Yeah, I really don't appreciate the "shameful"/"bigot" approach that the PPA wound up taking. I'm even more surprised the PPA represenatives in this thread haven't issued even a minor mea culpa.

I disagree with MicroBob a bit in that I think it was fine for the PPA to respond. But yeah, the multiple threads and the inflammatory language in facebook and forum posts and the "call to action" of its members, who just want to do what they think will help the cause, is what I object to.

And I still don't understand how Rose was portraying himself as speaking on behalf of anyone other than himself.

Jonny, wow. Really? That's awful.

What the heck is engineer talking about with all this nonsense of, "we just needed to make sure people knew he wasn't speaking for us?" That doesn't seem even remotely consistent with the over-the-top pile-on they have been pushing....on one of the guys who is on their side for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, sounds even more unprofessional and inappropriate than I initially thought. Why are they not even acknowledging actions that they themselves were making?

Just admit it was an emotional and overzealous series of mistakes to go after one of their own advocates that hard, apologize, and move on.

The PPA called Rose's attack on Barton "shameful".

Facebook: "I. Nelson Rose's attack on online poker supporter Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) was shameful."

Pre-filled tweet: "@PokerPlayerNws: Nelson Rose's attack on online #poker supporter Rep. Barton was shameful & harms poker efforts: http://t.co/ISzKzdXz"

I'm a little surprised at some of the responses in this thread. It's perfectly acceptable for Rose to state his opinion of Barton, yet it's unacceptable for Mason/PPA/Others to state their opinion of Rose's views?

That's just hypocritical.

Yeah, I still don't get that either. I admittedly haven't read much of it though. But I assume of he represented himself as PPA then they would have showed where this happened.

Without them addressing this aspect, which has been asked multiple times, I can only assume that the claim that they ONLY did this to male sure nobody thought Rose was speaking for them was nonsense too.

Basically, the clear drive here is this: they disagreed with Rose's thoughts, they found his actions shameful, they wanted to shame him by telling their base to go after him on Facebook, etc.

Doesn't at all sound like, "we need to make sure people understand his words are not speaking for us" especially if he never attempted to give that impression in the first place. If he did then I guess that argument is slightly inaccurate. Still waiting for clarification from the PPA there. But the overreaction either way was pretty bizarrely over the top from what it sounds like.

Pretty disappointing. Was hoping PPA had better judgment than this.

Sba, I expect better professionalism and judgment out of the PPA and believe they should not be spending their efforts in a public finger pointing match to call out one of their own advocates when he is speaking his own mind and political views. Make their own case without the nasty in-battles purposefully taken to the public.

The case for the legalization of online poker is strong enough on its own without them finding the need to criticize one of their own members. And when there is a public article that you wish has not been public the better strategy does not involve increasing the publicity and attention it would receive by several times. I would never have known of this article if not for the PPA's decision to publicly blast it. A lot of other people would have ignored it too. PPA is now basically helping to promote Rose's article about what Barton's nonpoker views.

You want to keep nonpoker politics out of the discussion? Stop publicizing the articles that discuss nonpoker politics.

Mason's statement was via private communication. That seems to be an appropriate way to start things to me.

It wasn't just one column. It was five instances of attacks on Barton that focused on (and attacked) conservatism. IMO it seems like a vendetta against the man for the "crime" of daring to support us. As these were all via poker media or at gaming conferences, at some point PPA had to disassociate itself from these attacks and from anything that helped our opponents paint this as a partisan issue.

This has already been harmful on Capitol Hill. I realize a few here think we ought to impose a litmus test on our supporters, but we lost the House vote 317-93 just five years ago. We're underdogs and have to fight hard to have a fair shot here. We don't want to lose this fight just because Rose wishes to use this to attack politicians for their political beliefs.

Bob, please forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to be expressing a lot of strong opinions without having actually read all the material, including the PPA statement or listened to the interviews.

Saying someone cannot support us because they believe in the literal story of Genesis is a troubling statement that smacks intolerance of the religious beliefs of others. Publicly stating without equivocation that someone supports us just for the money (again, as opposed to "perhaps...," or "we ought to consider the possibility that...." After all, Rose has no independent knowledge of Barton's intentions, nor does he claim to.) without a shred of proof seems shameful to me.

We stand by our statement.

It's important that people and organizations giving Rose a platform understand what is going on.

That genie was out of the bottle before PPA said a word publicly.

Yes, doing that is fine. Do you at least agree that you have been attempting to do way more than that? I don't know why you keep bringing that up since it seems clear by the actions taken that there was way more to it than just doing that.

I very much wish you would have just done that instead of turning this into your own vendetta against Rose in the public while giving way greater publicity to his articles than there had been before.

Why the whole bit on facebook calling for people to give even MORE publicity to the articles? Seems odd. And it seems personal.

I think Bob is spot on.

The PPA have essentially drawn wide attention to something the vast vast majority of people had no clue about.

Shouldnt the PPA have remained neutral yet there seems to be a lot of aggressive politicallly biased rhetoric coming from the PPA.

