I just want to note again that either the PPA doesn't need 2p2, in which case all this arguing and discussion is pointless, or they do need 2p2, in which case *even if the criticisms and demands of Mason and posters like myself are totally unreasonable* you who disagree will seek to remove the source of those criticisms by working for board change and better transparency. Of course believing that the PPA does need 2p2 but refusing for reasons of pride/ego/whatever not to meet critics half-way is also an option. Just don't keep bitching at those of us who refuse to accept the PPA as it is, even while we note that the PPA has made visible improvements of late.

The majority of members only have an interest in certain forms of online poker, representative of the business models they derive profit from, and NOT all forms of online poker. And while you yourself have no interest in B&M poker (and I myself have little), the wider membership of the PPA surely desires the most playing options possible. *And* working for all those other forms of poker has the important synergistic effect of each helping the other. If you are content to be a stooge for certain vested business interests, and to dismiss the interests of those of us who have a wider range of goals, then that's your choice. But that choice does have consequences to the chances for success of your own interests.

And again I put it to you, just how damn bad is it to change out a couple board members and have better transparency if it makes all these arguments go away and unifies us?

If you don't accept the PPA as it is, thats fine. Many of us DON'T bitch at you for your viewpoint. If you have insight that I'm not aware of, great, lets hear it.

If I'm you, bluff, and I feel that strongly about changing the PPA, here's what I'd do.

1.) Lay out my points in a thread, and sticky it. Probably been done over time, or in various threads, but as the average Joe, I just looked and I don't see it. Maybe it needs to hit me in the face for me to notice, but I don't think that makes me much different than anyone else. So consider me you target audience. I need a thread, a sticky, and an occasional club to the head.

2.) Once you've laid out enough facts to convince me you're right, tell me what I can do with that information. Organize. One of TE's strengths is that not only does he give you ample information, but then he lays out what to do with that information. If you don't like the board members, convince me why I should agree with you, then tell me what to do. Write to the PPA? Threaten to withdraw my membership? Call somebody? Direct me to a petition? What?

3.) Follow up. Keep beating that drum, pounding that rock, whatever. Be relentless. Keep reminding me why this is important. Your target audience has ADD. We're online poker players and have the attention span of a nat. Its the hand you've been dealt, get used to it.

This is the issue I have with the way you and others like Mason have been handling the situation thus far. I don't understand why I should feel as strongly as you do, and don't know what I should do if I did feel that way.

Inform me, (and others) in a constructive, focused, well conceived manner and you might get exactly what you want.

I'm actually worryed about the next "poker prince" and their demands. What is next the pub leagues?


D$D

Losit,

FWIW I have been pounding these PPA issues to death for the past year. And these present discussions are just more of the same. The ball is in the court of those who disagree, but believe the PPA needs 2p2. If they want full backing for the PPA of all posters here including Mason, then THEY will take action to try to achieve that. Otherwise there is no point in arguing the issue and they should accept the limitations, small that they are, that Mason places on reps of the PPA.

And they should accept as well the lessened chances for success for the goals of the PPA. Changing out a couple board members with non-clones, and being financially/operationally transparent, is all that stands in the way. But so many posters here both don't care about those issues, and also bitch mightily when 2p2 and posters like myself don't accept that refusal to address those issues, and give the PPA 100% unqualified support.

You have to be a shareholder to get to see the books.

You also have to have the votes or the money to gain a seat on a board.

Legally the PPA meets all current regualtions governing their disclouser requirements.

You want more you have to pay for it.

Yes 2+2 have given a lot in terms of donations in kind in a sense.

But come on gentlemen work it out and lets get on with it.


D$D

But we made no demands. I sent TE a private message asking that he identify himself as a PPA board member in the same manner that PPABryan and John Pappas identify themselves. Our reason for doing this was for our posters benefit, especially those new to this site.

MM

Bluff, even in that post you're missing my point.

Organization.

In the last year, you've been pounding on this, but in random threads. I'm the average poster on here... what do you want me to do? When am I supposed to do it?

I don't necesarily disagree on any of your points. I think they're reasonable. Its the way you're going about it.

Where's my sticky? Where's my action plan? Where's my deadlines for the action plan? Why am I not as fired up about it as you are? Do I need some additional explanation?

How does the PPA feel about that list of 800K becoming a list of 770K? 750K? How about going up to 900K? Politicians like donations, and I'd bet the PPA does too. Got any influence there? Bet you do if you're 2+2 and have the membership that you do.

See my point? You can keep marching the same old arguement out, or you can take it up a notch.

