Is this wrong?
 

Player 1 and Player 2 regularly play online MTTs. Player 1 busts out of all his tourneys except for tourney A on Site X. Player 2 is only left in tourney B on Site Y.

All of a sudden Player 2 legitimately has to leave. Player 2 asks Player 1 to take over his tourney B on Site Y. Player 1 entered tourney B on Site Y but busted it earlier. Would it be wrong for Player 1 to takeover Player 2's tourney?

Does it make a difference if Player 1 hadn't entered tourney B?

Re: Is this wrong?
 

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?

Re: Is this wrong?
 

As long as it's just like a legitimate "Oh, I have to leave all of the sudden my mother was in an accident" I think it's fine.

I will admit I have done this once before, and I actually requested he get someone else to do it if he could but I was his last resort so I did. I don't feel bad about it.

If I had not entered the tournament, I have no problem really taking over. I have done it on more than one occasion and will probably do it again sometime in the future, and I will probably need someone else to take over at some point as well for whatever reason.

Just the other day I had my internet go out, unfortunately I couldn't get anyone to take over but I tried. I came back maybe 15-20 minutes later and most my stacks were gone, that sucks?

Re: Is this wrong?
 

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.

Re: Is this wrong?
 

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

Re: Is this wrong?
 

[ 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.

Re: Is this wrong?
 

IMO nothing wrong here

Re: Is this wrong?
 

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

Re: Is this wrong?
 

"Ethics" must be based on a foundation of ideology. Like from the Nazi's point of view nothing they did was un-ethical, since their (atrocious) acts were based in their ideology (absolutely no comparison, just an illustration).

Back to tournament poker, if the foundation is that "Thou shall not do anything that puts other players at unfair (that is, not skill-related) disadvantage" both descibed scenarios are un-ethical.

Since anybody can (and in the long run eventually will) experience force majeure preventing them from finishing a tournament, but not all players have access to a qualified stand-in, an unfair advantage is gained.

Anyway, since most sites TOS explicitly prohibits stand-ins, and TOS must be considered part of the rules of the game (even for all) breaking them is un-ethical in itself.

Re: Is this wrong?
 

I had a friend who had to leave to pick up his son so he called me to take over for him in a tourney. I never thought twice about it and he was second in chips at the time and I wound up winning the tourney. I do see how in a live tourney this could never happen so why should it online...but...I didnt see anything wrong with it.

Was I wrong?