Jump to content


Phil Gordon Makes A Good Point About The Wpt Lawsuit, Don't Be Bias, Read


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#141 Thumper

Thumper

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 113 posts
  • Interests:Fishing, bridge, poker, fishing

Posted 11 August 2006 - 09:06 AM

Just a couple of points for Daniel to consider:It was no accident that DN was placed at the WSOP ME Featured table. DN is very intertaining and any time he is included in a ESPN etc., show thier ratings go way up and their sponsers are willing to pay more.DN IS a media star even if he doesn't realize it. Why does he think we've all flocked to FCP? Just to be taken to the cleaners by DN?If he doesn't think this is true I have some bottom land in Flordia for sale... with one little itsy bitsy problem... a small lizzard infestation... oh and I also have a few bridges for sale around the world.... like the original San Francisco to Oakland Bay Bridge.One more point: Daniel I really think that you and the rest of the poker pros, including "the seven", need to sponser legislation to legalize on-line poker in Nevada. Make it legal and regulated by the Nevada State Gaming Commision. Be very proactive on this and get it done. For the protection of all of us on line poker players... we need to be able to have legal recourses when there are problems with on line sites.The Thumper has just dropped all four feet.

#142 Dratj

Dratj

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,339 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 09:38 AM

View Postcruiser, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 11:44 AM, said:

here's my question for the 7 - and I still haven't heard it asked or answered...Why not just skip the WPT tournaments? There are tournaments all over the world all the time...Seriously, nobody is *making* them play in these tournmanets...They are choosing to play and want to play and then complaining about the rules...Skip them - period. It's the same as complaining about the vig on certain events...people love to complain about that - and some people do skip them when they feel it's unfair...but seriously, it should be an acceptable alternative to not participate in these events if you don't like the way they are run. Nobody is *entitled* to have the rules changed.please - somebody - the next time you're chatting it up w/ one of the 7 - ask them this....
That's easy, they probably want to play in these tournaments but not with their current release form.

#143 milbucksfans

milbucksfans

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI

Posted 11 August 2006 - 09:49 AM

View Postplayingtowin, on Friday, August 11th, 2006, 6:04 AM, said:

I'm not a legal expert and have not done extensive research into the legal aspects of this case, but I have one question for DN that many others have brought up or mentioned I believe...if the WPT does not intend to profit or use the likenesses of any players that play in WPT events, then why don't they change the release? Is it absolutely necessary for the purposes of the show? DN, or anyone else for that matter with accurate knowledge of this matter, could u clarify?
No one will clarify. I have asked this same question and it is ignored. They don't change the release because it is potentially very valuable to them. They DO intend to profit from it someday, or at least know they CAN profit from it someday. And so there is no reason why a change to the release form would not be a valuable (maybe very minutely for some, but valuable nonetheless) act for every person that ever plays on the WPT.

#144 gadjet

gadjet

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 878 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 August 2006 - 10:01 AM

View Postjowest, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 12:47 PM, said:

let me summarize:Phil you are a traitor"no I am not"Holy crap a "famous" person acknowleged my existance. Never mind phil. you are the best everI know. The lawsuit is good because (insert same crap here)Wow phil your buns are tight. Let me massage them for you.
This right here was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read...While I do agree that if they require you to sign a waiver for all of your rights for the rest of your life it sucks... but if you have a problem with it just don't sign it... Skip the WPT tourneys and play in the bazillion other tournaments that are available... (Does Gordan even play still? or does he just dump his chips as fast as he can so he can provide some of the worst play-by-play in the history of commentating?)DN is correct in saying that the 7 shouldn't be claiming to represent the rest of the poker players, they should speak for themselves... but in this case they shouldn't... It is absolutely ridiculous to bring the profession of poker into a legal spotlight when there are already so many areas of the game that are in the shade... i.e. Online play, and taxes etc etc...DN, you should sue the 7 for misrepresentation... ha! which would be beautifully ironic given that that's what their trying to fight off...
"People can make up statistics to prove anything, 73% of people know that!" - Homer Simpson

#145 DerekTah

DerekTah

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 10:53 AM

View Postgadjet, on Friday, August 11th, 2006, 10:01 AM, said:

This right here was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read...While I do agree that if they require you to sign a waiver for all of your rights for the rest of your life it sucks... but if you have a problem with it just don't sign it... Skip the WPT tourneys and play in the bazillion other tournaments that are available... (Does Gordan even play still? or does he just dump his chips as fast as he can so he can provide some of the worst play-by-play in the history of commentating?)DN is correct in saying that the 7 shouldn't be claiming to represent the rest of the poker players, they should speak for themselves... but in this case they shouldn't... It is absolutely ridiculous to bring the profession of poker into a legal spotlight when there are already so many areas of the game that are in the shade... i.e. Online play, and taxes etc etc...DN, you should sue the 7 for misrepresentation... ha! which would be beautifully ironic given that that's what their trying to fight off...
I think the point is though that they want to play in the WPT but feel that the contract is illegal. If the contract was illegal then they can sue to change/invalidate it and still play. This is no more different then those contracts we have to checkmark before loading software, I mean sure we could just choose to uncheckmark and not use the software. Or we can complain that the contract is illegal (its already been done, most judges agree that the contract we check yes to before loading up a software program is illegal). There is more that can be done than just not playing in any WPT events.

#146 gadjet

gadjet

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 878 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 August 2006 - 11:21 AM

View PostDerekTah, on Friday, August 11th, 2006, 11:53 AM, said:

I think the point is though that they want to play in the WPT but feel that the contract is illegal. If the contract was illegal then they can sue to change/invalidate it and still play. This is no more different then those contracts we have to checkmark before loading software, I mean sure we could just choose to uncheckmark and not use the software. Or we can complain that the contract is illegal (its already been done, most judges agree that the contract we check yes to before loading up a software program is illegal). There is more that can be done than just not playing in any WPT events.
Well I want to play in the WPT but I feel the buy in is discriminatory against my medium limit grinding ***... Let's say the software you were using wasn't the most legal software in the world... would you still sue? That's the main concern here... is attracting unwanted attention...
"People can make up statistics to prove anything, 73% of people know that!" - Homer Simpson

#147 DerekTah

DerekTah

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 11:43 AM

View Postgadjet, on Friday, August 11th, 2006, 11:21 AM, said:

Well I want to play in the WPT but I feel the buy in is discriminatory against my medium limit grinding ***... Let's say the software you were using wasn't the most legal software in the world... would you still sue? That's the main concern here... is attracting unwanted attention...
If the software was illegal I doubt it would have the contract. But if your asking me would I sue to get my money back from the latest Grand Thieft Auto game if it doesn't work on my computer because by suing them I am giving the makers of GTA another black eye. Well yes I would.I don't understand the unwanted attention aspect. What exactly is going to happen, the court finds for the players and then the entire world says "oh no, how could this be, well I wasn't certain before by now it must be illegal". I don't even understand the idea of such a thought.

#148 animat_dominat

animat_dominat

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 12:32 PM

I find Daniel's attitude towards this very strange. In his blogs he rips the guys a new azzhole, then says "nothing personal dog, thats just my opinion, you know keeping it real." Then he wonders why they get mad at him, then he says he doesn't really care one way or another. Like I said he is the one bringing the negative attention to poker, and he is the one comparing it to prostitution. The only thing I can think of is that he somehow thinks this will hurt online poker (which I just don't see at all), and he thinks he is going to lose a ton of money from this site when they ban online poker.I guess if you think poker is something to be ashamed of like prostitution then I can see your point (in that case I would say hell yeah I'll sign it since you can't enforce a contract for an illegal activity anyway), but for those of us who see poker in a positive light and think this case is just about two parties bickering for their rights this whole thing is just bizarre.Edit: By the way I used to like Daniel even though I saw his nasty side before with the Annie Duke and Dreamclown situations (I didn't like the way he handled it but I thought they kind of deserved it). However, for him to rip into these seemingly decent guys for trying to protect their/and other's rights to their images is just wrong and I can't figure out his motivation for it. Why start something when your not involved in the case, and even if he thought it was bringing negative attention, he is bringing 10 times more negative attention through his actions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users