One point that we can agree to disagree on is that the PPA needs 2+2, but not vice versa. 2 years ago I would have been in 100% agreement with you. Today however, I think they need each other. I think its fair to say that Mason is running a business here. If the PPA succeeds does it help or hurt Mason? If they fail the UIGEA stands or somehow additional legislation passes, do you think Mason's business gets hurt?

I know myself, and others that I know personally who still play, took time off after the UIGEA passed because it was a real downer. Not only did I take time off, but I didn't come here, and I didn't buy books. I don't think it was an uncommon reaction. My point is, that the more restrictive the legislation, which is what the PPA is working against, the more Mason's business gets hurt. I don't think this reasoning is a real stretch.

As a result, I think the PPA absolutely needs 2+2 and more importantly, they need to realize that. But we also shouldn't be so cavalier and arrogant to believe that it isn't also the other way around. 2+2 needs the PPA to succeed or come up with another organization to effectively replace them. Sitting on the sidelines and being neutral or counterproductive, in the long run, is bad for business for 2+2.

Here's what I would like to know Mason... will you reach out to the man again and attempt to smooth things over? I'm not saying to totally cave in, but work it out. We need all the TE's we can get, and even you have to admit, this whole thing is a trivial matter that has gotten way out hand.

So will you make another attempt to reach out to him?

Start Loop

1) Write all the board members of the PPA requesting that Ms. Schulman and one other affiliate farm rep resign *without first voting on replacements*, and that the other board members get some more members with *relevant* political, legal or organizational experience to replace them.

2) Demand also that the board provide better/meaningful transparency by posting financials and such on their website and *leaving them there*, instead of removing them later as they did with the 2005 financials.

3) Post in threads that you agree with the necessity of the above contrary to the assertions of so many other posters that they don't care, which indicates that they can't see the woods for the trees.

4) Do this today

Loop back and do again tomorrow until the above goals achieved

This is a decent start, but here's my feedback...

1.) Why should I request that they resign? I'm missing that part. Convince me. As far as voting on replacements first???? That thought in and of itself makes me doubt the intentions of the board member. I've dealt with a lot of boards and personally have never seen this, nor would I even have the audicity to bring it up. This should be an obvious non-negotiable

2.) The demand is straight forward enough, but why should they listen to me? Explain that. Give examples of organizations in similar situations that are transparent. Whats the "industry standard" for transparency? Give examples of entities in similar situations that were not transparent that ended up being fraudulent. Examples of why this is important are key to winning additional readers to your side and provides them with information to regurgitate when making the demands that you're requesting. It also helps to motivate the PPA when you can start making parallels between themselves and fraudulent organizations that behaved similarly, yet would want to distance themselves from.

3.) I think TE had a better idea, in that instead of posting that you agree, post what you actually did, so that other people can see that there is some momentum already. People love to fit in, but no one wants to be the first one in the pool.

DO NOT LOOP again. It gets old. Instead do a new variation, and be relentless that way. Doing the same thing over and over again, shows you either don't care or are incompetent. Varying your methods keeps people on their toes and paying attention to you.

This sounds like a lot of work and it is. But if this is as important as you sound like it is, the it should be worth it, correct?

WELL SAID SIR!!!!!!!!

The PPA needs 2p2 to a degree. I'm sure the posters and readers in this forum are far more active in the fight than your "signed up for a freeroll on PS" non-paying members of the PPA. When (and if) the PPA becomes a true grassroots movement then 2p2 (and other forums like pocket fives) will be invaluable.

As it stands right now, 2p2 is a "gathering place" of individuals willing to help out with the cause. If TE either decides to leave 2p2 (I certainly hope not), or is otherwise persuaded NOT to post here then you can be sure that a very large portion of this forum (legislation) will follow him to a new forum.

On the other hand: does 2p2 need the PPA? 2+2 LLC made it very clear around the time UIGEA was passed that it was simply a book publisher and not a lobbyist organization. If left to 2p2 alone there would never have been as strong a fight as the PPA is putting up (if there was a fight at all). I mean in no way to discredit 2p2, because as publishers of books on gambling they are simply the best, as is this forum.

Let me put it this way: I've had legal B&M poker within a two hour drive for several years now here in Indiana. I have YET to play one hand in a B&M casino (although I plan to go one day next weekend). It's just too much of a hassle to drive that far after a full day of work. IMO most casual poker players fall into this category. Keep in mind the "Poker Explosion" happened AFTER Moneymaker won the WSOP by entering an ONLINE satelite. If I can't play online I simply won't play. And what use then do I have for books on poker?

Just my $.02.
IndyFish

To answer the OP, does the PPA need 2+2? Beats the [censored] outa me. I could give a rats ass. What I do know is that the PPA as a grass roots organization is strengthened by being able to contact a large volume of poker players.

