Players unanimously reject the notion of playing in an unsecured, online poker environment of the past, where player protections were as good as the party that was vouching for them.
I'm gonna come back there, but first, you said some things last week that were hurtful and unbecoming of someone tasked with working toward the betterment of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
…you continue to berate me in these posts because what I am trying to do, get a functioning legal framework for poker in the US, both live and online, is not what you want me to do…
this is a mischaracterization and not true
Quote:
There are some folks, like the haters posting in this thread, who will never support the PPA ...
...I think first we ought to have LEGAL "poker consumers" before we start worrying whether legislators will listen to them...there are no need of "player's rights" if the players have no ability to play. Demanding a lower rake from a non-existent entity is pretty silly is it not?
Is that why you didn't challenge FTP for an insufficient response rate to customer service complaints, while eagerly accepting funding from them before Black Friday?
Quote:
...You need to recognize that smart, rational, and honest people can disagree with you without becoming stupid, irrational or dishonest. You seem completely incapable of accepting that adults can rationally agree to disagree. Since it is clear to you that you cannot convince me of the obvious and overwhelming rightness of your view, I must be a bad person in one way or another. Because I choose to act in a way not in agreement with you, it is impossible for you to simply accept (and/or support) the acts I do take…
Skallagrim
An expressed viewpoint, of a chairman of the board, at the Poker Players Alliance.
This kind of language is spiteful and condescending, and it contradicts the kind of public relations approach that supporters expect of one of a PPA leader. Considering you can say something like that, and still call me a
“hater”, that seems hypocritical.
There was a reason I pulled money out of my pocket at one time, for the PPA. That you find my persistence for a re-organized PPA so objectionable, as to push back with name calling and the like as you have, it’s disappointing.
Two bold promises are made in the Poker Players Alliance mission statement:
• The PPA’s mission is to establish
favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
• The PPA is
committed to defending the rights of poker players.
In the first of two promises made above, the word,
favorable, jumps out. How can the Poker Players Alliance strive for, “
favorable” laws, without producing a list of basic, rights and protections for legislative consideration that meet with player approval?
The second promise, and extent of the PPA's "commitment", is the subject of continuing debate.
But without dissecting history, or further fingering sides with deserved or undeserved blame, maybe we can forge a new start, and make a truer Poker Players Alliance, that has a purposeful and functioning, player advisory board. And let the whole of the player and his poker experience, become more fundamental in the PPA mission.
A Re-organized, Poker Players Alliance
Online poker consumers unanimously want greater protections when online poker comes back (not
after it comes back). And The Poker Players Alliance is the vehicle to get it done.
This means, first, that the Poker Players Alliance re-organize, and work at developing and integrating a player driven, advisory board of its own, into the PPA organizational structure. Such a branch would be advisory in nature, but with measurable confluence on administrative efforts. The objective being, that players themselves have an initial say, about their own, online, poker playing rights and protections.
The Objective: The drafting of a
“Poker Players Bill of Rights”, that could be signed by participating state Governors, and attached to any proposed, state or federal, online, poker legislation. The document itself to act as a self imposed, ‘safeguard threshold’, and will also help to see that the cart is not put before the (proverbial) horse.
But before this happens, the PPA has to be on board. If not, then online poker consumers will announce a divide by sending mixed messages to congressional leaders – one, same message from the Poker Players Alliance, and the second, from the “
Players”, that the Poker
Players Alliance, awkwardly, misrepresents.
In the “players” message will be a call for lawmakers to acknowledge that, market experienced, online poker consumers, highly recommend ‘said’ set of player rights & protections be adopted into law with the passing of ANY poker legislation. Such recommendations may be consistent with existing laws, and in State’s where online poker is legal. But recommended “rights & protections” should be advanced with any new, poker legislation being considered.
...and that's the start.
But as long as we are separate, lawmakers will be approached by an industry that’s conflicted, but lobbying for access to the bank accounts of every household in America. Is that helping, or hurting the cause of legalizing online poker in America?
We need to be able to get along, and you guys at the PPA
MUST find a way to better interact with consumers that don't "hate" the PPA, but may be equally as passionate about the cause.
The 'no inclusion' policy concerning player/member proposals, and items for consideration on the PPA agenda is the crux. A re-org seems to be what's most desired by a poker consumer public that is fighting for more of a player voice.