Is the goal to have some sort of a meeting with the president and give the petition then while "talkin" about poker legislation, or to simply hand it to some aid?

IMO if you hand to an aid it get's filed in some trash box with the other petition's,letters, crap sent to him,ect. from every other special interest group and the President never see's it or is even ever told about it.

Listen. I'm not a PPA employee and I had nothing to do with the petition. I'll let John know to read your comments.

We could have handed it off to an aide last week. I'm glad we didn't.

I posted what I knew when I knew it as a courtesy. Again, I'm not a PPA employee. Aside from doing my part to promote it, I'm not involved in the petition and wasn't part of the group that was to present it. In fact, the PPA guys were so slammed keeping up with all the meeting with Congress and the other Poker Week activities that I didn't really get a chance to talk much with them. In fact, I didn't know they were unable to deliver the petition until I said so here.

If you "really don't like it," all I can say is that's too bad. It's not my fault you somehow decided that PPA had nothing arranged with the White House. No one here posted anything that suggested any such thing.

Jack, although to a large extent I appreciate your expression of concern, I don't think you have thought this all the way through.

Say you work very hard to get a meeting 'agreed to in principle' with some one you want help from. At the last minute, unforeseen things happen (like National Poker Week being way overshadowed by "National Play Politics with Heath Care Week"). The person who had agreed in principle calls and says that now is maybe not a good time for such a meeting, sorry.

You now have two choices. Openly report the snub and do something dramatic in response (like deliver the petition to the White House anyway no matter who is there to get it) or accept the person's apology and agree to reschedule.

The correct answer, of course, depends on 1) how much clout you have in bargaining with the person, and 2) how bad you still want the person's help.

If you don't have enough clout to bully the person and you still want the person's help, the obvious correct answer is to quietly reschedule.

Skallagrim

The issue isn't not delivering the petition. Getting obamas ear on this would have been a hr and hrs are hard to hit. The issue is not overpromising things that cant be delivered.

for the record i dont care one bit about the petition. however It was framed as if delivering it to the president last week was a done deal. if not doing so for whstever reason erodes support, its an issue.

Its the same worry i have with the regulation bill. The needed grassroots state efforts are going to be much, much harder if players lose access to play due to a bill
that they supported yet didnt fully understand
i think te's idea of a regulatory faq is outstanding and should be implemented asap

LG, if you think that the PPA promised "something that cant be delivered" you have a point. If you think the PPA had a deal that the other party backed out of, you do not have a point .... Do I have to make Pappas tell me/us exactly what happened or can we just move on?

As to the second point, bugging the general membership at this point * is not needed. The general membership does not pay attention to the details of bills, nor how they are amended over time and before reaching a real vote. When a bill is approaching a real vote, as I have said many times before, that is the point to examine the details for the whole membership of the PPA and that will also be the point of whether deciding whether we can truly support the bill or not.

At present it is simply important that people's support for the general idea remain strong. The details of the bill, as always happens in Washington, will get decided in back rooms and committee hearings. I can assure you those details have not been missed by our lobbyists. Whether they are successful in terms of making positive changes will depend on a host of factors, some of which are beyond our control.

We poker players are a still small but growing, real political force of modest interest to most Congress folks. Those representatives not in the deal making process are not concerned with how strong state opt outs are or any of the other details. The details are for others. All the majority care about is the level of popular and monetary support their general position gives them.

And the more we are seen as representing a statistically significant block of support/opposition, the more we will be able to get favorable changes before the real vote.

Again, patience is the watchword - we have to make well timed and strategic moves because we are not in a position to dictate results.

Sometimes you were sure you were gonna bet the turn until something your opponent did made you realize it would be better to check....

Skallagrim

* The "at this point" is important: after leaving committee an FAQ sent to all members regarding the details of the legislation and the risks of all strategies regarding same, is essential, not just a good idea.

Here's all Im saying (and I'll avoid the specifics of the Frank bill stuff since its mostly off topic, although I am the one that pushed us off topic). Its not as big of a deal as the length of post makes it look like either, I just had trouble being pithy with my thoughts.

