title?

The old PPA forum is being merged with Poker Legislation. The posts from the old PPA forum have all been moved here already, so nothing is missing. There will be some changes over the next few days.

I think this is a positive change and simply reflects the reality that PPA isn't some separate entity in the fight for poker. It's our shared fight for our rights, which is why there have been many PPA-related posts in Poker Legislation.

In reality, the two forums were separate parts of the same forum. They had (largely) the same rules, most of the same mods, and all of the same posters. There's just no need for separation anymore.

I wondered if this was one of the changes that was alluded to in regards to the meeting with Mason and I see I was right.

In reality, the Legislation Forum and the PPA forum have never been "parts of the same forum". There have been many more posts made in the Legislation forum because there were many more eyes there and points of view there about poker legislation; a growing number of which had nothing to do with the PPA's particular balliwick or its allegiance to a Federal Solution political strategy.

However, that seems like water under the bridge hopefully, in light of the PPA's apparent epiphany that State-level legislation presents the only game in town in 2013 and maybe 2014.

The PPA can provide needed assistance and resources to players who, like it or not, will be affected by the various State-level legislative and regulatory efforts that emerge from various State-level political constituencies.

You seem to be implying the people from PPA leadership didn't, or refused, to provide assistance to players regarding state efforts affecting poker in the past and speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that's not true.

I must disagree with you on this point.

I should have made it clear that I was saying they haven't refused in all cases as opposed to never refusing in certain cases.

In your case, they may or may not have been justified in that refusal. If it can even be considered a refusal of a valid request, that is.

I personally gave you a great deal of assistance, as did PPA. Too bad you refused to listen to any discussion and, instead, chose to bash us all on public forums like Facebook and here on 2+2.

I haven't bashed you or the PPA or the board members. I have expressed disappointment at your unwillingness to support our effort. None of what I have said is less than factual. I haven't insulted or made personal attacks at any of you. You cannot say the same, as you once again take a pot shot at me.

Further, I have listened to you, and I have taken your input into consideration. To say otherwise is simply untrue. Because I choose to go forward despite your opposition to the effort does not equate to not listening.

And finally, you haven't lifted a finger to help this effort at all. 'A great deal of assistance' is complete nonsense, and we both know it.

The PPA is unwilling to even send a notice to it's state membership of this effort. That speaks volumes about how much you have helped with this effort.

Nor will we.

For one, you specifically demanded that PPA do nothing that would allow us to take credit for your work. I will honor that request. Secondly, I cannot vouch for you or even ask people to support you, as that will lend credence and credibility to your continued baseless attacks on me and on the organization.

You have your thing going, which I think is great. You chose your path. I wish you all the luck in the world going forward.

I would love for you to produce one of those 'continued baseless attacks on you and the on the organization." You make claims that simply aren't true. The only input you have given that I have 'not listened to' is for me to just drop it.

Why would I continue to seek support from the PPA if I was going around bashing the organization or it's leadership? Your claim makes no sense at all.

I-582 is not about me, it's not 'my thing'. It's an effort on behalf of the players in the State of Washington. It's important, and it's worthy of the effort.

There is no need to rehash this all again either, I was merely disagreeing with Doc's assertion, which is obviously the case, as demonstrated by the comments that followed.

I don't tell people not to support the PPA, and I don't think the PPA is a bad thing. I am disappointed that the PPA has sought to discourage this effort, and is unwilling to lend a hand in the effort. That sentiment, I'm sure, is shared by many in WA.

I think you may re-assess my post more accurately as seeking to correct an historic trend of how the PPA allocated its $5,000,000 or so in annual resources between the march up Capitol Hill and promoting State-level player-friendly laws and regulations. (Clearly, some went for efforts like the get-out-support effort in New Jersey once the bill was on Christie's desk. Similarly, there were resources allocated to the litigation effort in Washington State.)

What % of the PPA resources, whether $1.00 to $5,000,000 of annual resources, went for player issues, including legalization, litigation or regulation at the State level.

What was the relative ROI on State-level allocations versus the Federal Solution allocation, whether spent on the annual trek up Capitol Hill, federal lobbyists, or meetings in D.C. with federal entities ?

I just think that a far greater % of resources should go for State-level activities and far less a % spent on Federal lobbying, Federal Solutions, or other historically less productive, albeit often-pursued, channels and attendant lobbying.

We're not discouraging it. Given your conduct, we simply cannot be associated with it. As you seem unable to understand this, I can only imagine the resentment you'd stir up if you claimed to be backed by PPA.

