[LearnedfromTV]

I don't have a general problem with people playing on multiple accounts, or different people playing the same account, or two people making decisions together for a single account. All the switching names stuff is fine with me.

So there's no reason for me to be opposed to anything other than stuff going on when a player is involved in the operation of two accounts in the same tournament.

If the person giving advice was/is in the same tournament, but the person playing the account is making their own decisions, I think that's fine, as long as the advisor isn't at the same table or giving mutually beneficial advice (late in tournaments two accounts still in the tournament shouldn't be in the same room with each other). The difference between this and multiaccounting being that a multiaccounter can't avoid being at the same table with himself or being aware that a neutral or slightly negative EV decision (calling to a bust a short stack, for example) will benefit his other account. Two friends playing the same event in the same room and occasionally sharing ideas can.

What I have a real problem with is someone making all the decisions (or being the final decision making on the majority of decisions, or on the majority of key decisions) for more than one account in the same tournament, especially when they have a financial interest in both accounts. I didn't really think about the scenario where a much better player makes all the decisions for a friend without getting anything in return. This does bother me, as does it happening with a 5% stake, but the greater the financial interest, the more it bothers me. I don't think that's unreasonable. Ethics aren't black and white, and two versions of the same unethical behavior can be different degrees of unethical.

edit: Generally, though, I think it'll be either the worst case unethical behavior, or not at all. That is, there will be way more cases of someone unethically controlling an account in which they have 50%+ financial interest than with a 5% interest, simply because someone who owns 95% of himself is way more likely to make his own decisions and not to be in an predetermined arrangement where they give up control.