I don't know the inner workings of what happened with the petition and Obama. A quick google search and a review of this thread shows a bunch of references by sites (The Cake Poker screenshot early in this thread, for example) and says "the petition will be delivered to Obama on July 22nd" or "the petition will be delivered during National Poker week.

Its possible this is misrepresenting how the PPA presented the petition, but people were definitely signing the petition with that impression and, fair or not, perception is sort of reality in these situations.

I have no doubts the PPA is acting in good faith and thought they had a meeting with Obama. The fact is, for whatever reason, that didn't happen. I personally think its a pretty minor issue, but some members don't. Those members will be less likely to contribute to and support the PPA going forward because the next time the PPA says "hey we need your support to get our point across to ____", they might just go "well, how do I know this is actually going to happen?" While they still might sign a petition, they might not mail it out to ten other people or make phone calls, or put in the extra effort because they won't really be sure that its going to happen. Which is unfortunate, IMO, because I think the PPA is very clearly a strong, positive force for poker.

Once the petition wasn't delivered as originally stated , the organization should have put out a statement and explained why it wasn't (Sudden schedule change, still want to do in person, etc). When nothing is said until someone asks about it, then the goalposts start to move a little bit, it just looks sloppy and incrementally hurts the PPA's credibility. If a major PPA initiative ends up being viewed in the same way, it would be a real problem for the organization.

So my take is, its a minor issue but it should have been handled more pro-actively once we knew the petition wasn't being delivered.. Hopefully the next time something similar happens its handled better. Minor mistakes aren't that bad, especially with small (in terms of employees), young organizations. Just apologize, move on, learn from them, and use them to avoid bigger mistakes down the road.

I hope this makes sense.

I will add just a couple of broad thoughts related to the bills since Skall brought it up.

--I would take a slightly different strategy than the PPA given where we are with the current bills, mainly in terms of making support a bit more conditional and taking a more pessimistic view on whather states will opt in/out. That being said, I fully admit I am not on the ground in DC, that I don't do this for a living, that I don't have all the possible information (and I can think of certain bits of information that would change my strategy more towards the PPA's) and that I understand the merits of the strategy the PPA is utilizing. I think its a case where reasonable minds can differ.

--I worry that some of the support the PPA thinks its generating now will not be there when the bill does come to a vote and people realize that their state may opt out, and that players are going to be less than pleased when they figure out the details in the bill. Here Im not talking about the informed legislation poster, Im talking about the more casual online player, or even the regular grinder that is aware of the PPA but not visiting the legislation forums on a regular basis.

--I think the discussion here during the last week has been fantastic on a number of fronts and thank TE and Skall for accepting and giving feedback. I view these debates and feedback as a sign of strength, not weakness, as the best way to achieve the best bill possible and figure out the optimal strategy on such a complex bill is to challenge each and every assumption about what a bill may or may not do or what path a given strategy may lead us down, then (hopefully) present a united front when a bill actually comes to a vote. I hope none of what I say is taken as anything more than JMHO as to how to most effectively regulate and explicitly legalize online poker in the US.

TE AND SKALL,

You guy's really need to take a good read of both of the lets gambloos's above post's and take in what he said because is exactly spot on this is how allot of the players feel.

You guy's are a little too quick to jump on 2+2 and start defending your selves when you should just take what was said and understand what we meant by it.

I 100% guarantee that I will rally against the bill if it includes opt-outs that my state (WA) will likely engage. Even if WA emphatically states that they will not opt-out, I will still likely oppose a bill that allows for opt-outs of any form on principle

And I hate saying this because PPA is a great organization, and I completely acknowledge that without them it is likely that nobody in the US would playing currently, but the more I've thought on this the more I realize that it analogizes perfect to any civil rights issues of our past, and we would be appalled if any organization supported the ability for a state to opt-out of recognizing interracial marriage, opt-out of allowing women to vote, or opt-out of not criminalizing homosexuality

Did you read this at all?

