*** OFFICIAL *** Druff & Drexel Show Thread for 2/19/2013 - $60 Freeroll - Rich Muny/PPA Debate!

[kmksmkn]

I went and checked all my email accounts yesterday and cant find one single email from the PPA about the ub cheating bs..... yes rich was very well spoken but some of the things he said were just not true.... tough to debate someone who is very well spoken and can blend in flat out lies to his points. Rich if you do read this maybe u can post these "emails about ub" u sent out to everybody.

[Dan Druff]

Here are some cliffs of the debate. You can use these to skip around if some of the subjects don't interest you much. I am writing these from memory, and have not listened to the whole thing since the live show. Obviously I remember my own responses and positions better than Rich's, so Rich can feel free to correct anything I have wrong regarding what he said. Unfortunately I don't have timestamps, but here is the order in which everything occurred:

Note that the quotes below are paraphrased from memory, and not direct or 100% accurate.

PART 1 - PPA ISSUES FROM THE PAST

Topic #1: PPA's Membership and Funding


Druff: How many members of the PPA immediately prior to April 15, 2011 (Black Friday)?

Rich: About a million.

Druff: What percentage of PPA's funding came from directly-paid membership dues, as opposed to contributions (direct or indirect) from online poker sites?

Rich: More than 50% came from the poker sites.

Druff: Can you be more specific than that? Was it much more than 50%, like 90%, or relatively close to 50%, such as 60%?

Rich: I can just tell you that it was more than 50%, and not all that close. I don't have the exact numbers.


Druff: Can you honestly say that the PPA's actions and priorities were not influenced by the large sums of money from Full Tilt, Pokerstars, and others? What if there was a realistic possibility for legislation that would have legalized online poker yet clearly forbade the existing online sites from participating? Would the PPA have supported this?

Rich: Yes, we would have. In fact, we supported the Reid bill, which wasn't very friendly to Pokerstars and Full Tilt.

Druff: But I'm talking about a REALLY unfriendly bill, which completely shut out Full Tilt and Pokerstars. Would you have supported that?

Rich: Yes.

Druff: Wouldn't that have gotten the sites that largely funded your organization really angry? How would you have handled that?

Rich: There were many times they weren't happy with us. We would have done it anyway.


Druff: Do you think that the PPA lost respect in Washington due to their alliances with the online poker sites?

Rich: No, those were the sites offering poker at the time. This fight is not cheap, and we had to get funding from somewhere. Unfortunately the membership dues did not come close to covering our expenses. It was necessary to take money from Full Tilt and Pokerstars.




Topic #2: PPA Tactics of the Past

Druff: Do you remember the "petition" that included bribery, where anyone signing it was awarded a ticket into a Pokerstars freeroll? How did the PPA expect that to be taken seriously by Washington?

Rich: Yes, and that showed Washington that a very large number of people cared about legalizing online poker, as we were able to show them a very large number of signatures. This really demonstrated to them how many Americans were passionate about the issue and wanted to see it legalized.

Druff: But offering a freeroll with real-money prizes for a signature is equivalent to buying signatures. I believe that destroyed the credibility of the petition and of the PPA itself. How could you have thought this was a good idea?

Rich: It was a great idea. We needed to provide some incentive for people to put out the effort to sign it, and the freeroll was a great way. It showed Washington, "Hey, look, we have all of these real poker players here who want to see online poker legalized."


Druff: What did you expect to accomplish from the Poker Isn't Gambling strategy? Poker is gambling. Even if certain players have a long-term positive expectation in the game, it is still clearly gambling, as each individual poker cash session or tournament has a large element of luck involved. How was this a viable strategy to convince the powers-that-be in Washington -- most of whom are not mathematical geniuses -- that poker isn't gambling?

Rich: It was important to carve out poker from being seen as equivalent to mindless, direct games of chance such as online slots or roulette. Many states even allow you to run legal home poker games, provided there is no rake. We wanted to build on that and have poker seen as a skill game, which is different from traditional gambling. While we have nothing against other forms of gambling online, we feel that by separating poker and showing its skill element, there is a higher chance that it will be legalized while the other forms of gambling will face a tougher fight. Horse racing already did this successfully a number of years ago.

