Love Poker?
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 26 March 2006 | 39 responses
Thanks to a partnership with PartyPoker.com, ITA readers are entitled to a free $25 signup bonus when you deposit a minimum $50 with the site. Just click on the image to the left and use the bonus code “AGORA” when you sign up.
As a frequent poker player myself and a user of the site, I can attest to its superiority over other poker sites. It is, after all, the biggest poker website in the world. So if you like playing and want an additional $25, go here and get started. Remember to use the bonus code “AGORA”.
39 Responses to “Love Poker?”
What’s next, an ITA partnership with on-line porn?
Umm…
Was “thou shalt not play Party Poker” the 11th Commandment that broke off that second tablet?
I’ve never understood why some people interpret “piety” as meaning “never, ever do anything fun.” (I’m looking at you, St. Augustine!)
I’ll hold my tongue on the comment about pornography – that’s a discussion for a different day – and we’ll stick to gambling for now.
I agree with Joel. I’m kind of surprised about this affiliation myself.
Ethics and morality aside, the legality or illegality of on-line gambling has not been established. I’m a little surprised that ITA would endorse something where legality has not been clearly determined.
Further, on-line gambling has been specifically outlawed by some states and some credit card companies won’t accept charges because they are unsure whether it is a legal activity. This particular company owns no assets in the U.S. specifically for the purpose of skirting U.S. gambling laws.
It is one thing for Josh or any other ITA writer to be involved in gambling as a personal decison. However, though it is their right to use ITA to promote gambling, I’m sorely disappointed that they are doing so.
Problem on-line gambling has become a significant crisis for many college kids. I don’t see that they need an extra push from Christian leaders.
I’m going to just chuckle at the piety comment. Usually some people consider my moral standards not strict enough, so if here they are considered too straight-laced, I can abide that. Turnabout is fair play.
Actually, while several states have [done their best to] ban online gambling, it’s still quite legal in Indiana and federally – otherwise, I doubt that Bob Goodlatte would be so excited about reintroducing his bill to federally ban it.
(That doesn’t actually addess any point; more just for informational purposes.)
Lest anyone think this is an easy way to make $25 (as I did, contemplating merely withdrawing my $75 after my initial deposit of $50), the free money comes with some pretty serious strings attached.
I can’t say that I completely understand the terms, but I can tell that there’s a fair amount of risk required before you get your bonus.
Hmm, that’s interesting Loren. But it seems the terms you’ve linked to deal with referrals. I don’t think that has anything to do with actually using the site.
The key seems to be item 4) on the page Loren linked. It specifically states what the “referred friend” must do to get their $25:
Poker: The Referred Friend must play raked hands of poker equal to five (5) times the bonus amount ($25) before the bonus is transferred to his/her real money account from the bonus account. In addition, we will release $50 only after the Referred Friend has played 125 raked hands.
So, you have to wager $125 before you’ll get your bonus $25.
Ahhh, I see now. Muy interesante, and good to know.
Well, they’re a business – they’re not going to create a system where you can just get free money. Very rarely can you get the signup bonus for any service (a checking account, for instance) without any strings attached.
But if you were thinking about signing up anyway (as I was, since I am less and less impressed with Bodog over time), and if you were going to spend the money anyway, then it’s better to sign up this way and get “$25 off a purchase of $125″ (basically what we’re talking about here).
Many of the chief owners of the outfit have had serious connections to online pornography. I just think people should know the type of people they are affiliating with.
I’m still surprised that ITA wants to advance this cause, but it appears I’m not going to get an answer to my concerns, so I’ll abandon this post and address it my own post.
Actually, on-line gambling is illegal in Indiana. See:IC 35-45-5-2
Unlawful gambling
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally engages in gambling commits unlawful gambling.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), unlawful gambling is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) An operator who knowingly or intentionally uses the Internet to engage in unlawful gambling:
(1) in Indiana; or
(2) with a person located in Indiana;
commits a Class D felony.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.81; P.L.70-2005, SEC.3.
Joel your concerns will be addressed shortly. My apologies for not answering them directly here, but I intended to either over email or a separate post.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of online gambling I think you need to be careful running this alongside Adsense. The Adsense policies page states “Site may not include: Gambling or casino-related content.” I’d say if nothing else you need to delete this post or ditch Adsense.
Adsense has no policy about what other ads are on the page. That policy only reflects the ads that Adsense runs. Besides, there is only this post, and nothing more.
What do the bloggers at In the Agora get for pimping comps? How many of your readers signed in?
Joel’s point is well taken – if the members of In the Agora are willing to solicite for PartyPoker, there is little point gambling on the odds there will be a credible post on moral, economic, ethical, public health or legal issues of online gambling.
The money they pay out under their affiliate scheme does look very attractive and i can see why site owners do it. I think we should be charitable, BD, and call this an error of judgement.
But it is an error for a site which has been prominent in Christian blogging circles to be promoting an industry that is built on misery and exploitation. Online gambling is not harmless fun.
