hiv and shaundeeb are total scum

[El Diablo]

nath,

"bait people into taking shots"

That's the scummy part.

Doesn't matter whether it's done to your friends or not, still scummy.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
nath,

"bait people into taking shots"

That's the scummy part.

Doesn't matter whether it's done to your friends or not, still scummy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any different from NW taking the name ESS?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
nath,

"bait people into taking shots"

That's the scummy part.

Doesn't matter whether it's done to your friends or not, still scummy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of what I was trying to get at in the other thread. It seems to me like this practice is accepted at least somewhat in other contexts online, particularly in online tournies. The freezeout angle does make it worse here, but I'm still surprised at the depth of the reaction when it's largely ignored elsewhere. nath thinking, for example, that tongni exploiting HIV's [censored] reputation isn't scummy in itself is illuminating.

I find discussions of poker ethics fascinating, because everybody has an opinion and frequently not the slightest reasoning about what makes various things acceptable.

EDIT: Also, I like how OP thinks they are total scum, but didn't post anything about it until after it had already become public knowledge, so that he can then look totally righteous taking potshots at such terrible scum. Classy!

[MrTimCaum]

[ QUOTE ]
Just kids being kids. I dont know why anybody would trust young douchebag poker pros to begin with, so who really cares...

[/ QUOTE ]

there are large numbers of 2p2ers and p5ers that I would trust with large sums of money. many of them in the 18-19 year old range. even a 17 year old in there with that group. i've always believed that the large majority of poker pros are some of the most honest and trustworthy people around. unfortunately, there are a handful of people in our field that ruin it for the rest of us.


[ QUOTE ]


However, the following makes you seem not exactly scum-free yourself:

"Tongni would sit in the game using HIV's account and bait people into taking shots and absolutely destroy them. At the time, I didn't think anything of it, since I didn't think they'd specifically target nath and gildwulf."

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I had just finished playing the most grueling day of poker in my life, 8-9 hours at an incredibly tough table on day 2 of the PCA, with Michael Binger and Scott Clements giving me absolute fits the entire day. I spent several hours working a very short stack only to make a run at the end of the day to get back to 2/3 average.

I was mentally and physically exhausted, just happy to be sitting there eating my bowl of soup and meat loaf entree with a stack to come back to in the morning. The moment I finished my meal, I excused myself from the table so I could go straight to bed. I tried to give gobbo some money for the meal but he refused it, saying he'd pick up the tab (they ended up playing credit card roulette and PrimeTime won, thanks for the meal sir).

I was so tired I really didn't consider the implications, and I certainly didn't think they'd lie straight to my face two nights later to get nath's phone number.


[ QUOTE ]
im confused why shaundeeb is taking so much heat. just bc he knew and didnt notify nash/gild? was he also financially invested? was it his idea (mastermind)?

seems tongni and hiv acted as complete scum. deeb, however, is just guilty of inaction which is not quite as bad.

or was deeb friends with nath so this is a form of betrayal? if someone tried to scam me and a trusted friend sat by an watched i would proly be more angry at him.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I walked up to them after getting back the lobby after running into Jurollo and Co. shaun was very vocal about how this wasn't the plan and they weren't using tongni to try and [censored] nath out of money. Tongni didn't say a word, he just sat there.

A few moments later, I saw everyone get back off the elevator and they said they had both notified nath and Gildwulf about the plan, so all was good and we headed off the Senor Frogs. I get back 6-7 hours later and see the first thread. Look at shaun's posts in there and tell me what you think.

[ QUOTE ]
theres nothing wrong with trusting people. its the people that take advantage of that trust that are the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

ding

[ QUOTE ]

OP, Would you tell me if I'm wrong but the way I read that was "It's ok to screw people over as long as they aren't friends of mine".

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be absolutely wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Also, I like how OP thinks they are total scum, but didn't post anything about it until after it had already become public knowledge, so that he can then look totally righteous taking potshots at such terrible scum. Classy!

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew everything was fine on our end when everyone got back off the elevator and said they had alerted nath and gildwulf and it was safe to head out to Senor Frogs. I wasn't going to ruin my night of partying in order to run back to my laptop to post a huge thread when I knew it was ok to get into the taxi with everyone.