Druff: But it seemed that "Poker isn't gambling" is a centerpiece of the PPA's strategy, and it just comes off as if the PPA is being dishonest or trying to get laws passed based upon a technicality, which must anger a lot of lawmakers and hinders your attempts to get online poker legalized. Most people believe that poker is gambling, and even if you can convince them that there is a large skill element to it, there is a lot of luck involved in the game, especially in the short term. Anyone familiar with poker knows this. This doesn't look like a good strategy to me.

Rich: It is a good strategy. We have already achieved a number of victories along the way, such as in New Jersey, and many were based upon this philosophy.


Druff: Since September 11th, 2001, the USA has been very paranoid and on edge regarding another home-soil terrorists attack, especially in the immediate years that followed 2001. One major concern was preventing large sums of cash from entering the US from terrorist groups without detection. This would have been very easy and possible through online poker sites. Why didn't the PPA seize upon the 9/11-related terrorism concerns, and demonstrate this major vulnerability to our national security?

Rich: I agree that this was a good idea. In fact, it was already done. You must have missed this. PPA worked with FairPlay USA and made great use of their work to get former Gov. Tom Ridge and former FBI director Louis Freeh on board. Freeh and Ridge were involved in doing just that - showing the homeland security issues that exist through the current unregulated online poker sites.

Druff: But this was never a centerpiece in what you were doing. It could have been a real "gotcha" moment with lawmakers and the media. Wouldn't this have had far more of an impact than "Poker isn't gambling?" I believe that, if the PPA made enough noise about the ease that terrorists could get cash into the US through existing sites, it would make a great case to get online poker under the control and regulation of the US government to prevent this. That sort of thing would really get the attention of lawmakers and the media, and would make things happen a lot faster.

Rich: But we did this. I don't see what more you would have wanted us to do.

Druff: You could have made it something you repeated more often until it got enough attention, like you did with the poker isn't gambling tactic.



Topic #3: AP/UB and the PPA

Druff: Did the PPA ever receive any money from AP or UB?

Rich: No, we didn't.


Druff: The PPA's mission statement reads: "The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play. Through education and awareness the PPA will keep this game of skill, one of America’s oldest recreational activities, free from egregious government intervention and misguided laws." Therefore, the PPA's own mission statement claims it wants to provide players with a secure and safe place to play. In 2007 and 2008, information came out that established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the owners of both Absolute Poker and Ultimatebet were cheating their own players. It was also very clear that the cheaters were still in power at the company, and were still covering up a lot about the situation. Many continued playing on AP and UB, due to ignorance about the cheating or an incorrect belief that it was properly resolved. Why didn't the PPA clearly warn its million-strong member base to stay away from AP and UB?

Rich: We did warn people. Senator D'Amato put out a press release directly condemning and cheating.

Druff: But that wasn't likely to have been seen by most of your million members. Why didn't you e-mail them all directly with an explicit warning regarding the dangers of continuing to play on AP and UB?

Rich: There was an e-mail.

Druff: I don't remember ever seeing an e-mail, and nobody else I know remembers seeing an e-mail. In fact, I couldn't even find anything on 2+2 regarding this e-mail. So you're saying that the PPA e-mailed a million members with an explicit warning about playing on UB, and somehow nobody felt like discussing it on 2+2?

Rich: Not everything gets discussed on 2+2. Maybe because a lot of people were going to play on UB regardless of what we said.

Druff: I was very dedicated to the anti-UB activism, and still am. Everyone else who was staunchly anti-UB at the time also did not remember ever getting a warning e-mail from the PPA. I don't believe such an e-mail ever went out.

Rich: There was an e-mail. And there was Senator D'Amato's press release. I feel we did all we could to inform our membership base, without being excessive about it.