What exactly leads you to believe that we have any ability to just not allow state opt-outs? Why are you comparing poker rights to segregation and interracial marriage? It's not like we want state opt outs, but I don't understand why you are taking this stance if you have read what John already wrote?

IMO its a valid viewpoint to take the stance that you will only support legislation without state opt-outs as long as its acknowledged that that viewpoint means we aren't passing legislation anytime in the near future and are betting it all on the courts and playing defense.

I read that.

I'm analogizing to other civil right issues because it fits. Online poker is not as significant a civil rights issue as other ones, but it still analogizes perfectly with civil rights issues because, well, it's a civil rights issue.

I don't at all disagree with John's point. I am making my own point that opt-outs have the potential to screw US citizens, and that they should then be among last resort. I am unconvinced that there are not better ways to go about our agenda that don't involve screwing some people. Perhaps opt-outs can be altered to such a point that they don't screw people. That would be fine

Just have no illusion, opt-outs like what has been discussed on this board, screw people, and a lot of those people wont see it coming, and may in fact think they were one of the ones who weren't going to get screwed

If the prospects of not allowing opt-outs were bad enough, I would then withdraw much of my criticism. However, I'm unconvinced that our prospects without opt-outs is bad enough. But honestly, I don't even know what those prospects are. I really have no clue; as far as I know we could literally be on the brink of mass court criminalization of online poker, I don't know because it's not discussed enough on this board. If we were, I would not be happy about opt-outs because of my state, but I wouldn't criticize them.

I mean, its sort of important to have a view on this to do a strategic analysis isnt it?

There has been plenty of talk on the UIGEA, SDNY, Kentucky, Minnesota etc. No one has clear answers, but there has been discussion.

I dont think its an invalid view, but you should evaluate the alternatives

Seriously?

Did you once again not read what I just quoted?

He just said that the most knowledgeable people on the subject said there was no better way to go about our agenda and some form of opt out is the only way even if it is our last resort.

He literally just said it. I quoted it, you re-read it, then you said in your opinion blah blah blah. When he just said the most knowledgeable people on the subject that are directly involved say otherwise.

Generally I am very calm, but that is just wow to me that you would have the stance that your opinion on the matter is more correct than the people who are directly involved in the process of this actual bill.**

**Disclaimer: I am (maybe falsely) assuming you are not Barney Frank or someone more knowledgeable than the people that John Pappas spoke to directly. I am not being sarcastic in this disclaimer, I don't know you and you very well could be one of the top political advisers in the country for all I know then I would be putting my foot in my mouth without this disclaimer.

Wait a minute, you are quoting a post that says opt-outs are the best way for getting a bill passed. That is very true.

That does not answer the question "given that a bill has state opt-outs in X form, should we pursue that bill".

He was acting like they should be a last resort. They already stated they were not something we wanted but something that must be done. Of course they are a last resort but if thats what we have to do to get it passed then that means any bill we want obviously has to have opt-outs.

Also, obviously the analogies are just wtf. It's like analogizing a fatal car wreck with the world trade centers because they both involve death. There are different levels of everything. For some reason I don't feel analogizing the 400k signatures of poker players to the biggest civil rights movements in history has much merit either.

It sucks that opt-outs have to be there. We get it. But he is sarcastically going around with quotes like "Hey Texas opted out of de-segregating things so they are going to use black and white fountains" (that isn't word for word) to describe our fight. That is not helping anyone understand the issue.

Conclusion:

You understand that we don't want opt-outs. The PPA understands this. They have people who are much more knowledgeable trying to get this bill to be as friendly as possible on the opt out front. They understand the issue and want to take them out but have already explained there is no other way. They have also explained that they are working hard to make it as good as possible and won't support it if the opt-out is horrible.

So explain to me exactly how the logical choice at this point is to mainly go around posting sarcastic remarks and constant descending things towards what we are trying to accomplish when it has been noted plenty of times that this bill is unfinalized and they agree with the concerns you have put forth way before the sarcastic comments of today(or maybe the day before's comments or the weeks and weeks before).


