Is this wrong?

[jordankickz]

I'm pretty sure that according to sites rules that if player 1 entered tourney B that he cannot takeover, but he can if he didn't enter.

edit - are you asking about the legality of it or the ethics of it?

[djk123]

i guess both.

i can see how it would definitely be wrong if player 1 was planning on taking over player 2's tourney as soon as he busted his own. but if something unexpected comes up and player 2 had to leave, i don't see how it would be wrong.

[IWEARGOGGLES]

Just don't get Shaun Deeb to take over for you.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
Just don't get Shaun Deeb to take over for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

too soon

[gimmetheloot]

I see nothing wrong with this at all.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess both.

i can see how it would definitely be wrong if player 1 was planning on taking over player 2's tourney as soon as he busted his own. but if something unexpected comes up and player 2 had to leave, i don't see how it would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethically, I think the distinction is important, but as a matter of rules enforcement, "genuine emergency" is too vague a standard. I think any site would be justified in taking action against the player who took over no matter how good his excuse simply because from their perspective there is no way to distinguish between people with a good excuse and multi-accounters. Obviously it wouldn't be hard to make up a good excuse after the fact that couldn't be disproven.

[Eagles]

IMO nothing wrong here

[cking]

i think in these cases there is nothing morally wrong however i know that it is against most sites TOC's.