PPA and Top Poker Pros to Commerce Casino: Stop Opposing Online Poker Legislation - Page 6 - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

PPA and Top Poker Pros to Commerce Casino: Stop Opposing Online Poker Legislation

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Page 6 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

08-29-2010 , 03:02 PM

#126

Todd Terry

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 16,301

Commerce did not make the decision to send Malkasian alone. And the consortium they represent didn't have the option of sending one representative from every casino. He was there for all of them. The fact that he happened to be from Commerce being used to direct business from Commerce to the other casinos in the consortium is indefensible.

That's all I've got, hopefully someone with some influence will read what I've written here.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 03:09 PM

#127

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

They (Commerce and the coalition itself) didn't have to send anyone. That's the whole point.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 03:14 PM

#128

Todd Terry

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 16,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

They (Commerce and the coalition itself) didn't have to send anyone. That's the whole point.

Then, if you feel justified, take it out on the coalition. Don't take money from Commerce and give it to its allies.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 04:18 PM

#129

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Then, if you feel justified, take it out on the coalition. Don't take money from Commerce and give it to its allies.

Commerce chose to send someone to Congress. They are reaping what they've sown.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 04:38 PM

#130

Uglyowl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 6,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Then, if you feel justified, take it out on the coalition. Don't take money from Commerce and give it to its allies.

By going to Congress, Commerce became the face of the card room opposition. The one thing we know for sure is that Commerce is not innocent so why all the concern that they are being negatively affected? Maybe next time each card room will think twice about openly flaunting their greed and anti-customer attitude.

They now know most poker players want this legislation so if they thought incorrectly that we'd prefer the interstate monopoly system, now they know better.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 06:37 PM

#131

NoahSD

Is Right

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 18,843

Todd,
You seem to be ignoring that all the PPA's done (to my knowledge) is posted a public letter in which they informed people of Commerce's position and said that they disagree. They asked other people to sign if they also disagreed. You're acting like they've called a boycott or thrown a brick through their window or whatever.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 07:00 PM

#132

Todd Terry

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 16,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

The PPA's two reps on 2p2 are encouraging people not to play there. So they're hoping for and applauding a boycott without "calling" for one. And people boycotting was without a doubt the natural and probable consequence of the letter.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 07:06 PM

#133

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uglyowl

Quote

08-29-2010 , 07:08 PM

#134

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

I haven't asked a single person not to play Commerce. OTOH, when someone chooses not to play there and tells Commerce why, I most definitely applaud that decision. That's not a boycott. That's consumers making an informed decision.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 08:07 PM

#135

craigmarq

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

Yeah, I'm not really sure why TT is so vehemently defending them.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 09:35 PM

#136

NoahSD

Is Right

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 18,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

+1

PPA specifically said repeatedly that they're fine with people continuing to play there. Informing customers about this and then having them decide not to play is fine.

You've been asked like 30 times in this thread why you care so much about this. I haven't heard a reasonable answer. I'm confused and annoyed.

Quote

08-29-2010 , 10:42 PM

#137

Todd Terry

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 16,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

30 times? More like zero.

I strongly disagree with what was done. I've explained my reasons fully. So you shouldn't be confused. And I have no idea why I would care that you're annoyed.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 01:24 AM

#138

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Why do we have this absurd burden of bending over backwards to assure fairness towards Commerce? They sent a representative to Congress saying online poker players should be thrown in jail for playing on current sites. As an online poker player I will never play there until they reverse this stance and will encourage others to boycott. Period, hard stop.

If another casino wants to step up and do the same thing, boycott them next. Should be a nice market out there for the taking for anyone willing to step up and do the right thing.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 03:40 AM

#139

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

+1

Commerce knew where we stood before sending Malkasian to Congress to recommend stiff player penalties for anyone daring to play the current sites. Were they expecting America's poker players to send them thank-you notes?

