I would like to suggest that this forum should allow discussion of putatively legal card rooms, even if the "loophole" that allows them to operate is likely quite shaky. I don't know where the idea that rooms must be "confidently legal" comes from. I think it is a leftover from Brick and Mortar, as it certainly doesn't appear in the LCP forum guidelines, which say simply
Quote:
LCP is a place to discuss all aspects of poker (except hand playing strategy which is discussed in the strategy forums) as it is played in casino poker rooms or other live venues such as dog track poker rooms or stand alone card rooms.
I understand that 2+2 doesn't want to be in the business of being seen as promoting illegal underground rooms. I think that those operating openly and at least claiming to have a legal standing should be fair ground for discussion. 2+2 should not be attempting to determine whether those claims have sufficient merit. For example, Detroit "charity" rooms and Portland "social gaming" rooms both face legal attack, yet are considered fair game for discussion. On the other hand, the new Texas "membership-fee social gaming" rooms have not (AFAIK) faced any legal test yet, abut we've been told we can't discuss them ITF. I think making the distinction that one set of "grey area" rooms is "legal enough" and another is not is not in 2+2's interest. Further, I think that this forum is the right place to discuss them, because people who find these games advertising openly and wanting to know the deal on them would come to this forum. Unless/until they are shut down, we'd be discussing conditions, with maybe a bit of status sidelines. If they are shut-down, then it makes since to discuss in Poker Legislation and/or NVG, but until then, this seems the logical place.
Cliffs: I think rooms operating openly and claiming legal status should be fine to discuss ITF. It fits the Posting Guidelines and it's not our job to evaluate legal claims.