PART 2: CURRENT PPA ISSUES

Topic #4: PPA and the Full Tilt Repayment Effort

Druff: You wrote this on 2+2: "Getting money back isn't even part of the PPA mission. It is something I'm glad we can help out with, but it's not something anyone ever promised you. If you prefer, feel free to pursue your claim independently of PPA. There's no reason not to." This statement came off as very arrogant to me. This sort of thing is ALWAYS something an organization called the Poker Players Alliance should help out with.

Rich: That statement was correct. We never promised everyone that we were going to assist players in money recovery matters. We decided to do this because it was important to the community.

Druff: But I think this should be a given, since aside from full legalization of online poker in the US, the Full Tilt repayment thing is the #1 issue facing our community right now. There is no way you could have ignored this and still called yourselves the Poker Players Alliance. I'm glad you finally decided to assist with this, but it bothers me that you had to throw it in everyone's faces that you're doing us a favor. Isn't that what people are paying their membership dues for?

Rich: That was a response to a person on 2+2 who wasn't a paying member of the PPA.

Druff: So you're saying that people who don't pay membership dues don't have a right to the PPA's assistance here? Your post on 2+2 said nothing about that. And I thought you said earlier that the PPA cares about all of its members, even though most don't pay dues.

Rich: We do. But this person doesn't pay membership dues and then wants us to spend our organization's time and money trying to collect from Full Tilt for him. That wasn't even part of our original mission. I was just telling him that we were doing this as an extra thing, and felt that he should be happy with it, especially when he wasn't contributing anything to us.


Druff: You had a meeting with the DOJ regarding the Full Tilt money. In the PPA statement about the meeting, it was stated that the PPA reaffirmed earlier assertions that 100% of player money should be refunded. Why was this reported? It was made clear to everyone that this was part of the original plan when Pokerstars bought Full Tilt.

Rich: It was part of the original plan, but you never know when the DOJ will change their plans, so we wanted to make it known where the poker community stood on this issue.

Druff: I can't see how they would change it. Fully refunding US players was a major term of the $750 million sale of Full Tilt to Pokerstars. I feel John Pappas just included that in his statement so the PPA can later take credit when the DOJ ultimately refunds everyone fully.

Rich: That wasn't the reason. We just wanted our position to be known.

Druff: Why was the PPA so passive at that meeting? You never asked for any firm commitments or timetables, but rather just made statements on behalf of the poker community that were seemingly ignored by the DOJ.

Rich: That's not how the DOJ works. They sent their lawyers there. These people were not empowered to make commitments, nor would anyone there have done so. You would think that the DOJ would be very knowledgeable about the entire situation, but in reality they really do need a lot of guidance to understand everything. Our lawyers went to this meeting with their lawyers to explain the expectations of the poker community, and hopefully guide them to do the right things.

Druff: It looked to me like a waste of time. You guys just spouted out the expectations of the poker community, which the DOJ doesn't care about. They will decide on their own the way they want to do things, and they don't care what the PPA or anyone from our community thinks. The only usefulness of such a meeting would be to nail down commitments, get information on their process, or at least some rough timetables. You guys came back with nothing, other than a statement that it will be a long time until we see our money.

Rich: Again, you don't understand how the DOJ works. Even I don't understand it fully. That's why we sent our lawyers to meet with their lawyers. Those people understand the process. They did what they felt was right. You aren't in a position to judge that, since you aren't at all familiar with the process.


Druff: There was recently some controversy on 2+2 regarding discussion with the DOJ regarding converting US players' Full Tilt points to cash. I actually agree that this is important and am glad that the PPA brought this up at the meeting. However, many on 2+2 were critical of the PPA for this, and you started a poll after-the-fact, seemingly to prove yourself right. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...luded-1269922/) Your poll question was extremely loaded, and basically asks people, "Do you want more money or less money?" There was no way you could lose such a poll. Will you admit that you worded the poll this way on purpose to prove yourself right?

Rich: No, it was not a loaded question. It was important to word it that way so people understood that I was asking whether we should have brought up the FTP Points issue at the meeting.