Quote

08-30-2010 , 10:43 AM

#140

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

To help everyone keep up, here are the 2+2 threads on this topic:

Poker Legislation: PPA and Top Poker Pros to Commerce Casino: Stop Opposing Online Poker Legislation
NVG: can someone explain commerce casinos position on online poker?
Zoo: PPA and Top Poker Pros to Commerce Casino: Stop Opposing Online Poker Legislation

Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-30-2010 at 04:34 PM. Reason: removed color tags

Quote

08-30-2010 , 11:37 AM

#141

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

They sent a representative to Congress saying online poker players should be thrown in jail for playing on current sites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Commerce knew where we stood before sending Malkasian to Congress to recommend stiff player penalties for anyone daring to play the current sites. Were they expecting America's poker players to send them thank-you notes?

I don't remember him saying anything like this, and I just re-read his testimony and didn't see anything along these lines. Did I miss it, or was this something he said that was separate from his prepared remarks? Any official record of it?

If he really did say something like this, that seems highly ridiculous and I would think it should be part of the playersbeforeprofits.com petition, as it would strongly motivate players to oppose the Commerce's position.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 11:50 AM

#142

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by repulse

It's in the OP.

Malkasian didn't specifically say players on unlicensed sites should be thrown in jail. He called for stiff penalties for players of unlicensed sites. However, as he was referring to ways to make the current bill tougher, "stiff penalty" was used in comparison to the 50% deposit tax already there. I infer from this testimony that he's calling for a law that could result in jail time for some players (repeat offenders, etc.).

Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-30-2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason: typo

Quote

08-30-2010 , 12:00 PM

#143

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Ah, thanks!

I agree with your inference about the "stiff penalty", because I would think that the existing 50% deposit tax would have to be seen as quite stiff already by any objective policy analyst. I doubt he just wants to make it a 51% deposit tax, he must want some sort of criminal penalty for players.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 01:54 PM

#144

Grasshopp3r

WRGPT 16 Champion

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,276

1. The PPA needs to confirm that the Commerce actually has the support and approval of the other LA card rooms for their testimony.
2. Re-evaluate the appropriate PPA response.

I doubt that the other card rooms are going to support the Commerce after they are presented with the opposition. Pokerstars also will have some leverage and we need to use it.

Also, they refer to HR4976, not HR2267 in their press release. I wonder if they are really stupid or just made a simple mistake.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 02:13 PM

#145

NoahSD

Is Right

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 18,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

ty and all, but how come all you legislation guys always put your links in blue for some reason? Can't read that if you have a theme with a dark background

. Just use the URL tag and let people choose their own color for links imo.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 03:02 PM

#146

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

ty and all, but how come all you legislation guys always put your links in blue for some reason? Can't read that if you have a theme with a dark background

. Just use the URL tag and let people choose their own color for links imo.

Sorry to hear that. I see there are color formatting tags, but I didn't add them. I simply cut-and-pasted the threads directly.

I can't edit the post in question (time has elapsed) but will keep this in mind for future posts, of course.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 04:09 PM

#147

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

ty and all, but how come all you legislation guys always put your links in blue for some reason? Can't read that if you have a theme with a dark background

. Just use the URL tag and let people choose their own color for links imo.

There are two modes for writing posts. One is WYSIWYG, and the other is the standard Editor. A user's default can be set on their account options.

In WYSIWYG mode, pasting a URL is easiest as it's one step, but it also automatically adds the color tags to match what was copied (unfortunately). Switching to the Standard Editor just takes a click of the "A" at the upper right of the post box.

Quote

08-30-2010 , 04:33 PM

#148

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

That's true and it works fine for pasting URLs. Unfortunately, pasting a thread title in standard editor mode pastes only the text of the title (not the URL).

The way to past a thread title while preserving the URL is to stick the remove text formatting button (the A_A with the X through it) on the upper left.

Here's an example: The UIGEA and Federal Licensing Bills FAQ

Quote

08-30-2010 , 04:36 PM

#149

Rich Muny

Former PPA VP

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

ty and all, but how come all you legislation guys always put your links in blue for some reason? Can't read that if you have a theme with a dark background

. Just use the URL tag and let people choose their own color for links imo.

I edited the post in question. Thanks.