I can help if you still need people. I can do design and help with content. I'm familiar with wordpress.

Can't pm but I can email if needed...

Great. Send me your contact info here:
http://pokerloversunion.org/contact-us/

If federal legislation is passed despite Adelson's efforts, anyone else see him firing up LVS online poker shortly afterwards? Despite his "moral" objections lol

To sum up, I think we should continue to point out Adelson's hypocrisy.

He claims to being against online poker because he is concerned with people's well being but smoking is allowed in his casinos and he is trying to get smoking laws changed in Macau to allow smoking.

If he is against online poker because of concerns about geolocating, we should point out that patrons can bet on sports in their rooms at his casinos.

The problem is, pointing to his hypocrisy doesn't undermine his argument. It's a poor way to debate the issue. What do they call it, tu quoque I think is the term.

We need to stay on message, always. Turn those arguments around, because all of the anti regulation arguments are actually the best arguments for regulation, and that is what we should continue to point out.

I'm not saying that we should only focus on his hypocrisy. I am saying it needs to be pointed out because if we show he is a hypocrit, a number of people won't even listen to him no matter if his arguments sound good.

If he talks about being concerned about people, we point out his stand on smoking in casinos.

If he talks about being concerned that sites can't prevent people in other jurisdictions from playing, we ask how Cantor is able to prevent anyone not in Nevada from betting with them.

If he talks about being concerned about underage children playing, we ask him how Cantor prevents it.

That is what I meant by pointing out his hypocrisies.

None of that ^^ advances our cause.

If he talks about being concerned about people, we show that we are concerned about people's freedoms and protecting consumers from fraud and abuse.

If he talks about being concerned that sites can't prevent people in other jurisdictions from playing, we need to show that they can.

If he talks about being concerned about underage children playing, we show the technology and the steps operators can take to prevent it.

Pointing out hypocrisy does not make our case, it doesn't even undermine his. If it even budges his credibility a little, which it won't, all he needs to do is fund surrogates who have remained on point.

Congress is full of hypocrites, just look at the senate rules change debacle. Pointing out hypocrisy has never been an effective argument, because it doesn't make your case.

I could see how bringing up smoking might not be germaine but what about their objection to online poker due to not being able to make sure only geographically eligible people use a site? Shouldn't we bring up the fact that The Venetian has a partnership with a company that provides internet gaming to anyone in Nevada. Not just for those in The Venetian, but for anyone in Nevada.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...er-prohibition

"On the other hand, playing poker is America, and outlawing poker is like the Volstead Act where they outlawed beer,” Wynn told reporters in the Wynn Las Vegas atrium following the unveiling of two floral sculptures designed by Preston Bailey."

...

“I think it’s questionable whether Sheldon will be able to stop it, which is not to say he is wrong,” Wynn said. “I just think this sort of thing has a life of its own. I‘m neither a proponent nor opponent of it. I’m an observer of this process and the chairman of a publicly traded company that is required to pay attention to such things.”

Prohibition is not so much wrong, as ineffective ???

..... uh, thanks for the ringing support of players, I guess.

(fn. Wynn and PokerStars had inked a proposal just prior to Black Friday.)

I think it's a more effective argument to show that sites are using geolocation technology that errs on the side of caution, keeping players even close to the border from being able to access internet gaming. The success of these technologies is far better reasoning to argue with than calling the old man a hypocrite.

So bascially if someone says women don't have the ability to drive cars, we should spend our time showing that they have the ability rather than pointing out the person's mother, wife, sister drive cars?

It seems like showing the person is making an argument they don't really believe in is easier and takes less time than disproving what they claim.

Your analogy isn't really accurate. Pointing out the person's mother, wife, sister drive cars would be proof that they have the ability. Pointing out that you can bet on a site from Adelson's property doesn't prove online gambling should be legal.

Adelson's arguments are weak and can be rebutted. Focus on the issue and making productive arguments. Proving Adelson a hypocrite does not disprove his argument.

And as I said before, even if proving him a hypocrite had some effect on his own credibility, he can simply give his money to those who have been consistently against internet gaming and who can make the same arguments with credibility.

We gain nothing by calling Adelson names, and he isn't worried at all about his reputation or credibility.

We have to counter the arguments, and we can.

I am not saying to call him names. I am saying we should point out he is saying one thing and doing another.

I am thinking about this in relation to stories in newspapers and websites where we have a limited amount of words we're allowed. For example, my local paper limits letters to the editors to one hundred and fifty words. In regards to the geolocating argument, what would be easier to do in one hundred and fifty words, explaining how geolocating works or pointing out that the person claiming it doesn't work doesn't believe in the argument?

Business owners and politicians will always try to have it both ways. By rejecting and endorsing you get to have it all and not come out in any way.

We, the players have to provide the strongest support, but comparisons to prohibition help our cause and give a sound bite to counter the anti-gaming message.

Incorrect.

I don't think the players can impact this very much, beyond gently pushing Adelson's competitors to use their deep resources to fight this.

However, I personally am very unhappy with Adelson's position, just as everyone else here is. I won't be giving the Venetian any business.

The thread on PFA didn't seem to indicate any sense of urgency to come together to fight this (or a sense of urgency to do much of anything on this matter). I'm glad to hear you're at least offended by Adelson's attacks.

One of last week's daily action plan items was to tweet USA Today and Forbes with this info. I think it's wise to show this.

OTOH, I did get a reply from someone who thought Cantor Gaming (the partner) was getting thrown under the bus. My response was that Cantor and we have the same problem right now and that's Adelson and his crusade. Still, we should be a little careful, I suppose, so we don't look like we're going after Cantor when the exact opposite is the case.

Let me first off say that I respect your opinion, but do you really believe that players can not impact this at all? Not even top level pros? Just take the V, what would happen if a solid amount of pro's and Am's, just stopped playing there and took their action elsewhere? It's hard to believe that they wouldn't feel the effect of that.

there isn't enough will to act in the poker community to make an impact in this way. It's unfortunate, but it's true

It is not top pros or big money that can shift things for us, it is persistent and many individual registered voters being a pain in the ass and pestering. Think Shawshank but not 1 guy, lots. Go for the legislators and use the boycott as a hook for that.

Organized players can have a lot of impact on the political process. We've seen that.

We shouldn't play there out of general principle. I won't. However, IMO, even if successful (sadly, a big "if"), I don't think it would move the ball by itself. We'd want that energy focused on the political and media fight.

I wouldn't mention Cantor by name or even say that The Venetian is partnering with someone to offer games to anyone in Nevada.

I would say...

Adelson claims to be worried that anyone can play even if they are in areas where there not supposed to. That can't be true because on the website of one of Adelson's casinos, The Venetian, it says "[direct quote about gaming anywhere in Nevada]." Now if Adelson is worried about people getting around location safeguards and playing online when they shouldn't, would he have one of his casinos offer online gaming?

He must not really be worried.

The NSA would disagree that showing their hypocrisy isn't a valid strategy for combating someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4346128.html