Druff: Come on! The two choices were "Yes. I want cash, points, etc." and "No, I want my cash balance only". Only a complete idiot who hates money would choose the second one!

Rich: This wasn't a loaded question. I really wanted to know how many of the people on 2+2 supported what we did.



Topic #5: John Pappas' alleged meeting with Jeremy Johnson regarding bribing Harry Reid

Druff: Did John Pappas really meet with telemarketing scammer and poker payment processor Jeremy Johnson, regarding bribing Harry Reid? If not, why would Jeremy say he was there? Why did Pappas attack Haley Hintze for reporting that this was in the Salt Lake City Tribune?

Rich: It wasn't in the Salt Lake Tribune. The part about Pappas was only on a video they posted, in the general article about Johnson saying he bribed Reid.

Druff: So was Pappas really at this meeting?

Rich: No, John Pappas was not at a meeting involving any kind of bribe for Senator Reid, which I don't believe ever really occurred in the first place.

Druff: Why would Johnson have dropped Pappas' name then? It didn't do anything to further the point he was trying to make. It wouldn't have been worth lying about Pappas being there.

Rich: I don't know why he said that. But we never got involved in any kind of bribe attempts.

Druff: Why did Pappas attack Haley Hintze for simply reporting what was already reported by the Salt Lake Tribune?

Rich: He was frustrated that Haley never asked him for a comment, but just printed the accusation. He felt this was retaliation for issues they've had in the past.

Druff: Then why didn't he say he never got a chance to comment, instead of just attacking the messenger and calling them frequently critical of the PPA?

Rich: That's just how he put it. He felt Haley had been treating him unfairly.



Topic #6: PPA's Willingness to Listen to the Community on 2+2

Druff: Why does the PPA seem to refuse to take constructive criticism on 2+2, but rather chooses to fight and argue with its detractors? Can you name a single time that the PPA changed one of its major stances or strategies as a result of criticism from a non-friendly third party?

Rich: I was a 2+2 member first and a PPA officer second. I am not used to backing down to false accusations and false statements about me or my organization. I always defend things I find to be unfair or untrue. Most of the detractors on 2+2 are either trolls or they have unrealistic expectations for what constitutes success. They think that if we don't get online poker legalized tomorrow, we've failed.

Druff: But I'm not saying you need to take all of the trolls seriously. I'm asking if, in the PPA's 7-year existence, you can name a single time when the organization was given constructive criticism, and you took it and changed course.

Rich: Yes, that has happened before. For example, we used to not have much of a social media presence. Someone brought that up, and we realized they were right. We then created a presence on Facebook and other social media, and it has been very successful. Also, some people complained our $25 dues were too high, so we lowered them to $15. These are just two examples of us listening to constructive criticism and acting upon it.

Druff: No, neither of those are examples. The social media thing was a suggestion. It wasn't criticism. It was something you weren't doing yet, someone suggested it, and you realized it was a good idea. That's not the same thing as being criticized for something and changing course. And the dues thing, it was obviously a business decision that lowering the membership fee might bring in more money overall to the PPA. That has nothing to do with changing as a result to criticism, but more about acting upon market forces.

Rich: Well can you name some criticism we were given over the last 7 years that we should have acted upon and didn't?

Druff: So you're saying that, in the entire 7 year period of the PPA's existence, you can't recall a single post on 2+2 from a member that criticized the organization where they had a good point?

Rich: No, I can't. Can you?

Druff: I think it just says a lot when, in all of these years, you don't think 7 years of criticism from people in the community could have resulted in a single good idea, aside from a suggestion to add a social media presence.

Rich: Well, you need to name something that we wouldn't do, and then I can respond to it.


================================================== =====================================

So that's the Cliffs of the 3 hours, roughly in the order they occurred.

Again, these are NOT direct quotes. I also did not bother posting many of Rich's statements that did not directly answer the questions I was asking, as that would have made this difficult to read for many just looking for an overview.

