I don't know. I try to encourage support of the PPA. But this is really sloppy (got this email today):

My name is not Dan. It's Sheryl. And, Grassrotos?? Just sayin. Why would I give money to an organization that A) refers to me as someone else, and B) can't even spell their title correctly? I would soooo love to see the PPA become player funded, but this is just really really sloppy stuff. I actually didn't even read the whole email because of the wrong name -- the Grassrotos typo just caught my eye because it was so blatant. Word would have caught that one! Damn.

Thanks for the PMs, D$D.

I'll just say that TE should just take two seconds to admit he made a mistake in using the word "never", and some of you posters need to stop acting like children. Hindsight is 20/20, stop bitching about the past and concern yourself with moving forward.

And lol @ post 151, that is pretty sad.

I'd like to thank TE for providing a snail mail letter to send to our state officials. Despite what TE thinks, I am a supporter of online poker. Perhaps he thinks I'm not because he thinks I don't participate in the actions plans and that is true. However, I don't participate because I don't belong to Twitter or Facebook and the actions plans seem to rely on these methods of communication. I use older methods of communication like snail mail and the telephone although I've also used email.

So remember TE, not everyone uses Facebook and Twitter and just because they don't take part in your actions plans doesn't mean they aren't supporters of online poker.

D$D initially came in as a volunteer and was accepted in that role. He then applied for a paid position, which was fine. PPA chose not to hire him into that role. Again, his heart was in the right place, but my statement about "never" was not intended to apply to applicants for jobs within PPA. We've certainly not hired everyone who applied to PPA.

My comments were not made regarding strategy choices. I commented on the candidacy of a specific person and nothing more.

I'm very sorry to see that, Sheryl. That's really inexcusable.

I've been working to drill the importance of spelling and grammar into the organization. I will reinforce the importance of this with the team.

I have no doubt that your motives were pure, D$D.

Thanks Doc. I appreciate your participation.

I recognize that, to be sure.

My earlier comments to you were regarding what seemed to be personal attacks. I recognize that, in my role, that comes with the territory, but it was pretty tilting at the time. Again, I appreciate your comments here and am looking forward to pressing on with our fight.

I've been in contact with the team. They report that only 300 of the flawed emails went out and that they'll send out a correction today. Again. I'm sorry to see that the flawed draft went out at all.

Even more troubling is that they misspelled my name as "Jason M." and they think I'm from Berkeley, CA! I worry that I may never receive my free iPad!

My name is not Jason M and I do not live in Berkeley, but people should not worry because the PPA iPad2 is in my good hands.

Well that's funny, because he made it sound like his help was refused while as an unpaid volunteer, along with others who offered to do work for free. That's why I said what I said.

That's not the case.

Are you asking me to go into all the details? I'd rather not. D$D meant well and I'd really prefer to leave it at that.

If you don't want to go into all of the details please stop making untrue statements. I'm willing to let the crap drop but your constant "misstatements" make it impossible.

I already knew about him wanting to do for-pay stuff. I also knew his services for pay was declined. I'm sure anyone would be cool with that, as it's merely a cost-benefit analysis in the best interest of the PPA.

This issue is arising because it's also become apparent that he and others offered to help out for free, and he makes it sound like that free help was also declined. When you adamantly post that you've never ever refused help, and D$D claims otherwise, and yet you still persist, one of you is being disingenuous.

The issue boils down to the fact that immediately post-UIGEA the PPA eschewed grassroots organizing, paid or otherwise. D$D's offer(s), the offers of others, and the ideas of others were sidelined. The PPA went with lobbying, and with TE's media outreach and provision of form letters/scripts for those of us already involved. It is just the most public and easily referenced saga of those days showing where strategic decisions went away from being a "player" oriented and funded organization. We will never know the outcome of focusing on building a base of players, pro and rec, online and live, had been pursued, or allowed by the IGC.

D$D's ideas would not have worked without money, without even mentioning paying him directly. The limited funds of the day(by decision of the IGC donors) went to Frank, Da'amato, and other pols and lobbyists. My opinion is that a decision to forestall a crackdown(most successfully in delaying UIGEA regs) was chosen, knowing the ability to pass a bill was beyond the means of the PPA. Now, we are left with the wreckage of those decisions.

OK, first off this is incorrect. You understand that what we are talking about is allocation of resources. The fact is clear, the PPA chose to allocate more resources towards Capitol Hill lobbying than to "grass roots efforts" but it never "eschewed" one for the other. Everybody should understand that the right combination of lobbying and members is what will have the most influence. We may disagree on what is the right combination and where to expend resources accordingly.

Before we just rush off on this path, would you please tell me exactly how you think that the PPA having chosen to have had lots of paid local organizers and thus lots less lobbying would have lead to poker players being in a better position than they are now?

If you cannot spell this out, then the only "wreckage of those decisions" is in your imagination.

Skallagrim

Wreckage means what it says. Who is going to pay for the PPA going forward?

Rank who has more influence over the process now......state lotteries, individual casino corporations, certain Indian tribes, and the PPA. And not a one of those players gives a rats ass about players ATM. And, unless I missed it, the PPA has no plans to find new funds or expand its influence. Wreckage, or at the best decline from mediocre listening to polite indifference.

I guess I misread the thread, talking about a player-funded PPA being optimal and producing courses of action more in our interests. You seem to agree the spending choice in 2007 was lobbyists, and the money for that, and everything else is almost gone. All it achieved was preserving the status quo. I think the less monetized efforts led to changing the perception of I poker as palatable to legislate. Maybe player organizing achieves the attitude shift, but the status quo goes down sooner. But, a larger pool to work with and draw on might have had us more able to influence events.

