ha i just noticed the same thing

woah woah. wait i thought they were blameless in this whole ordeal. i am pretty sure you and the a few others staunchly defended them against my criticisms.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure who we are blaming for what, but I've been very outspoken about the fact that the influence of the big casino lobby will not result in a favorable outcome for players. In fact I took a lot of heat in this thread for defending you personally making the same assertion.

Feel free to make a third post in a row that falsely articulates my views though.

I like to read write-ups of dead players, try to remember to do it daily during SE-related games. Some of them are great. As for the game itself there is way too much going on to try and rail.

i don't think the PPA stood a chance and i don't begrudge them for what they've done to this point. i agree, they probably did the best with what they had

but it's the manner in which they carry themselves that bothers me to an incredible extent. it wasn't until recently that PPA board members stopped using "you think this is easy? do it yourself then!" as a retort to detractors.

if this is a group that is going to use fighting the small battles as its mission statement, that's fine, but if you're going to say the line i quoted as the very first line in your "about us" page, if you're going to be the only lobbyist voice poker players have in washington, then not only not have any say in the biggest bill to date, but not even know what the contents of it are, that only shows how hopelessly overmatched poker players are and will be in trying to get anything favorable passed

if a bill is passed that is favorable to players it will be an unintended effect of the bill and not because we fought for it to be written that way

PPA is Clay Davis and we're being rainmade

oh sorry then. i didnt remember that you were on my side in that one.

Basically, it's passing a law now saying that what you did before deprives you of certain rights, even though it was ok at the time you did it. The usual case is trying to extingusih past legal claims with subsequent legislative action (the case I worked on involved a challenge to a statute purporting to retroactively change wage and hour laws so as to extinguish overtime claims - it's sort of a messy analysis between takings and equal protection. Despite poker sites not being a suspect class, the still get SOME protection under EP, but the test is more permissive to government action, etc.)

What the **** do you think this is? A poker forum? GFY's!

d-i-a-g-f

What they did before wasn't okay at the time they did it though.

according to who though? Changed DoJ interpretation of the wire act to preclude certain activities is very different from a federal court agreeing with said interpretation. It's pretty useless for me to speculate on likely outcomes without looking at the specifics, but if PS can successfully argue that they are being punished for the government for activities that weren't punishable at the time they were committed, then the law has equal protection and/or takings issues.

I don't know the ins and outs of any legal proceedings against PS well enough to even begin to speculate how such an argument would play out.

...

I'm going to backtrack on "you should support this bill if you want regulated national poker" (or whatever i said) and qualify it as "you should support this bill as it stands in the summary." WAs just rereading my phone posts and wanted to make that clear.

I'll try to reply to the other stuff in a bit.

You are such a nerd

Yeah, see, I think that's backwards in that making them prove a negative to vindicate a right is problematic in this light. It's something of a gray area since this isn't strictly a criminal proceeding (with the attendant high burden of proof), but depending on the judge, they might take a very dim view of a law which in fact punishes someone for something they would not have been punished for at the time of doing.

Maybe I'm confused, thought they were clearly violating UIGEA? Is there a legit argument that they weren't?

yep

"Clearly" isn't really a thing in legal terms though. Either they were demonstrated in some sort of court or court like forum to have done so, or they weren't. And I don't think flipping the burden so that they have to prove they didn't really flies. But again this is all theoretical without any knowledge about the facts of any prosecutions or similar actions.

didnt they plead guilty?

I assume they plead no contest with no admission of guilt

I don't think there is. Even if they arguably weren't violating the Wire Act, they were certainly violating the law in numerous states and thus violating the UIGEA.

Thank God tuq doesn't play WW, it would be impossible for me not to tunnel him no matter what the circumstance. V/V, W/W, Lover Masons, etc.

I am slowly becoming obsessed with that game.

where the **** did the werewolf thread go?