[tamiller866]

Todd,

The real reasons Rich 'won' the debate are:

A) The valid criticisms you made were mostly on issues no one cares about; whether Rich acts like a Dick on a message board or if the PPA did enough to warn players about UB, their mission is to get poker legalized so any criticism beyond that mission will fall on deaf ears.

B) They've been wildly successful in their mission, from getting intranet poker legalized in NV (that was almost entirely a PPA/PokerStars effort), convincing a NY judge to rule poker to be a game in which results are effected too much by skill to violate the IGBA, to just recently getting Governor Christie to pledge to sign a bill that uses the same legal fiction he objected to in vetoing the prior bill - but removes the bad actor clause for the PokerStars Player Alliance.

C) Rich sincerely believes that the PPA strategies have been instrumental in their success, so when he scoffs at criticism and replies to it with a non-answer speech about the PPA's success, it's not because he's hiding anything, he truly believes that his body of work speaks for itself.

Proper criticism of the PPA would be to point out that all their success has been completely in spite of themselves, they run around Washington DC trying to shoot holes in their feet, but the bullets ricochet off the ground and strike inadvertent political targets.

In short, the PPA has been remarkably lucky, but sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and following the adage of the harder one works, the luckier they get - there is no reason to expect they will stop running good as no one works harder than Rich Muny and John Pappas by all accounts.

The fact is they weren't even trying to actually get intranet poker in NV, they wanted to get the regulatory structure set up to rig the Federal bill proposal in favor of the commercial gaming industry, so that once the bill passed NV would become the US version of IOM.

So it was completely accidental that now with the failure of their real effort, NV is now positioned to be first to launch the State-by-State effort to form compacts, but again, it's better to be lucky than good.

Their legal argument that the IGBA doesn't apply to games with an element of skill is completely baseless, the purpose of the list of examples targeted by the IGBA wasn't to provide a definition, it was to show congress that they were only targeting gambling that would already be illegal under some other federal statute if there were an interstate nexus - prior to the internet it wasn't possible to play card games interstate.

But again, it's better to be lucky than good, and they caught the perfect storm of the right case in front of the right judge at the right time, regardless of whether that ruling is overturned, politically it went a long way to differentiate poker from other gambling.

In Jersey, Governor Christie was basically blackmailed into agreeing to sign the same bill he had previously vetoed, Atlantic City is on the verge of becoming a ghost town, and Nevada is on it's way to pulling off another PASPA (sports betting) where they get themselves grandfathered and the rest of the State's are excluded - the PPA runs white hot.

The truth is that if they had combined their good fortune derived from hard work with a practical strategy back in 2006, poker would likely be licensed and regulated in several States by now, but that practical Strategy would have involved teaming up with State lotteries rather than the B&M casino industry - and the State lotteries were never going to let FTP/PokerStars (PPA funding) operate their lottery poker - making the practical rather impractical from their perspective.

So while you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has been more critical of the PPA that I have - I mean, every decision they make is logically flawed - I really can't argue with their results, they were assigned an impossible mission (federal poker legislation) and stumbled into a position where States are now tripping over each other to catch up to Nevada in a State-by-State march they were actually trying to prevent from happening.

Watching the PPA do politics is like watching Phil Helmuth do poker, you know he isn't making the correct decisions, but the guy just wants it so bad that some higher power seems to guide his path to another bracelet.

Wildly successful? Getting 1 state to approve online poker, a governor to modify a pro-online bill and 1 judge to rule poker is a skill game? Those are small wins

I don't think that comes anywhere near success considering their plea for contributions is to get online poker legalized nationwide...

I see the PPA as wanting to stretch out the legalization process because once online poker is legal, no more PPA

Realistically, getting two States now to pass online gambling bills, one to pass a poker only bill and about 10 others to at least propose legislation - all since Black Friday (before that their mission was just to run defense) is beyond wildly successful - I just can't think of a better adjective.

Sure they set expectations way too high, underestimated the tribal and lottery opposition, and pretty much did everything else along the way about 180 degrees from optimal, but we forget just how vitriolic the attacks on online gambling were just a few years ago.