So, again, good luck.

Rich, be real, just for once. I'll post the letter from Pappas for everyone to see, the PPA declined to assist in this far before any of the so called "bashing" I did of the PPA. To now try to say that the reason you aren't assisting in this is because I have criticized the PPA for not assisting is laughable.

Let me put it to you this way. Would the PPA pick this up and run with it if I went quietly to the sidelines?

lol@PPA.

Refusing to support a bill because one random on the internet calls them names. (Or, even if it's not a random and it's someone important... still doesn't matter).

That'd be like me refusing to support free speech because the Westboro Baptist Church called me names.

It's not only childish, but counterproductive.

I can see why efforts to produce legislation have all failed... PPA run by spiteful teenage girls.

Curtis, I will save you the trouble. here is my email to Mr. Woodward, where I explained to him that the PPA could not help with his intiative, but was working some other possible legislative solutions. As you can see, the PPA has been totally unreasonable and unwilling to help with a solution in in Washington State. (READ SARCASM)

Hi Curtis – Sorry for not connecting sooner. We have been swamped with stuff in New Jersey in 2013.

While I appreciate your interest and enthusiasm to push this initiative, I don’t think it can be properly supported by the PPA in terms of resources, both financial and time commitment. I am however pleased to share some news with you that might lead to an even better direction to take this fight.

As you know, Rep. Paul Harris has introduced a bill that would “decriminalize” online play in Washington. This is a good, albeit small, first step to reversing this ridiculous law. We spoke with Paul Harris this week and he has made it abundantly clear that he does not want to stop there. He ultimately wants licensed and regulated online poker in Washington state and he wants to work with us to craft and introduce legislation that would do just that! Our only issue is timing. I don’t think we can put together a bill and the coalition needed by next Friday, which as I understand it is the deadline for things to move in the WA legislature. We are supposed to speak with Rep Harris today and get more details on what he may be willing to do.

Anyways, I wanted to share this with you and perhaps convince you that there is a real opportunity to go at this through the legislature, rather than the costly, and unpredictable initiative process. I welcome your thoughts here.

John A. Pappas

Thanks John. So now it should be abundantly clear that the PPA has been trying to convince me to drop this measure from the get go, and all claims otherwise by certain posters here have been lies.

Further, the personal pot shots being taken at me by some are simply aimed at discrediting me to further undermine my work towards this effort.

I work on the fight for poker in my State everyday, nobody is paying me. I'm not a professional poker player, nor professional political operative. I just care about the cause and the game.

It's too bad the PPA has chosen to not help, there is much they could do without devoting resources, financial or time wise, that they simply do not do because they do not want this effort to succeed.

That is the fact, and that is on them.

Fwiw, that looks more like he is asking you to join their efforts, which have been going on for quite a while now, instead of doing 2 different things.

It looks more like they chose not to help because they think there is a different avenue to the same destination which is more likely to lead to that destination and they would rather devote their limited resources to the avenue that they believe is more likely to succeed.

The e-mail seemed to encourage you to support the effort in the legislature and to possibly shift resources from supporting an initiative to supporting an effort in the legislature, but it certainly does not seem to be trying to get you to just drop any effort.




I don't get the "fighting" back and forth. It seems that you are both trying to accomplish the same thing through two different methods. And to me, that seems like in and of itself it probably isn't a bad thing.

Given that our proposal is an 'initiative to the legislature,' any effort they are making thru the legislature can only be helped by the nine months we can spend raising awareness with this initiative. Even if we fail to get the signatures we need to force this before them, we have the title and the language to refer to when raising the issue with our legislators. As they have said themselves, this is far better than asking them in a general way to support internet poker.

Remember this, the bill introduced this year caught them as much by surprise as anyone, and given that it had a lifespan of only ten days, with no time to prepare for the hearing on a couple of days notice. With this measure we can be sure that doesn't happen again.

And it only takes one ally in the legislature who can introduce our measure, or something similar, regardless of how many signatures we gather. This effort has far more ways to win than it does to lose.

I said the much the same thing to Rich in Skype earlier. It's a shame it gets to personal attacks.

PPA will be quite happy if it passes. I don't think claiming otherwise is particularly helpful here.

Hi Everyone:

I'll be writing a little more about some the changes in my May Publisher's Note for our 2+2 Internet Magazine. So for those interested, it should be up approximately May 1.

Best wishes,
Mason