To Petition or Not to Petition?

There have been a wide variety of reactions to the recent news that Poker player Nick DiVella is soliciting signatures for a petition to have Howard Lederer banned from playing poker at the Aria.

For those of you that may not know. Howard Lederer has been named in a civil indictment and is believed to have played a role in the “global ponzi scheme” otherwise known as Full Tilt Poker. The company was operating without the hundreds of millions of dollars in deposits of its players world wide.

Of the more than $300m in debt to players when the site was shut down in July 2011, over $150m of that money has yet to be paid back to US account holders that await a remission process to be executed by the US government. All that said, Lederer has not been charged with any criminal offense stemming from his dealings with Full Tilt Poker.

Many people are debating if a petition is appropriate. Should Aria ban Lederer? Do the players have the right to ask someone be banned even though this person has not even been convicted of a criminal offense? After all: innocent until proven guilty right?

The fact is none of that matters when assessing the decision to petition. Lederer’s status as innocent or guilty, good or bad, thief or unfortunate bystander is irrelevant in that regard.

Well-known figure John Duthie commented, “I don’t like witch hunts before someone has been proven guilty by a court of law. ... In the meantime for players to start petitioning for him not to be able to do what he wants to do wherever he chooses is blatantly wrong and you must know this.”

In our capitalist society consumers are allowed to vote with their dollars and private businesses are free to choose to react as they wish as long as their practices are not deemed discriminatory towards any of the government protected classes such as gender, race, religion etc.

If this group of players wants to send MGM, parent company of Aria, a message with their wallets, that they don’t want to patronize a poker room that caters to Howard Lederer, they are completely within their rights to do so.

Didn’t Tiger Woods lose millions in endorsement deals as a result of his actions? Was he charged with a crime?

No.

The reality is that people and companies make choices all the time based on their own private value systems.

If MGM makes a decision to ban Lederer based on the potential loss of profit or potential damage to their brand so be it. Or, if MGM decides to allow Lederer to continue to play at its properties based on principle that is also their choice.

Mason Malmuth, the “top dog” at 2+2, found the notion of a petition “troubling.” Suggesting instead that DiVella stimulate discussion on the forums.

Having adult conversations about the topic can benefit the community as a whole in many ways. People may come to better understand the situation, poker rooms may come to better understand the community’s concerns. But it seems ironic to me that the “top dog” condemns the very act that has stimulated the most discussion on the topic to date.

So think, do we really want to discourage peaceful demonstration or the expression of dissatisfaction with the stats quo simply because we don’t agree with the principle behind it?