Washington declared simply playing online poker to be worthy of the same punishment as possessing child pornography in 2006, just this week the PPA was back lobbying for legislation to make it only a civil infraction, and the only question raised was 'why weren't they just making it legal?'

Don't forget that when it became public knowledge that they were funded by PS and FTP after BF - and FTP was labeled a Ponzi scheme - politicians like Barney Frank were tripping over themselves to donate their PPA contributions to charity and denounce any association with the PPA.

Less than two years later, the PPA is back to being recognized as a grassroots organization of over a million poker players (never mind that only five percent are paying members) with their input sought out every time a State or Federal bill is being discussed - just last month they met with Christie's staff prior to his veto decision.

This is an organization that devoted itself to the idea that simply 'letting politicians know we wish we could play a game of skill' was a better strategy than reminding them they can't stop online gambling from happening so they should take their heads out of the sand and regulate it, so for them to have any level of success at all is mind boggling.

Their political strategy has been the poker equivalent to playing without ever betting or raising - just keep calling and tweeting - and yet they've won three 'bracelets' already, some might want to wait until they hit thirteen to give them any credit, but as for me I have to give credit when credit is do.

[Dan Druff]

This is an organization that devoted itself to the idea that simply 'letting politicians know we wish we could play a game of skill' was a better strategy than reminding them they can't stop online gambling from happening so they should take their heads out of the sand and regulate it, so for them to have any level of success at all is mind boggling.

I've felt this way for a long time. Between the above, the UB thing, and the unwillingness to listen to critics on 2+2, I developed a sour taste in my mouth for the PPA.

Those are really the three big sticking points with me.

I admit that the UB thing is probably more important to me than others (because I have a personal attachment to the issue), but those are my reasons for being anti-PPA since pretty much the beginning.

[chinamaniac]

Wildly successful? Getting 1 state to approve online poker, a governor to modify a pro-online bill and 1 judge to rule poker is a skill game? Those are small wins

I don't think that comes anywhere near success considering their plea for contributions is to get online poker legalized nationwide...

I see the PPA as wanting to stretch out the legalization process because once online poker is legal, no more PPA

Realistically, getting two States now to pass online gambling bills, one to pass a poker only bill and about 10 others to at least propose legislation - all since Black Friday (before that their mission was just to run defense) is beyond wildly successful - I just can't think of a better adjective.

.

I havnt kept up with who is responsible for what but are you saying the PPA ia 100 % responsible for all of this happening?

[Dan Druff]

If I have any future debates (with anyone, not just talking about Rich), one thing I will implement is a shot clock.

Each party (myself included) will have a time limit to speak -- something like 3 minutes -- before being cut off and the other person gets a chance. This will force both people to focus directly on the real issues and make their words count. More importantly, it will become more listenable for everyone.

[SrslySirius]

If I have any future debates (with anyone, not just talking about Rich), one thing I will implement is a shot clock.

Each party (myself included) will have a time limit to speak -- something like 3 minutes -- before being cut off and the other person gets a chance. This will force both people to focus directly on the real issues and make their words count. More importantly, it will become more listenable for everyone.

I had a similar idea a while back for doing radio in an Around the Horn format, and figured out a way to set it up. You can have multiple panelists in the conference, and you have the ability to cut the feed of any individual at any time.

This setup also allowed for stuff like a virtual green room, where you can talk to guests off-air while the show is still running. I ran it by Zac, but I don't think he liked the complexity of the system.

[tamiller866]

Realistically, getting two States now to pass online gambling bills, one to pass a poker only bill and about 10 others to at least propose legislation - all since Black Friday (before that their mission was just to run defense) is beyond wildly successful - I just can't think of a better adjective.

.

I havnt kept up with who is responsible for what but are you saying the PPA ia 100 % responsible for all of this happening?

Only by accident, the PPA never wanted poker to go State-by-State, but when Harry Reid's "funnel all poker liquidity through the desert' Federal bill leaked, other States began proposing legislation to try to ensure they would be grandfathered in for a part of the revenue.

[simpdog]

Can someone make cliffs of the debate (other than Druff)?