Not sure how taking an aggressive stance instead of a passive (his political views are his own, we are neutral) stance, helps your cause in getting bipartisan support in the future?

The irony is the PPA hasn't been 1% as aggressive in its condemnation of FTP and the way its treated its players since BF.....

IMO we want publicity here to show our allies that we'll stand up for them and for our game. I don't think Rep. Barton is embarrassed by his beliefs, so I see no harm there.

I have nothing against Rose. I think he's made some poor judgments in how he chose to go about stating his issues with Barton, but I'm sure he's a fine person and I have enjoyed many of his articles in the past. I also found him to be articulate and well-mannered on QJs on Wednesday.

They know all about this on Capitol Hill.

We were, and continue to be, far more aggressive toward FTP.

Right. Points like this are not lost on me either. They are going after a guy who is generally on their side and it is not just unnecessary...it is actually hurtful to their own cause and makes them look a bit silly.



No, I don't care about a litmus test on the supporters. The fact that the initial house vote lost by such a lopsided margin is why I think the PPA should simply be supportive of the politicians they care to support. Be Barton-Positive. Great. Being Rose-Negative does not help achieve that. It gives more weight to Rose's views...not less.

Here, just push the agenda without blasting your supporter or giving undue weight to articles that hurt your cause or people on your side that you have disagreements with. This type of message would get the point across that you are not on Rose's side about this...all in a far more professional and classy manner while remaining positive (instead of pointing fingers or calling out Rose's remarks specifically).

The technique below essentially references the articles without unnecessarily calling out the writer my name or calling him shameful...much less starting some odd facebook campaign against him.


"The PPA would like to clarify that having Mr. Barton on our side on this issue is something we are completely thrilled about. Young or old, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, the PPA welcomes supporters from all corners. And Mr. Barton fully understands the importance of legalizing and regulating the online version of our favorite card game and is a great ally.

More importantly, our efforts need and require bi-partisan support in order to achieve our ultimate goal of full legalization and regulation in the Land of the Free of the card skill-game we all enjoy so much. To that end, we have no interest in attempting to change or adjust any legislators' views on any other topic. Our sole purpose is in regards to poker.

We are extremely happy that so many of our PPA supporters are able to put aside their differences on a vast variety of other political issues to share the viewpoint of the inappropriateness of the UIGEA. And we believe that the fact that there is so much bi-partisan support and from all walks of life is evidence that the vast vast majority of Americans are very much against the UIGEA and what it stands for; the infringement on our citizens' very basic desire to enjoy a simple card game in their own home.

More and more of our nation's lawmakers are seeing the light on this simple issue. In the United States, it is completely inappropriate to pass legislation such as the UIGEA or to infringe on the rights of Americans to play poker from their homes.

We still need more support though. Due to lack of understanding, the initial legislation passed by a lopsided margin and the fight continues. But with the continued and growing joint support from both sides of the aisle, we will indeed get there."

Well the left side of the aisle has seen where you stand now.

LOL, you seriously posted that with a straight face.

So what have you done in the last 3 months?

The two majority owners were prominant members of your board yet you can't get them to offer any meaningful statements or help the players in any way.

Its just so obvious the PPA is not about the Players at all.

The one time the players need you and you are more worried about I Nelson Rose and his personal politics.

Can you give us a rough estimate of how much money FTP gave to the PPA over the last 2 years?

Now you know that money is dirty (player funds), do you feel you should return that money to the players rather than feed the politicians and the Jack Abramoff's on the hill?

Tom Dwan has pledged to return the money he was payed by FTP.

Im guessing you won't answer but I guess its OK to attack the credibility and agenda of others without looking inwards.

Huh? PPA is nonpartisan.

We've made many statements demanding repayment and have met with the DoJ to seek player repayment and to encourage approval of the proposed GBT purchase as a way to get players repaid as well. I've included many statements demanding repayment in the weekly member updates.

FTP owes me around five figures as well. I'm as motivated and angry as anyone.

What do you mean "get them to offer...."? You want us to kidnap them or something? I cannot physically force them to make statements.

PPA is doing more than anyone on the FTP issue. Sorry that they are located overseas and that our recourse is rather limited, but that's reality. That's one reason we're all pushing for a system with consumer protections, where we have access to courts and other mechanisms.

PPA never took any money directly. Money that was donated came via the IGC and was received by PPA in good faith.

PPA spends money as it comes in on behalf of the players, so it's not like it's in some big savings account. Besides, FTP paid money directly to many networks, websites, affiliates, and plenty others. Should everyone who received FTP money and who provided a service based on that be subject to this demand?

PPA is not a "they". It's our shared fight. You already said you want to give up the fight on Capitol Hill and, for some reason, seem happy that Rose is attacking our supporters there. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect the rest of us to give up.

The PPA was about as close to FTP as anyone could be yet they wont listen to you........kind of suggests you are either ineffective or wasting your time and resources as a group.

Why do you trot out the same old line that "we wern't paid directly by FTP"

We are all adults here, the vast majority of your money comes from online poker companies which means there is a huge conflict of interest when it come to player disputes.