Is it that hard to think maybe the wrong course was pursued? I'm not claiming a monopoly on being right, but all five years of lobbying from an empty shell has done is clear a path for other, less-benign interests to shape poker without player input or even voice.

Having followed these discussions for years I can tell you I don't remember anyone suggesting "lots of paid local organizers". Again it was never an either or decision.

I and other did advocate spending some money on developing training materials and other organizational efforts. But I for one have repeatedly said that every effort I have been involved in over the years has raised more money than it has spent.

The PPA would be in a better position now with the loss of it's regular funding and more importantly in a better strategic position if a Federal bill had passed. Forgotten in all of this is the end game has always been the opt-in/out state by state battle!

That is the "wreckage of those decisions".

Opting-in and/or opting out is not going to be an issue UNLESS there is a Federal bill. I do not consider it a mistake to have getting a Federal bill be the number one priority. I recognize others do. I am also confident that the sizable majority of poker players agree that a Federal bill is the best of the available solutions.

That said, the PPA devoted significant monetary resources to lobbying Congress and lesser resources to establishing state and local organizations. The PPA did not ignore being active at the state level: it established the state director program and hired a person to help further local efforts. It also spent significant time, effort and money on specific state efforts such as stopping MA from making internet play a criminal offense (among a number of examples).

The local effort, however, was designed to primarily be an effort of volunteers. In some states this has been rather successful. In other states not. I see little reason to think having paid organizers would have made much difference in the level of local efforts. Certainly it would have made some difference, but would it have made so much of a difference as to counter-balance the corresponding reduction in DC efforts?

That is the question, and even with the benefit of hindsight those posting that the PPA should have spent more time funding local organizations have not demonstrated to me how that would have improved our current standing and situation.

Oh, and BTW, have you checked out the PPA resources for contacting your state representatives and governors?

Skallagrim

This "UNLESS" argument fails Politics 101.

1. There will be a federal bill proposed in 2012, likely as a "revenue" part this Februrary to the next round of debt legislation. That Reid 2.012 will either contain an "opt-out" requirement or it will be a voluntary bill where States can opt into something or go independently. The inclusion or not of particular language will affect the prospect that the Bill will pass into law in 2012.

2. If there is no federal bill (peoposed and passed) in 2012, States will continue to pursue their own interests and license online poker.

I think it is clear that no one will convince you that there were any errors of judgement in past PPA allocation of resources among various strategic efforts. Okay, that posture is clear, as is your belief that a sizeable majority of players, who you nevertheless bemoan are unwilling to contribute $$, validate those strategic choices.

However, in this thread the underlying issue is raised as to whether those resources coming wholly from the IGC/FTP/Stars may have limited choices. It is clear that your historic analysis says, "no, the PPA would have done everything the same, regardless of whether players had funded its "resources".

A PPA which is player-funded IS possible, but not with a Board that sees no reason to change from a self-perceived past "perfect" record.

Opting in an opting out is part of a Federal bill. States pursuing their own policies is something different.

States immediately creating a large national market with open or semi-open competition seems at least as unlikely as a Federal bill. Indeed, I would argue it is more unlikely. But, then again, is there a point to trying to reason with you?

To answer my question, no - there is no point in trying to reason with you.

You are still far more concerned with twisting words to construct an attack on my character than you are in trying to further debate and discussion.

It is clear that because you are incapable of admitting that there may have been good reasons for things having been done the way they were, that you decide instead to describe any post which seeks to present those reasons as an exercise in arrogance and refusal to admit imperfection.

I take it you never clicked that link to the Wiki page on "projection" which I provided a few posts back.

Skallagrim

Hi D$D,

To be fair, you initiated the dialog that is driving these questions. I'm trying to deflect this and move forward.

I'm not aware of "others" in this context. As for D$D, he did offer to volunteer for some specific stuff after PPA didn't hire him. That ship that had simply sailed by then for a number of reasons. He's certainly been welcome to volunteer for lots of other things, of course, and I'd be very happy to have him volunteer. There's no blanket rejection of D$D here.

When I said PPA never refused help, I wasn't suggesting that PPA never made a decision not to proceed with a specific volunteer for a specific proposal. Yes, we have had this happen before. We've not made every applicant for a state director slot a state director, for example. We do make decisions based on optimally structuring the organization and the overall effort. If that's the clarification being sought, I'm happy to provide that.

Also, just to clarify, I have met D$D in person. I think he's a fine person and I appreciate his support for the game. We had some vigorous debates here in the past but, as we all know, 2+2 is the home of vigorous debates. I hope no one thinks I don't like D$D as a person based on any of that, as that's just not the case. We simply had some differences of opinion of some specific issues and that's all.

What I have questioned are your political judgments, proffered legal analysis on a number of points, and ability to learn/adapt from past mistakes.

None of those are character issues. Although your apparent construing them as such explains a lot about your default response to criticisms by launching a defensive denial and leaping to some personal smear of any poster.

(Any opinion I or others may have of your character has no bearing on the prospects or not of express legalization of online poker for US players. The issue simply isn't about the Fiefdom of Skallandia. )

FYP to save time because you eventually would have said this directly and readers familiar with your posting history know precisely that this is what you have done in the past; usually after twisting something I said into something to try and rant about.

Rather then continue this, try writing a post without my name in it telling folks how a PPA emphasis on state organizations and actions would have made a difference to the current situation. Which states beyond Nevada (which itself acted mostly in anticipation of Federal legislation) would already have vibrant, competitive online poker? Which ones would be on the verge? Include specifics about the alternate plan and its tactics and address such legitimate areas as the impact without the Federal effort or with a lesser Federal effort.

Skallagrim