Does 2+2 need the PPA? No. But 2+2 would definantly benefit from free acess to poker for citizens across the nation and PPA seems to be the organization most suited to fight for that goal. (Thanks to recent developments such as the appointments of Pappas and TE and the recent fly-in)

It is quite clear to everyone who posts here that Mason and Bluff have a huge problem with the makeup of the PPA board. What both of you seem to ignore is the fact that the vast majority of posters here dont give a flying [censored] who is on the board as long as we get the opportunity to play poker. What I really hope is that poker becomes available for everyone again and the affiliates make a [censored] load of money, then Mason makes a [censored] load of money from all the new players. Then 2+2 members make a [censored] load of money because of all the new fish, anyone remember what Party poker used to be like???

THAT is the goal folks, and I don't give a [censored] who else gets rich off of it nor do I give a flying [censored] who gets the recognition. The average poster here could give a rats ass about PPA board members and Mason/Bluff whipping out their [censored] to see who's is bigger. We just want to be informed about how we can help to realize even a portion of our dream of returning to the pre-UIGEA days.

That goal will be reached MUCH easier if organizations like 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, and whoever the [censored] else can help will work together.

Canvasbck
Average poker player
Buyer of 2+2 books
Member of the PPA
(These comments do not reflect the views of 2+2, the PPA, CP mag, Party Poker, FoF, Dwight Eisenhower, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, or anyone else.)

Hi IFish:

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. We hope that the PPA is successful, and we also hope that our concerns are not necessary.

On the other hand, we do believe that our concerns have the potential to become significant and therefore damage the cause as they are better understood by those entities which want to see online poker and Internet gambling in general severely restricted. So that's why we are only neutral towards this organization even though we do share the same goals.

I disagree with this. The poker boom was already well underway when Moneymaker won the WSOP. It began shortly after the World Poker Tour shows were first broadcast, and I have the records to prove it. Our book sales began to rise significantly in May, 2003, and then they went crazy in June, 2003. However, Moneymaker's win certainly didn't hurt things, and in my opinon did contribute to continued growth.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi canvasbck:

We would very much like to be able to work with the PPA and have certainly cooperated with them in some areas. (An example is allowing their officials to post here unrestricted as long as they identify themselves and their positions.) But we also feel, as I just mentioned in my other post, that the concerns we have might eventually hurt the cause, not help it.

As I also mentioned in one of the other recent threads, since these boards are now read by many people, some of whom may be representing non-friendly entities, I won't list out our concerns here. In fact, I'm little uncomfortable with making this post at all since we don't want to damage the PPA. However, we are trying to do what's right and what's best for poker in the long run. We're not being motivated by profit though I agree that easy access to Internet poker would certainly be to our benefit.

best wishes,
Mason

Mason, I don't understand something. You want the same thing the PPA wants, but haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA. You've gone from against to meh.

I know Linda Johnson and Jan Fisher quite well. Neither of them has anything but the best interests of poker in being on the board. We've talked about it. They were there at the beginning because they felt they could do something about it. At the start. They put their reputations and their money into it. Those reputations have been called into question here. If Bluffthis has any proof that the board members he mentioned by name have anything other than the best intentions, he needs to make these known. If not, he needs to shut up and go away. Again.

These two ladies have been promoting poker in the same way you have for as long. They are exceptional people with complete integrity. I'd vouch for them and I do. Bluffidiot's attacks also make it appear that this also has very much to do with 2+2 and it's feelings toward Card Player. This wouldn't be the case now, would it?

Bluffidiot has gone too far, again, and I'll make sure Linda and Jan are aware of this thread and his suggestions. What they do is up to them. TE was put into a position where he couldn't post his opinion because it might conflict with the official position of the PPA. Bluffidiot can post any opinion he wants and it appears to be the official position of 2+2. The attack dog of 2+2.

It's sad that this has been so blown out of proportion, but it has and may even get worse. Because, Mason, you don't trust us to know who we can trust. That notion is what has gotten in this whole UIGEA mess in the first place.

With all due respect,

CJ--still the official spokesman of the Democratic Party

That was a bit over the top.

Here is part of the cause of the problem.

"Luckily for online poker players, the stealth-like inclusion of anti-online gaming legislation did not escape the Poker Players Alliance's notice. The PPA immediately issued an action alert to all its Massachusetts members stating, "The Poker Players Alliance is committed to assisting Massachusetts poker players by bringing attention to this attack on our rights; however, we cannot do this alone. We need your help and are asking that you send letters to Governor Deval Patrick, your local State Representative and your State Senator." The PPA also includes linkage at its site (at www.pokerplayersalliance.org) for contacting these elected officials."