Look, online gambling is, in fact, harmless fun for most of the people who participate – just like real-life gambling. If you think that’s wrong, then I challenge you to go read newspaper articles from when riverboat gambling was legalized in Indiana. Read all the sky-is-falling arguments about what would happen to unemployment (it would rise due to people spending 20 hours a day at the boats), to families (the divorce rate would skyrocket as wives lost their husbands to the boat, which was also a rather sexist claim), and crime rates (they’d go through the roof as all the gambling addicts started stealing and robbing to feed their addiction).
THe simple fact is that none of this happened. None of it. That’s because an overwhelming majority of people have no problem controlling themselves, and as gambling is a psychological addiction, not a physical one, most people who are likely to get addicted to gambling will just get addicted to something else if there’s no gambling.
So, go do some research: and not just some scare pieces from weekly newsmagazines. You may think that gambling is morally wrong (for whatever reason), but for each person that gambles their life away, there are hundreds who have fun with it and use it safely and smartly. I know the point of the conservative movement is to try and “keep things the way they were” – I know what it means to be a conservative. But I also know that there used to be people who wanted to pull Hardy Boys novels out of kids’ hands because of the dire effect they’d have on youth; who wanted to pull comics out of kids hands because they tainted the mind.
You know, it’s seriously amazing to me how self-righteous and sanctimonious some of you can be. I never knew that some of you were morally perfect in every way and had room to criticize Josh for every single tiny little move he makes, as if you are the arbiter of all that is good and right in the world.
It always shocks me; I suppose it shouldn’t, but it does.
And the self-righteousness with respect to gambling is nothing compared to the self-righteousness you see with respect to pornography. It’s pretty much the same deal. With some folks, it becomes a problem. But for the majority it’s harmless entertainment.
Of more concern, I would think, is the potential that to encourage on-line gambling in Indiana is to encourage criminal activity in violation of IC 35-45-5-2 cited above. Whether the activity ought to be criminal is certainly open to debate, but that’s the law of Indiana right now.
Nick,
I don’t think I’ve treated Josh unfairly or acted in a sanctimonious manner. In fact, I once wrote that I thought he was a nicer or more decent person than I and I think that is still the case. On the other hand, let’s not pretend that he hasn’t tossed some barbs my way or toward others he disagrees with. On his old blog he once wrote (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that United Methodists were more interested in the cause of gay clergy than in bringing people to Christ. Josh has let it be known in no uncertain terms that he considers certain things right or wrong and has called people on those issues.
It also appears that the “partnership” decision was a joint ITA decision, so it is unfortunate that Josh gets singled out, but it was his name on the post.
How is what I did in addressing the post any different than what Josh or other ITA writers have done dozens of times? (I think my views on economic justice have been pretty roundly ridiculed here, for instance.) It struck me perhaps the more offensive because it was put up on a Sunday, considered the Sabbath by most Christians. (My impression is that originally is was posted at 2:27 p.m., but might have been restamped to an earlier time so that it was no longer the lead post. I could be mistaken, though.)
It did seem to me that Josh was deliberately avoiding addressing my concerns; perhaps I was wrong about that and that he just needed more time.
I’m well aware that any of us come can across as self-righteous. Not too long back I wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper of my former hometown defending the local movie theater for its showing of “Brokeback Mountain.”
I would hope that Josh is still considering a reply, as I am interested in what he has to say.
It also appears that the “partnership” decision was a joint ITA decision
Let me just say for now that I did not endorse the “partnership.”
BTW, Joel, I don’t think your views on economic justice have been “ridiculed” here, at least not by ITA’s authors. I respect the sincerity and earnestness you have in those beliefs, and they have given me much food for thought, even though I still disagree that it is proper or wise to implement economic justice legislatively.
As Eric notes, it was not a joint decision, although it should have been. And let me also join Eric in stating I do not ever recall Joel’s views on economic justice being ridiculed.
Josh,
Perhaps “ridicule” was too strong a word. My point was directed at Nick, anyway, for his seeming view that it is sanctimonious to challenge someone’s else’s view on a particular moral issue.
Further, the world is coming to an end soon, anyway, if Sampson is going to Indiana from Oklahoma.
That was poor editing on my part: I wasn’t calling you sanctimonious, Joel. I disagree with you on practically everything I can recall you writing, but personally, I think you’re pretty even keeled and non-sanctimonious. My bad.
I was, however, calling Bene D sanctimonious. I doubt he is without sin, no matter how many stones he casts.
RE Adsense. My reading of it is against the Adsense terms and conditions for the page displaying the ads to have any gambling-related content.
Nick, OK, I’ll quit being so testy.
In the Agora bloggers:
The comp post read as a group partnership.
I erronously assumed this was a joint co-blogger decision.
I agree with Richard, it appears this was an individual lapse of judgement, accept my apology if my objection was perceived as uncharitable, I am not without sin.
Take your shots and move on to the meat of your gambling POV or drop it.
