Ethics of stalling vs. EV

[bogey1]

Not sure what group this goes in...

First, the assumption: the smaller the M the more of a luckfest and the more likely the winner is related to the chip stacks.

Situation:
You're in the final table of a big tourney. WSOP, sunday Million, something that's big bucks to you. You've got a competitive chip stack. You're a decent poker player, but clearly outclassed by the other people at the final table.

Given your chip stack and you're calibre of opponents, it's best for you if you could basically play your cards and shove or fold. Lessen the skill factor. If you could, you'd love the blinds to crank up fast and make everyone "short". So, a +EV strategy would be to play as slow as you possibly can. Take forever with every fold, every bet. Let as few hands get played per blind level as possible.

Clearly this is rude at the least, and while legal, some would consider unethical. It is, however, a valid strategy.

At what stake is it worth it to you to stay "ethical" and play normally vs stall and try to make it a luckfest?

Me? If I'm in the final of a WSOP or even a Sunday million...I stall like freaking crazy. The EV I gain, what those $ can do for my family seems like a no brainer. Final of a $10 tourney, it's just rude and obnoxious to stall. So, clearly, the prize stake matters to me. Where would it matter to you?

If you're facing such an opponent and you know exactly why they're stalling, do you still despise them or do you (probably grudgingly) respect they're doing what little they can within the system to better their chances?