It comes off like Rich doesn't answer any questions at all and Druff totally owned him and the PPA is a waste of time/money.

I still don't understand why Druff is so against an organization (politically minded) trying to help legalize poker.

[Dan Druff]

Can someone make cliffs of the debate (other than Druff)?

It comes off like Rich doesn't answer any questions at all and Druff totally owned him and the PPA is a waste of time/money.

I still don't understand why Druff is so against an organization (politically minded) trying to help legalize poker.

I wrote it honestly from memory. I wasn't trying to make myself look good or Rich look bad. In fact, for each topic, I made sure to make it more frequent that I listed his statement as the "last word".

I wrote this by going through the list of questions I had written out, copied and pasted them here, and then wrote what I remembered of Rich's responses. I omitted all rambling on both sides that didn't directly relate to the questions.

Rich (or anyone else) is welcome to correct anything I have wrong.

[neveragain39]

I went and checked all my email accounts yesterday and cant find one single email from the PPA about the ub cheating bs..... yes rich was very well spoken but some of the things he said were just not true.... tough to debate someone who is very well spoken and can blend in flat out lies to his points. Rich if you do read this maybe u can post these "emails about ub" u sent out to everybody.

Regarding the UB warning e-mails that were allegedly sent out, Rich was three betting with air.
I admire his sense of humor while trying to pull the wool over Druff's eyes.
GG Rich.

[Deal]

Can someone make cliffs of the debate (other than Druff)?

It comes off like Rich doesn't answer any questions at all and Druff totally owned him and the PPA is a waste of time/money.

I still don't understand why Druff is so against an organization (politically minded) trying to help legalize poker.

Druff can be insufferable at times. He lives as if all history happened yesterday. He has an amazing memory. The downside is he brings issues of half a decade ago and talks about them as if they happened yesterday. He won't let things go. Druffs cliffs are a total joke but I believe he believes that's how it went. The only spark of truth was that he remembers what he said way better than he remembers what Rich said. This is because he was spinning in circles waiting to interrupt with his thoughts instead of listening.

[TheEngineer]

At @ 27:00 minutes into last nights show Muny describes his compensation. While he has said he is an officer of the PPA (Vice-President), he describes his pay in a way that leads me to believe he is tax reporting it as though he is an independent contractor/consultant: He says he pays his own social security - which is what an independent contractor filing a schedule C would do. In my home state, California, any officer an organization is by definition an employee. The law may be different in the state Muny works in, and the state law is determinant for federal payroll taxes. Still I would rather expect the law in his state to be the same as that in California, officer as employee should be pretty standard to all states I believe.

My title is a board-conferred title. I don't actually report to John Pappas. I report to the PPA Board. I set my own hours and all that stuff as well.

If the law in his state is the same as in mine, California, then PPA should be paying the social security tax and other payroll taxes for Muny and all other officers of the PPA. And Muny would not be able to claim as a deduction social security and other expenses related to his PPA activities on a schedule C--thus Muny would owe more income tax.

If PPA covered my payroll taxes, my taxes would be lower (no self-employment tax). Likewise, if PPA covered my other expenses, I'd be far better off.

It's not about money for me. If it were, I'd go back to engineering.

[Dan Druff]

Can someone make cliffs of the debate (other than Druff)?

It comes off like Rich doesn't answer any questions at all and Druff totally owned him and the PPA is a waste of time/money.

I still don't understand why Druff is so against an organization (politically minded) trying to help legalize poker.

Druff can be insufferable at times. He lives as if all history happened yesterday. He has an amazing memory. The downside is he brings issues of half a decade ago and talks about them as if they happened yesterday. He won't let things go. Druffs cliffs are a total joke but I believe he believes that's how it went. The only spark of truth was that he remembers what he said way better than he remembers what Rich said. This is because he was spinning in circles waiting to interrupt with his thoughts instead of listening.

I see Rich is in this thread right now responding to others, so perhaps he will correct any errors he finds in the cliffs.