Note: I over reacted to his post. I have had a rough day and skimmed over some words. If you read the sentence I bolded even, you might see that I missed the first "then" when reading it which would change the meaning a crapload. Somewhat putting my foot in my mouth by being a bit of a douche, but I think a lot of points stands about exactly what he is accomplishing by being sarcastic and using political groups with way more power to condescend the current efforts when all of those things have been properly addressed.

Schwallie, you have misunderstood my posts

With regards to the last resort comment, you're looking at it like the big picture is the Frank bill or a similar push of legislation, I am looking at it like the big picture involves more options including different kinds of bills or court battles or something else.

With regards to analogies, mine fit. Something that many misunderstand about analogies is that they are meant to be extreme in order to clearly illustrate the principle by making it obvious. Besides, I was analogizing civil rights with civil rights, and they weren't that extreme.

I was not being sarcastic.

Since it has been decided that the best approach is to push for this specific form of legislation, let's hope that neither you or I live in an opt-out state

if the bill did include state opt outs

and we had a choice of getting it passed or not

then you should pass it

because it is much easier to lobby for change on the state level
than it would be to get another bill in congress to the pass state

obviously we should try to get the state opt out out of the bill but as a last resort the bill should still be passed

I live in an opt-out state. KY Gov. Beshear has already said he would oppose regulated online poker (though IMO he may change his mind either for the revenue or to permit Twinspires to compete). I'd still recommend that my fellow Kentuckians support federal legislation. Here's where we'd stand:

Kentucky opts out, but many states opt in. Poker grows in the US, and US-based sites expand across the nation and the world. Players and sites lobby the opt-out states hard for inclusion.

While waiting, I'll lose access to PS, FTP, and other sites that choose to get licenses. However, I'll surely have some access to other sites. These sites will be under attack from the feds and the state, as they are today. It will be dicey, as it is today, but I'll have some access.

Again, IMO there is room for improvement in how the opt-outs work and we need to get the best deal we can, but I don't think very many people are suggesting that we abandon the Congressional approach.

I will also support even if I live in a suspected opt-out state if I am convinced that is what the final bill will do. I also am under no illusions as to what waiting means. If a state opts out, we are talking many years before we can change that state to an opt-in state. That's the history of expanded gambling.

Here's the path we need to avoid.

A bill passes and many more states opt-out than we expect. Players who supported an opt-out bill are now upset and demoralized. Grassroots efforts at the state level are hampered. Protectionism rears its ugly head and PS and FTP are denied licenses as they are painted as rogue sites that have broken US laws. Several casinos launches US facing sites but, with only ten states opting in and European countries denying licenses to US operators, the offerings aren't nearly as good as we have now.

We settle into a new status quo where those who want to play in the US and not evade the 50% deposit tax have to move to one of ten states and have fewer offerings than currently exist.

TE and LG, you guys say you will support an overall positive bill even if you live in an opt-out state. Question: is your sole source of income from poker? Mine is, and if I can't play on PS or FTP I can't pay the bills. That's why opt-outs are so important to me. I agree with TE that overall his idea of a good bill would be good for the country and poker in the long run, but that long run could leave people like me screwed for some time. That's my situation

Sort of. It has been my source of income this year, and I am going to school full time for the next two years. I am probably in an opt-out state. Life is going to get a lot harder for me if I dont have poker as a source of income. I have a bunch of investments and stuff that (hopefully) I can harvest, but no job until 2011 at least.

I completely understand your position. The alternative is no legislation for a long time. That's reality. If Im going to bite the bullet in the short-term, well, its going to be have to be a pretty damn good bill for a lot of people, but if we get that good bill I will bite the bullet and support the bill. Its not ideal, and the Frank Bill has a long way to go before I get there.

You are in one of the worst states...there is an actual law that makes online poker a felony. If I was a pro I would probably move regardless.