Cage mistake at CAZ

[canis582]

You know, monopoly is really indoctrinating. Imagine giving the error back when you played with your parents/siblings when you were young.

Didn't the dealer at least do a double take when you were unloading huge stacks of red at 1-2? is it no cap there?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to earn my Poker Curmudgeon badge on 2+2. This entails acting bitter about things you should really just let go.. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You got at least one vote from this seat on the Membership Committee.

Although to really be a lock, you'd need to post several items on the "B&M cliche" thread with commentary about how unfunny the gags are.

[Paul Levy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All in all I think I'd rather have a BJ from each of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong They're both very nice but since they're both married that would be inappropriate. I think the Buffet would have been perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't figure you for the jealous type.

[bernie]

In some places, they'll realize the error and ask for the money back on your next visit.

b

[SplawnDarts]

I think most people are giving the right advice, but for the wrong reason. Regardless of who eats the $100, keeping it is dishonest. Selling your soul for $100 is something I know I couldn't live with. Every man may have a price, but if yours is $100 that's kinda pathetic.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Selling your soul for $100 is something I know I couldn't live with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask 100 people if they'd keep $100 illegitimately received from a large corporation if they knew there'd be no repurcussions and 50 would say "yes". And probably a lot of those who respond "no" would in practice actually give in to temptation if presented with the opportunity.

But ask 100 people if they'd take the $100 if they knew the responsible person would be held accountable and would have to make restitution and/or lose their job, and most folks won't do it.

So while you can preach morality for morality's sake and threaten hell and damnation, I don't think it's very effective if the perceived "victim" is a giant corporation. I think it's much more effective to point out that in a case like this there probably is a specific individual who will be held accountable in one way or another. Taking $100 from a multi-billion dollar corporation carries little ethical burden for most folks. Screwing a specific person whose face and name you know, even if they will never figure out who did it, gets back to basic Golden Rule principles that all but the most psychopathic can feel.

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Selling your soul for $100 is something I know I couldn't live with. Every man may have a price, but if yours is $100 that's kinda pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get serious. People routinely keep amounts that they are not 100% entitled too. Take the following example.

Lets say the penalty for speeding is a $100 fine, and you are driving along when you notice that, low and behold, you are exceeding the posted speed limit. You slow down and are not pulled over. Do you fess up by admitting your guilt and sending a $100 payment to the local City government? If you keep quiet, then are you not "selling your soul" for $100?

FWIW, I would return the money unless I was 100% sure that the cashier would suffer no repercussions. However, I don't think that someone will burn in eternal damnation if they keep it. I guess we will find out who is right some day.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Selling your soul for $100 is something I know I couldn't live with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask 100 people if they'd keep $100 illegitimately received from a large corporation if they knew there'd be no repurcussions and 50 would say "yes".

[/ QUOTE ]

And probably half the population has morals that resemble nothing so much as an open pit latrine. Doesn't mean I should play into their mindset.