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/1...asino-bill.htm

If this forum didn't exist who knows when the PPA could have ridden in and "saved" the day. This forum borught the issue up and got action by the PPA. I doubt that Mason wants sole credit for this "sucess", as it was everyone here in some ways.

But to try and suggest that 2+2 "haven't done anything about it, including working with, promoting, and doing everything within your power to help the PPA"; is about as fair as the PPA getting full credit in the news story.

We've got to start working to fix the problem and not always trying to fix the blame (or credit). But like volunteers in all aspects you can not continue to rely on their hard work without showing them a little appreciation from time to time.


D$D

You think?

Who cares who gets the credit if the job gets done? People here seem to forget the purpose is to drain the swamp, not to destroy it because of a few alligators.

And to give 2+2 the credit because of this forum? That's an accident, not an intention. There is a difference. Perhaps you give credit to the phone company for providing the line to the fire department for saving your house when it's burning?

Where are people's minds, sometime? Put it on my tombstone as my last thought on humankind...DUH!

I like this phrase, never heard it before. Twoplustwo provides this forum to make money and further their business not because they are humanitarians.

PPA has come here not because of Mason, David, etc., but because as consumers and poker enthusiasts this is where we decide to have our poker discussion.

We are still awaiting a coherent answer.

From Bluff's earlier post..

Write all the board members of the PPA requesting that Ms. Schulman and one other affiliate farm rep resign

Why? What sinister failing are these two guilty of? Which other rep? Demanding "one other affiliate farm rep resign" without knowing who this is and why they should go isn't very illuminating.

Again from Bluff..

Post in threads that you agree with the necessity of the above contrary to the assertions of so many other posters that they don't care, which indicates that they can't see the woods for the trees.

Which woods are we missing? Which trees are getting in the way?

Bluff, you mostly talk in riddles and don't make sense in any way except to keep whining that you don't like the board.

From Mason's post...

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. We hope that the PPA is successful, and we also hope that our concerns are not necessary.

On the other hand, we do believe that our concerns have the potential to become significant and therefore damage the cause as they are better understood by those entities which want to see online poker and Internet gambling in general severely restricted. So that's why we are only neutral towards this organization even though we do share the same goals.

Are these concerns so devastating they cannot be mentioned? You seem to indicate that FOF or some similar organization could make use of these "concerns" if they were to learn of them. Well, if they are that bad, I want to know about them. (I am sure others would too)

Tuff

Still waiting to make sense of the acrimony I see here.

That is EXACTLY my point.

We have had very limited sucess defending our rights as poker players. Given the UIGEA we are worse off than we were before the PPA was formed.

Even the new and "improved" PPA is behind the curve.

In an organization and even the larger community of all poker players the PPA can not survive by continuing to operate on this basis of pimping others sucesses as its own and hoping to grow.

To a large degree the PPA is using up much of the goodwill given to an infant organization becuase "we" all hope to achieve the larger goals.

There is absolutely no reason for this now or in the future. The PPA will always be an organization dependent on the actions of volunteers. There is already a large segment of our "natural market" who will not get involved until the PPA proves itself much more.

Look this isn't some sort of mental exercise. Before I met John he asked if I was interested in the VA rep position. Because of the gypsy nature of political pros I said I'd look at it but if I got involved in a national '08 race it would likely not be a good choice.

But I did the job for awhile to see "where we were". I made the rounds of live events, made a bunch of calls, and spoke to almost every one likely IMO to be seriously involved. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the situation in N. VA and a decent picture of the larger State.

I've even taken actions that should have been done by the State Reps or the PPA HQ itself, in other States again just to see if they were being done.

I don't care rat spit who gets credit. I understand the control issues only because you need to know the ground you are working on. IMO in less than a year they will be meaningless because we will be too strong or too weak for it to matter.

So what the F have you done lately?


D$D

TF,

You can find my reasoning about the board in the poll thread I bumped.


Also I just want to note how few posters are actually answering the question Berge created this thread for, i.e. does the PPA need 2+2, and if so how much. And note again that the question is NOT the reverse and whether 2p2 needs the PPA.

I believe "the proof is in the pudding" so to speak. The PPA, starting with its former president Bolzerick (if I spelt his name correctly) has been all over this board for the past 15 months or so. We have also heard, sometimes privately, from a number of other people associated with them, including an attorney who originally organized the PPPA (which became the PPA) and one of their lobbyist. So based on that, and the fact that TE who announced he wasn't going to post here anymore is still posting, it appears that they believe they need us.

As for whether we need them, I think that's a little more debatable. We want to see a successful poker industry, and if the PPA helps in that area, it's good for us. On the other hand, we should remain a successful publishing company, though perhaps a smaller version of Two Plus Two, no matter what happens.

Best wishes,
Mason