on the radar.

But it could be to get a bill we might have to do things like strengthening the gaming laws first. I don't know. But we need to do whatever it takes, as long as we can live with the end result.

We are so far from actually getting a bill passed this Congress there should be no talk of it. But people still go on like a bill is a god givin right and its going to pass this year or next year or w/e. The way we're going will still be talking about "this could be the year" we pass a poker 20 years from now. I don't have time to wait that long so we need to do what it takes to allow for the best chance and if we have to give up some things or even a lot of things so be it.

Sure, poker is on the radar of congress. A few billion a year in taxes, in this economy, isn't off the radar. Not that they care about us as players or as people, really. I'm sure that they don't. I'm not under any false illusions here.

But the PPA is over 1 million strong - and the congresscritters want our votes. They also want to raise the revenue that legalizing on-line poker would generate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22riverrat22

simple recipe for the essentials of the poker bill i would enact if i were making the decision

1) repeal/clarify the UIGEA (licensed poker isnt gambling and/or isnt prohibited under the bill)

2) to obtain a license in the US market a poker site must follow safety procedures:

a.) segregated accounts (like PS)
b.) secure software (unlike UB)
c.) problem gambling features like self exclusion
etc..

3) sites must pay taxes to the US federal and or state governments in the form of "rakeback" at a rate of approx 20-40% of rake paid by US players (basically just apply the concept of weighted contributed rakeback with the beneficiaries of that rakeback being state governments and not players)

4) wait..

thats it

1- poker is legal
2- players are safe
3- the government gets tax revenue

thats all that i want from regulation (aside from international player pools/soft eurofish to pwn, which isnt even addressed because its not a conflict)

I would also add:

Players from all over the world can play on the sites.

Lots of companies being able to establish online poker sites, so that competition flourishes. No monopoly or duopoly or some such. Genuine competition, with entry easy enough so that any legal entity wishing to join in can do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

The DOJ already cut the heads off the main competition. The new competition is a joke and a strong majority of players have given up playing online, especially recreational players.

You said we don't know, but then you went on and said "The casinos would like nothing more than to see the UIGEA laws made stronger, then maybe see about poker." The quoted sentence does not agree with your assessment that we don't know.

The sooner online poker is legalized, the sooner they make revenue from online poker. IF the casinos are truly feeding on desperation of poker players (as somebody suggested earlier), they need to attack that desperation NOW and get poker legal NOW. Poker is a recreational hobby. If its presence declines in tv, magazine, etc. interest in poker will decline. The longer people are without legal poker, the more interest will decline.

Online poker is a cash cow for casinos. Online poker will not greatly affect their casino operations and is fairly cheap to operate. In fact, I would guess the casinos will comp online poker players by giving them incentives to fly to Vegas/AC/etc where they can then spend money at the casino. Only thing that could come from online poker for the casinos is extra revenue which they dearly crave. Very few (any?) negatives for casinos to run online poker sites. The casinos were always against it b/c they thought it was stealing revenues from their casinos. The day they woke up and realize the two operations are not intertwined was the day they wanted to regulate online poker.

Yup! I agree. Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

Can you explain what you think we lied about? There's clear disagreement over the use of the word "grassroots." But that's really not the same thing as lying. We've been real clear about who we are and where the funding is coming from.

I see the term "grassroots" as being used in a very disingenuous fashion here. As I said earlier in this post, you would be better off not using it.

You've been clear as to where the funding is coming from. Kudos for that.

You didn't say that you, Lindsay, and Marissa are professional consultants - Middlecoast LLC, to be specific.

There is nothing "grassroots" about what you are doing. Or who you are. Please stop using it - you'll get more respect that way.

Also, just what sort of legislation are you looking to see enacted? Specifically, I mean.

Please start with any of the bills that have been floated in congress over the past few years. Does/could FairPlayUSA support any of them?

If yes - then which one(s).

If no - then why not? What, specifically, do you want to see in a bill?

I'm not asking for exact legislative language, but a bullet point list.

Does FairPlayUSA believe that there should be free and open competition among on-line poker sites? This, to me, is an extremely important question.

If all you are looking for is a Caesars/MGM duopoly of control - I don't see you getting much if any support here.

If you are looking for a legal framework that allows for a broad number of companies - Caesars and MGM obviously among them - to establish legal on-line poker sites then I think that you will get strong support here.

Thank you for posting here.

Lee