Ethics Question

[GTDawg]

Advocating the changing of your name is different from making it illegal or forbidden.

To change your screenname is to take advantage of the next logical point in the anonymity of the internet. And that, my friend, is what is so great about the internet.

Is it really any more ethically wrong than the act of gambling or taking the person's money to begin with? Does Phil Ivey owe it to everybody to play as Phil_Ivey?

Where would you start the giant scale of ethics?


Situation 1:
If you don't like the headsup question...What if I told you there was this guy that has a gambling problem...dude gives out money like an ATM. But damnit, he sure does love poker. His screenname is blahblahblah. Is it ethically wrong to take his money if you see him sitting all alone at a table?

What if you take your winnings and provide for your family or donate it to charity? Or you buy new equipment for the kids on your bball team?

Situation 2:
What if the guy doesn't have a gambling problem and is actually just incredibly wealthy and playing with no stresses whatsoever...but, you take your winnings to invest in drug smuggling or gun running?

=============
Which is ethically worse? Situation 1 or situation 2?

Poker in and of itself can be considered ethically and morally wrong. I don't think this situation is any different than the use of extra programs to find stats on players that you may or may not have ever played against.

[PShabi]

<Sigh>

Conversation over.

[Zybomb]

I agree with GTDawg the entire way here

[melioris]

This is an interesting discussion. What I have learned most is that you all suck at making analogies.

Seriously though, while live poker and internet poker are different beast entirely, there is a direct comparison that no one has mentioned yet. Back in the WSOP a couple of years ago there was a famous hand between Howard Lederer and somebody else. The hand had lots of action and the nameless one shoves (on the river I think) and then pulls his shirt over his head. Everyone laughs, but the guy stays that way until Lederer folds. As I remember fuckface’s hiding was not considered unethical, and I would think that hiding during a major hand in a live game a farther deviation from the spirit of the game than using a different account on the internet.

[Dodoubled]

Ha! Surely, you jest.

ETHICS:ONLINE POKER::

A.) WHITE:RICE
B.) STINK:SHIT
C.) POPE:CATHOLIC
D.) DODOUBLED:GETTING LAID TONIGHT

STOP!
PLEASE PUT YOUR NO. 2 PENCIL DOWN, CLOSE YOUR TEST BOOKS AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION FROM YOUR PROCTOR.

[melioris]

knows the answer

[Dodoubled]

I guessed the right one. Do I get a cookie?

[Talking Poker]

Catchy tune. I'll be singing that all day fo sho...

[drewjax]

I remember this vividly. The funny thing is, that NAMELESS guy, (and I think he was basically a nameless guy at the time), has now turned into Cowboy Kenna James. A pretty decent player, and he has even been a commentator on several poker shows.
As for the subject at hand, its tough to say. Like with this Kenna James thing, (pulling jacket over head), or Phil Laak doing the same thing. There are no RULES against it, but many feel its just not right. I know that Negreanu hates this BS. He can often get on his soapbox, but he has a good point. Where do you draw the line? He asks the question that if all this is LEGAL, what would stop someone from literally bringing a box, and sitting in it while playing (maybe with little holes for his arms to push chips etc. lol danger Will Robinson)? Is that cool?
Also, I dont use them, but what about all these programs, like PT, HUDace, etc. TP and others have said they draw the line if the sites allow them (and I basically agree with that premise). But correct me if I'm wrong, but dont some sites TECHNICALLY not allow datamining? I am pretty sure this is the case. That is why some of these other programs/add-ons have popped up, to allow players to datamine when its not SUPPOSED to be happening. Another example is using information from sites like SharkScope. Again, I am pretty sure that Stars (and other sites) say that datamining in this fasion is not allowed. But the info is out there. So is it unethical for someone to buyin to a sng or mtt, and look up someones stats on sharkscope or the pokerdb? Well I think techinically it is not allowed by the site so it should be considered unethical. BUT, if everyone else is doing it, wtf right. You are putting yourself at a disadvantage by not using all the info.

I would love to play in an online world where we all had one ID. I think that is the most ethical way to do it. I think that to switch your ID is a BIT unethical. But again, if everyone else is doing it..............

With all of this babbling I think the answer is clear..There is no right answer either way.

[JDMcNugent7]

agreed. very few of these make good sense. does everyone understand the definition of ethical?

[Zybomb]

pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

[Boobie Lover]

Here's a on this exact topic.

[Dodoubled]

That's exactly what makes this such an entertaining thread. Our friend Noah Webster has used a black-and-white definition to describe something that's anything but. Everyone's sense of morality (or in plainer terms, right and wrong), differs in some way.

Don't forget, there are plenty of extremists out there who think poker -- and gambling in general -- is unethical, thereby making this discussion moot (at least in their eyes).

[GTDawg]

Which ones don't make sense?

[Zybomb]

Still deceit either way

[GTDawg]

I don't understand why that question would signal the end of a conversation. Logically, it is fair to wonder how you view ethical and moral wrongs.

Surely, you do not see the act of taking someone else's money as an ethical wrong. They are doing so at their own free will. And, they are doing it with the knowledge that they may lose it.

However, you are taking someone else's money for your own. Your gain is dependent on someone else's loss.

That is a basic assessment of the ethical and moral implications of such an act.

==============
To add...I figured the whole taking an addicts' money and donating to charity would be the point you ended the conversation. I didn't think the throw away question at the top of the post would do it.