When democracy was created, voting was done in a forum, in which the community was small enough that everyone's voice could be heard. That is to say, the vote and negotiation, are not solid without
proper facilitation from a forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Haven
Having "send nobody" as an option would bring out all the trolls, riggies, anti-poker and anti-PS users and be a runaway "winner".
You are either American or heavily influenced by American policy and consciousness. It's interesting sometimes how certain institutions seem to be simply an extension of the popular governing system and/or cultural beliefs at a given time. Much like how the US gov labels anyone they wish to trample on their rights a "terrorist", you now deem the posters in this thread suggesting we send no one "trolls". I don't allow you to do that without expression my greatest dissent. Labels sir.
Quote:
However, it would be a totally unrealistic vote and not at all representative of those who are interested in PS, and online poker in general, and who want to try in any way possible to improve the lot of players at PS, specifically, with the almost inevitable knock-on effect of improvement at many other poker sites.
Again by dehumanizing the players in the community that want to address the real issues you have completely taken away the freedom of the community which is of course your right, since this is a community privately funded by not the players.
Quote:
Unless PS tells me to include the "send nobody" option, (but they usually give me a relatively free hand in organising matters), I will not be doing so. The abstention option gives a far more realistic read of what genuinely interested players are thinking, imo, as the trolls, etc, generally don't bother to vote, knowing their disruption of the process is minimal.
This is clear, and should be clear to all, that you are puppeting yourself to poker stars. Treason. You have rigged the "democratic" vote in favor of NOT the players. Many REASONABLE posters have expressed their desire to send no one, it seems to me the choice FAR outweighs the other choices. You will give us option A or B, but we want C?
Make no mistake, the problem is not stars, nor the negotiator, nor the table. Until 2 + 2 stops unnecessarily controlling the players wants and needs and stops censoring the conversations the players want to have, we will never have the freedom needed to not only collectively choose, but to have the "choice".
If it were a system of integrity, I would appreciate sectg there as well (among certain others), however given the current setup I am not interested in using players rake paid to give a free vacation (although I would be happy a fellow community member got a free vacation) just so they can write a trip report to the players that shows work got done yet nothing got accomplished.
As for rake we must keep in mind the nature of a corporation is to maximize short term profits (much like governments) and so any decrease in rake % is likely to be made up by one of many factors that simply rearrange the player pool. That is to say "rake" as a % is not key factor the players should be concerned about but rather how much money is raked from the game vs how much money goes into the game. The formula behind it is FAR more complex and important than x%. If you lower rake by a % the corporation will just restructure the economy of the game to make up for it.
The same goes for changing rackback programs, these are elements of the "thing" we want to change, they are a subset, and changing it is like pacifying a hungary baby with a "suckie" but no milk.
In other words the UFC is rigged, not because Dana White gives the fighters "scripts", but because the UFC owns the rules, the regulations, the match ups, the timing, the whole system down to the micro elements. The trick is these things do not appear rigged. In poker the rng can be assumed provably fair, but if the effective rake is to the point the game is bled dry, what does a provably fair rng prove?
Sites are like banks and should be thought of as such with an exchange rate for your deposits and all. Rakeback is like a government taxation/social welfare policy. In this light we must understand the inherent weaknesses and dangers this socialist approach has brought and continues to bring to the community. And then we should know that there are "economic" approaches to such subjects that seek to dissolve such destructive system. Send someone who has read "the road to serfdom" and is familiar with Austrian economics.
As for changes:
1) deposits be held on an anonymous/transparent ledger, so we no longer must "trust" that sites hold our money in a safe place. (this could probably appease our governments some as well)
2) full access to finishing distributions/winrates for all games so they can analyze the profitability of them. THEN this can be used to reduce EFFECTIVE rake, not the fake variable "rake %"
3) Players should demand a standardized rake system which fluctuations with measurements of the overall profitability of the game based on moving averages, variance, and statistics of overall deposits vs withdrawals.
But to be clear, I vote we put a "send no one" button on the ballot, of course I am just a troll that comes from the wood work...yet I have great sincerity and passion for the game and the community of it-I just don't serve stars. There is GREAT dissatisfaction amongst the community in ever section of this forum, with people fed up with stars inability to properly interact with the players. It is completely within our legal and moral rights to request these things, and we should not be made to feel like an outcast just because we see this.
Last edited by jazzmasterpro; 09-09-2014 at 12:13 PM.