You can brush over the fact but..... it was obviously set up in a way to "launder" the money to the PPA but lets you claim you didnt recieve any direct payments.......

Do you know how silly and shady it sounds when you claim you didnt get paid directly?

Its like almost like........ FTP setting up multiple shell companies to try and protect their US citizen owners from the US government........while still getting paid indirectly.............

Wonder where the PPA got the idea from?

Are you telling me that no PPA board members EVER talked to Howard and Jesus about money donated by FTP (amounts needed or amounts donated through the shell entity)...

I keep debating to myself whether I should stop opening this thread because every time I do, I see something that frustrates me. The above is a classic example.

While that statement is technically true, it just misdirects from the truth that Full Tilt and PokerStars were your dominant donors (however they funneled the money in). Although hardly anyone has seen PPA's finances, this is a point that few would argue against.

And that's fine. It is what it is. But it does no good to pretend otherwise. Before the mainstream media cared about iPoker, they often just cited the PPA in news articles as a player advocacy group. Now, most of the legitimate publications at least make a qualifying statement that is funded by mostly offshore groups.

Even with these beginnings, the PPA can (and often still does) play a very positive role in the fight to get online poker explicitly legal and regulated. But making deceptive statements, pursuing odd battles that aren't worth your time and resources, and failing to apologize where you overstep in your efforts will dilute your effect.

How do you propose we force them to speak? You heard about Black Friday, right?

I doubt it. I know I never did.

I've posted many, many times on the fact that PS and FTP were large donors. I was simply seeking to answer the question accurately.

BTW, it looks like the odds of federal legislation passing soon just went way up: DoJ says Wire Act applies only to wagering on sporting events or contests

Not only that, but Rose was informed approximately two months before the article publication of our unhappiness with it. So he had plenty of time to address these issues.

Also, Rose is welcome to post here if he would like to do so, and I'll make sure he's treated with respect.

Mason

Yep. For one, we've been working with the DoJ, expressing our belief that the scope of the Wire Act ought not be interpreted as including poker. This included meetings and presentation of a white paper on the topic. These efforts paid off big time today with the DoJ announcement on the matter.

It's really time for all of us to pull together and ensure Congress hears from us. Let's all visit the daily action plan and be sure to be heard. If Congress decides to pass legislation to amend the Wire Act, they'll have to satisfy the poker community. If they choose not to, our path through the states is clear as well.

So, what's everyone waiting for!! Go to Today's Action Plan: In just 30 sec, send new prefilled pro-poker tweets to senators and make yourself heard!

Of course I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

Far more eloquent than I could ever be.

Even still the PPA ignores the shadiness of their funding while expecting people to donate time and money to an organization which lacks transparency and has huge ties to the two owners of a company that misappropriated the funds of its players.
Two owners of a company which is under indictment by the US government for bank fraud.

To me as a person on the outside looking in, both share the trait of arrogance in the face of evidence of shadiness.

Both have used shadiness to hide/deflect the true sources of their income.

Lets face facts. Is the PPA really a player advocate group or is it an organization funded by the online gambling companies to lobby politicians in the guise of a players advocate group.

Most reasonable people realize its the latter.

The big online gambling companies are not funding the PPA because they care about the players..... like any company they care about bottom line and ROI on their lobby money as does every company that pours money into lobbying.

That is the system you have in America, Right or wrong.

Surely a truely independant players advocacy group would never except payment from online gambling companies because of the obvious conflict of interest.

I think you and the PPA have shown poor judgement in the manner in which you have opted to communicate your support for anyone who publicly supports pro-poker legislation. Positivity > negativity, inclusiveness > attack. If Rose made a mistake launching a personal/political attack on a public figure who supports poker, then the PPA compounded it with an abysmal response strategy of launching a political/personal attack on another prominent poker supporter.

I'm disappointed with the way this situation has been mishandled. From Mason's initial salvo of "shameful" (that apparently the PPA has no problem with) right through to the counter-productive PPA action plan with pre-filled tweets all show exceedingly poor judgement in how to best support poker's interest.

Rich, do yourself and the PPA a favor and go back and re-read MicroBob's, LMU's, etc. posts, but with the intent of genuinely trying to absorb and understand the message and sentiment behind them, and not just with the intent to refute and debate every criticism. He and others haven't spent the time familiarizing himself with every detail of this issue as you have, but that doesn't mean they aren't effectively voicing what a lot of people are likely thinking about how this was handled. I for one am not going to re-visit this thread again because my disappointment with the PPA's inability to admit any missteps or absorb feedback from some of its most ardent constituents is frustrating me to distraction.

FWIW, I was on the fence whether to renew my PPA membership for 2012. Congratulations, I'm off the fence.

The problem with that is that players won't fund an advocacy organization to anywhere near the level needed to be effective.

What PPA did instead was bring on board members from the playing community -- Patrick "Skallagrim" Fleming and me -- to ensure players' interests were always at the forefront of actions. Now, I know it sounds easy to say PPA should be something run from someone's basement without any lobbying at all, but that wouldn't have succeeded at doing anything.