If the cliffs are a "joke", though, surely you can provide some examples of where I am falsely portraying either side's statements.

[Dan Druff]

My title is a board-conferred title. I don't actually report to John Pappas. I report to the PPA Board. I set my own hours and all that stuff as well.

If the law in his state is the same as in mine, California, then PPA should be paying the social security tax and other payroll taxes for Muny and all other officers of the PPA. And Muny would not be able to claim as a deduction social security and other expenses related to his PPA activities on a schedule C--thus Muny would owe more income tax.

If PPA covered my payroll taxes, my taxes would be lower (no self-employment tax). Likewise, if PPA covered by other expenses, I'd be far better off.

It's not about money for me. If it were, I'd go back to engineering.

I have said before, and I will say again, that I don't believe that Rich is in this for the money or the perks.

I believe he is honestly dedicated to the cause and is putting the time in because he believes in what he's doing.

I don't agree with many of his and the PPA's tactics, but I believe his motives are genuine.

[TheEngineer]

I see Rich is in this thread right now responding to others, so perhaps he will correct any errors he finds in the cliffs.

You literally rewrote history. :-)

The debate is over and, IMO, is best left to stand on its own. I encourage everyone to take the time to listen to it.

[haleylh]

"PPA worked with FairPlay USA..."

That would be Caesars' "astroturf" lobbying organization, which did not exist in terms of having actual members. It was an artificial corporate entity, a "fake" lobbying organization, if you will. I'm surprised Rich would even bring it up.

A few weeks ago, the PPA boys invited me to do a no-holds-barred interview. Tell you what. For the sake of openness, how about if I post a handful of questions here and Pappas answers them here in written form?

[Dan Druff]

"PPA worked with FairPlay USA..."

That would be Caesars' "astroturf" lobbying organization, which did not exist in terms of having actual members. It was an artificial corporate entity, a "fake" lobbying organization, if you will. I'm surprised Rich would even bring it up.

A few weeks ago, the PPA boys invited me to do a no-holds-barred interview. Tell you what. For the sake of openness, how about if I post a handful of questions here and Pappas answers them here in written form?

I knew about Fairplay USA, but decided not to go into what it was and wasn't because our discussion was about the PPA.

Anyway, it would be great if you posted your questions and Pappas answered them. If Pappas doesn't have time, perhaps Rich could do this?

[Steve-O]

I went and checked all my email accounts yesterday and cant find one single email from the PPA about the ub cheating bs..... yes rich was very well spoken but some of the things he said were just not true.... tough to debate someone who is very well spoken and can blend in flat out lies to his points. Rich if you do read this maybe u can post these "emails about ub" u sent out to everybody.

Regarding the UB warning e-mails that were allegedly sent out, Rich was three betting with air.
I admire his sense of humor while trying to pull the wool over Druff's eyes.
GG Rich.

I have never seen anything posted on the PPA website that wasn't sent out as a mass e-mail. Perhaps it was sent as a link or something, but there is simply not a snowball's chance in hell that the UB "warning" was on the PPA website and didn't get sent out in an e-mail at some point. It might not have big bolded letters or have the FRAUD ALERT gif, but if it was on the homepage it was in an e-mail.

And this is coming from the guy who wrote this: http://www.billrini.com/2011/05/11/p...steve-ruddock/ although admittedly I have softened my stance in the past year or so due to my conversations with Rich and the baby steps forward online poker is making --Nevada, Delaware, NJ, wire act reinterpratation, court ruling calling poekr a game of skill, John Kyl flip-flop, etc.

[Steve-O]

"PPA worked with FairPlay USA..."

That would be Caesars' "astroturf" lobbying organization, which did not exist in terms of having actual members. It was an artificial corporate entity, a "fake" lobbying organization, if you will. I'm surprised Rich would even bring it up.

A few weeks ago, the PPA boys invited me to do a no-holds-barred interview. Tell you what. For the sake of openness, how about if I post a handful of questions here and Pappas answers them here in written form?

That's what lobbyists are, how is representing a corporate entity being a "fake" lobbying group?