Hmm, you have my jimmies rustled. I have no idea why you would choose this tone with me tbh. I know a little about running Internet forums and agree that posters have to go if they are considered too disruptive or confrontational.

I do however believe that on a site as big and diverse as this one which contains niche forums and has sections that don't crossover with others - blanket site bans are not the best way forward. Thremp had his place on the SB forum. Sure, those smacked down by him were irked - but SB isn't (or shouldn't be) a chit chat forum. There was money to be made, and a dude like Thremp had value just like a talented poker player has value in theory forums - even if they are blunt and impolite.

Ban him from SE or OOT? Sure, can't really argue with that.

Wasn't there pages of conversation on his (and TuT's consequent ban) expulsion ITT? Now, you may be right - I couldn't name a defender off the top of my head. Defending him would also have been absurd. But we wouldn't have generated as many posts on the topic without someone making the case...

greaaaaarrr tho

.

looool

If a federal bill gets passed, I think they can correctly say they accomplished their mission.


Not sure why this bill isn't favorable to players. I mean, what else do you honestly want? It's going to be regulated and legal, with a low tax on the casinos, and lots of competition. It's a massive positive for players. Sure, it's not a free for all like the glory days, but that is no longer an option in any scenario whatsoever so whining about that is silly.

Currently in the US, you can't play online poker safely and legally. If this law gets passed you will be able to. It's a win. A full roll back to pre UIGEA was never really in play. Enough states will opt in to give you enough fish to make it worthwhile.

All the big and relevant states will opt in. If you live in Utah or Montana or whatever, then gtfo and go move to a real state.

Listening to my Ipod today on shuffle, and a song came on that had one of the GOAT MTV Videos. Has there ever been an MTV video draft on here?

Probably not. Could be interesting. Now is I guess as good a time as any since MTV's move into original programming + the ease with which artists can get exposure on the internet means that the high-quality big-budget music video is probably dead.

that'd be like saying it's my mission in life to have the sun go up every morning and taking credit when it does

bolded is far from a given and we won't know on the former til we see the full bill. and i'd wager to say more states will be opt-out than opt-in be it for moralist gov't reasons, for B&M reasons or because they'll simply never get around to voting on whether or not to opt-in for a while (my understanding based on the summary is that the vote is completely voluntary)

The Texas state legislature meets like once a year. Despite the fact that the most popular form of poker is named Texas Hold 'Em, and Texas loves to brag about its history of outlaw cowboys and what a bunch of badasses they are, the state will probably continue to opt out due to the government constantly being packed with moralizing idiots with their heads up their asses.

God does not approve of gambling. Unless it is the lottery.

Whining about opt-out vs. opt-in is silly since it's a prerequisite for getting anything passed at all. It's either opt-in or nothing.

Tax rate has consistently been reported as low (<20%). And lots of competition is a lead pipe cinch in a federal bill.

Or horse racing.

having opt-out as a default is definitely not a small or silly thing to whine about

Agree. Where are stupid people? The South. The exact region where moralizing douchebag tools will never let it happen.

I mean, you're whining about something that is 100% necessary to get anything passed. What's the point.

Yeah, those bastards that want their state to undergo a process to see if their constituents want legal online gambling rather than having the feds make a default "yes" choice for them. Terrible!

lol i'm not whining that opt-out exists. it's obvious that was going to be necessary. but humor me, true or false: the player base will be smaller with opt-out as a default and must vote to opt-in as opposed to opt-in as a default and must vote to opt-out

Yes, but since we agree that alternative wasn't going to happen, why bitch about it?

iirc both barton's bill and reid's 2010 bill were opt-in by default

And how far did they get?