Re: On Ghosting
There's something [censored] up in the debate.
On what basis do we define "ethical" behavior?
Is this about "what I think the game should be like", or about "what serves my interests (EV) best", or "what serves the (survival) interest of poker as a game played online in the US the best"? Or something completely different?
Saying "I think this or that is un-ethical" is really not saying anything.
For example, I think that raising the quality of the game is a goal in itself.
We keep repeating that poker is a game of skill, not luck. If 1,000 newbs sit down and play a tournament, it's pretty much 100% luck. If 1,000 top pros sit down and play, skill is obv. the main factor in determining the outcome. This claim alone is our main platform for insisting that poker should be 100% legal (EDIT: together with the "consenting adults" line of argument).
So, in my mind, anything that contributes to increase the skill level of as many players as possible is good, good for me, good for poker - and absolutely ethical.
Ghosting, in the sense sweating, discussing and giving advice to an inferior player is by far one of the most effective ways of raising the skill level.
So even if it might skew the result from what the player in question might achieve in one specific tournament it's an ethical and honorable undertaking.
It's really not possible to distinguish ethical and un-ethical approaches without defining values.
|