When I got back several hours later, I saw the first thread, talked to nath briefly on AIM, and decided it was time to try and clear up what went down.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
nath thinking, for example, that tongni exploiting HIV's [censored] reputation isn't scummy in itself is illuminating.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what I said.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nath thinking, for example, that tongni exploiting HIV's [censored] reputation isn't scummy in itself is illuminating.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Can we say there's a difference between

a)Tongni playing on HIV's account,
b)Tongni playing on HIV's account and, say, posting an NVG or BBV thread entitled "HIV SITTING AT 1K/2K STARS GOGOGOGOGO",
and c)Tongni playing on HIV's account and having HIV actively set up HU matches vs. him?

a) doesn't seem too scummy, but b) and c) pretty clearly are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this phrasing pretty strongly suggests that you think b and c are scummy, and a isn't (or is borderline but probably acceptable.) Unless what you meant is b and c are pretty clearly "too scummy," which would be strange usage.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nath thinking, for example, that tongni exploiting HIV's [censored] reputation isn't scummy in itself is illuminating.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Can we say there's a difference between

a)Tongni playing on HIV's account,
b)Tongni playing on HIV's account and, say, posting an NVG or BBV thread entitled "HIV SITTING AT 1K/2K STARS GOGOGOGOGO",
and c)Tongni playing on HIV's account and having HIV actively set up HU matches vs. him?

a) doesn't seem too scummy, but b) and c) pretty clearly are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this phrasing pretty strongly suggests that you think b and c are scummy, and a isn't (or is borderline but probably acceptable.) Unless what you meant is b and c are pretty clearly "too scummy," which would be strange usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let me clarify, lest you continue trolling me while I'm off in the poker room.

Since some of the online poker rooms have already implied that they cannot and plan to do nothing about multiple people playing an account or hand at once, this has become an accepted practice and something that the player is at least always aware of and knows to watch for. In addition, people can play on other people's accounts for reasons that are essentially honest (or at least, not intending to cheat). It doesn't mean I agree with it, but it is, at this point in time, part of the lay of the land.

The other two are very clearly attempts to deceive and to angle-shoot or cheat other players into entering a situation that is not what is advertised. They are blatant attempts to set up and take advantage of another player in a dishonest fashion.

Are we clear?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


OK, let me clarify, lest you continue trolling me while I'm off in the poker room.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to troll you; you made a quote that I responded to as part of the discussion, then you disagreed with my interpretation of it. I responded with your actual quote, which is apparently trolling, and then you give an explanation that seems to me to fit what I've already said.

[ QUOTE ]

The other two are very clearly attempts to deceive and to angle-shoot or cheat other players into entering a situation that is not what is advertised. They are blatant attempts to set up and take advantage of another player in a dishonest fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to the case they're talking about in HSNL where Antonius sat down on Roland de Wolfe's account in order to get action? Which seems to fall under the first activity you have described, which you view as acceptable (you keep saying you don't necessarily agree with it, but given your tendency to make loud noises about things you actually do disagree with, I think you at least think it's not really bad.)

It seems to me like a debate on sins by omission vs. commission. And the freezeout angle really does add a lot. But otherwise, I think the distinction is really pretty small.

EDIT: Also, this

[ QUOTE ]
Since some of the online poker rooms have already implied that they cannot and plan to do nothing about multiple people playing an account or hand at once, this has become an accepted practice and something that the player is at least always aware of and knows to watch for.

[/ QUOTE ]

formm of argumentation can be used in exactly the same way to justify these crimes against humanity that we're all discussing, since clearly the poker rooms have no more ability to stop that than they do anything else.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to troll you

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nath the paragon of virtue

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you aren't.

Anyway, to respond to what you wrote, I haven't followed the Antonius / de Wolfe discussion, so I have no idea what the particulars are. I will say that nothing is black and white, and there are degrees of unethical, and also that someone can play on someone else's account for relatively legitimate (or at least not strictly unethical) reasons. Having said that, I think a player who uses someone else's account expressly to disguise their identity and gain an advantage that way is "wrong", generally speaking.