[scrawnybob]

hi Mike

I see your point but isn't that looking at who the potential "criminals" of the bill actually are

as I understood it (totally prepared to be put right) but within the remit of the online gambling bill it's still about the BANKING of it not the provision etc

the US player is not the "criminal or criminalised"
(which you would think he was)

but it's potentially the Banks who are criminalised for enabling the real money transaction

The poker room is not the "criminal" either (as they seem to see it)

So how can we be aiding and abetting - we not providing information to commit the actual "crime" of transferring money through a bank we are providing the information of the existance of a poker room which is open to US players but which cannot be funded through a "criminal" bank method

seems like that is a big difference - the bill is still about the banking - not the player and not the poker site (therefore not the affiliate)

I can see if we however recommeded some type of fraudulent way that breaks the law of the bill (like a way of banking somewhere that has been banned) then thats obviously wrong

but as some said earlier - this bill has a funny setup (designed to mess us up but not specifically banning online poker)

just a thought / idea scrawnybob