As for my moral outrage, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Many people are interested in economic and social impact studies – to assume everyone addressing gambling issues are moralistic, self-righteous, sanctimonious people out to ‘get Joshua’ is wasted hyperbole.
There are people who are anti gambling for moral reasons, just as there are people who gamble for fun and without harm.
Would the Earl L. Grinols, David B. Mustard 2001 study be an acceptable none sanctimonious starting point of discussion for you Nick?
I’m willing to look at any data, studies, etc – but you have to admit that “if the members of In the Agora are willing to solicite for PartyPoker, there is little point gambling on the odds there will be a credible post on moral, economic, ethical, public health or legal issues of online gambling” sounds just a tad sanctimonious, don’t you?
As an employee of the state agency that regulates casinos, I feel the need to distance myself from this entire deal. I had nothing to do with it and didn’t even know it was happening (as if my several-week absence from the site isn’t enough evidence…).
I have made my thoughts known on this matter to various parties via email. The short version is, I’m with Eric and Adam.
Nick – Joshua Claybourn comps for a gambling site – he writes it a way that makes it sound like co-bloggers were in agreement.
Apparently not. We’re clear on that now.
If you’d like to discuss gambling, that’s up to you – it’s complex and jumping from land to internet, morality to addiction in a sentence or two is not a discussion. I’m asking that those who discuss it, set parameters and be forthcoming about involvement in the industry.
If you feel I was santicmonious, fine. If I jumped to the conclusion this PartyPoker partnership involved all of you at this blog – so did others.
Yep. Just a tad sanctimonious.
I amended my post at Connexions, reprinted at Wesley Daily, to indicate that it was not a joint decision of ITA bloggers.
I wanted to highlight what I consider an important matter, but I regret anything I’ve done to make this about personalities rather than issues.
You didn’t Joel. Your post was informative, no one assumes everyone knows the background of PartyPoker and it’s sister site. You provided valuable information in a timely fashion.
I think it’s gracious of you to apologize, but seems to me some comments here were willfully directed at you personally.
I would be weary of moralists coming at me with some of the stuff Nick speaks about in this thread.
You presented solid facts in your piece at connexions, your quickness in amending the post is commendable, and anyone in this discussion who was unaware of the the PokerParty history and tactics,now have a few basics.
What does the poster (JC) get for pimping comps to readers? How many readers signed up?
I can answer that last one, though ‘pimping’ wouldn’t be my choice of word. ;o)
The answer is – it depends.
If you affiliate on a percentage basis then they claim to pay 20% of revenues up to £10000, and 25% of revenues over £10000.
If you sign up on their ‘per sign up’ plan, then they pay a one-off $75 for every ‘real money player’ that signs up through an affiliate link.
They claim that some of their affiliates earn over $1 million pa. That’s big money, and I can see the attraction.
I take Nick’s point seriously, but I disagree strongly with the ‘gambling is harmless fun’ view. There are some (wealthy folk, usually) who can treat it that way, but for many it is destructive and dangerous, and not something that I believe Christians should be comfortable with promoting or profiting from. If that makes me sanctimonious, I can live with that.
Bene,
You make some excellent points, but one source of my unease is that after reading a number of your comments regarding Josh or his posts present or past I sometimes get the feeling that you are nursing a grudge that you find it hard to let go of. I don’t know what it was about (or maybe I’m just imagining) but whatever it was, Josh seems to haved moved on. Maybe I’m out of line, but I’m just sharing my perception.
Joel:
Grudge:
[n] a resentment strong enough to justify retaliation; “holding a grudge”; “settling a score”
[v] accept or admit unwillingly
[v] bear a grudge; harbor ill feelings
Okay. Then step up as an experienced minister I can respect and suggest what I need to be doing about it.
Joel,
If my memory serves, you made a rather insightful comment about Bene. I believe that several years ago (when Josh was operating his personal blog) in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Josh and Bene had some spirited exchanges on that topic.
However, I could be wrong and I might be mixing up Bene with another non-US female blogger.
…and if I’m entirely wrong and Bene is a guy, my apologies.
It goes back to more than Joshua’s first blog and a few misplaced words Eric.
The comps possibly being a group blog decision irritated and shocked me when I saw Joel’s post at connexions.
After reading Nick’s rant/comment, I think I have new appreciation that Nick and some of you may actually be exposed to that kind of thinking and lecturing.
I’d rant too.
I dealt with Joshua recently on a none related blog matter. He was prompt,courteous and profesional – it was in his best interests to be so and I commend him.
Both Joel and Joshua had suffered great loss and deep grief when they met in October(?)and were able to provide each other compassion, empathy and comfort from what I read in Joel’s posts.
So, if Joel has something he needs/wants to say to me about attitude, he has the floor.
“…the free money comes with some pretty serious strings attached.”
This has already sort of been addressed, but the “serious strings” is really a non-issue. What Party Poker is doing is pretty much the same thing as what some casinos do – they’re forwarding you a bit of extra money *to use for gambling at their establishment*. Of course they’re not giving you free money.