hiv and shaundeeb are total scum

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to troll you

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put that back in context. entertainme was suggesting that my ethics are suspect in her post, at least to my reading. I was pointing out that this was a little weird considering that my stance is that multiaccounting in general is dirty, whereas you (whose virtues she extolled in her post as the most consistent ethics poster here, thus the paragon of virtue comment directed at her) appeared to have a softer stance on that one. So by virtue of thinking MORE things were on shaky ground, and questioning why this particular act is so much worse, I'm now a dodgy character compared to you, from her point of view. Thus, my comment.

[nath]

Saying I'm soft on multiaccounting is pretty inaccurate, given everything I posted about ZeeJustin, and how I stood my ground even when a lot of people were ripping me for it.

But these threads are to the point where now I'm spending time swatting off people who are picking nits over a particular word choice of mine instead of trying to understand the point I've been making and the obvious ethical issues here. I'm not interestted in Politics-style debating where I have to make sure every word I choose is perfect and without reproach before my points are deemed acceptable.

Cliff notes: I'm tired of defending my ethics to people who are just nitpicking.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Cliff notes: I'm tired of defending my ethics to people who are just nitpicking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are still misinterpreting my intent. (EDIT: Oh yeah, and it's ironic to me that your post is about nitpicking and then you take umbrage with multiaccounting, where in the context of this discussion I'm clearly talking about multiple people using one account and not multiple accounts for one person. Context is king.) My initial post:

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to delineate the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable is interesting to me, and I like discussing this kind of [censored]. Most other people don't seem to. You are a useful example because you have stated your opinions on the subject publicly, and so I can point to what you think to have something to actually talk about. To say that you don't believe a particular action isn't scummy isn't really to suggest that you're a dirtbag so much as it is a useful probe for where the edges are.

[0evg0]

blah blah meow mix and how with new purina puppy chow wow

DIE THREAD DIE

im pretty sure all this thread added to the title was that

a) tongni sucks too

and

b) there sure are a lot of dem retardos round here

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Cliff notes: I'm tired of defending my ethics to people who are just nitpicking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are still misinterpreting my intent. (EDIT: Oh yeah, and it's ironic to me that your post is about nitpicking and then you take umbrage with multiaccounting, where in the context of this discussion I'm clearly talking about multiple people using one account and not multiple accounts for one person. Context is king.) My initial post:

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to delineate the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable is interesting to me, and I like discussing this kind of [censored]. Most other people don't seem to. You are a useful example because you have stated your opinions on the subject publicly, and so I can point to what you think to have something to actually talk about. To say that you don't believe a particular action isn't scummy isn't really to suggest that you're a dirtbag so much as it is a useful probe for where the edges are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fair enough. I probably am misinterpreting your intent, but you'll have to understand that, given that these two threads are full of people using dubious nitpicking arguments to justify HIV et al's actions and question my ethics.

I wouldn't mind coming up with some sort of definable line so that we could be clear on these things in the future. I'm just too tired to really think these things through and have the kind of discussion you're hoping for right now. (After all, it's 6:30 AM here and I played poker for at least 10 hours.)