Nation's Modship

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a game explicitly doesn't have a rule saying you can't do something, that usually means that you can do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just such a completely [censored]-up mentality. Somebody could easily make your everyday life a living hell without breaking a single rule or law. In every aspect of life, including games, rules will never be sufficient to regulate behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

arf,

i very much doubt that is the case. the legal code covers these things nicely by including broader definitions for things, and by considering things on a case by case basis. additionally, this is why the law (and rules of games) are mutable things, growing and evolving over time. however, real life is not the same as games.

consider angle shots. true angle shots don't break any rules. they are "scummy" and "unethical" but the player is left to defend themselves, not rely on the card room to protect them. no, when you play speed chess we don't need a rule that states you can't throw sand in your opponent's eyes, but we do have rules for things that actually have to do with game play. there just are things that are not regulated. lack of regulation means that there's no reason that people have to not engage in the activity. if you choose to look down upon an activity, that's fine, but if it's not against the rules, it's not against the rules. there aren't defacto rules just because it's what you, or even a majority of people, think there should be.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Citanul,

First off, thank you for sharing your opinion.

Basically, you are saying that multiple players to a hand is ok online, but not ok live-- is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

TIE,

What I'm saying is that live, there is a rule that states that multiple players to a hand is forbidden, while online, at least some sites either do not have such a rule, or specifically do have rules stating that it is allowed.

citanul

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

no, when you play speed chess we don't need a rule that states you can't throw sand in your opponent's eyes, but we do have rules for things that actually have to do with game play. there just are things that are not regulated. lack of regulation means that there's no reason that people have to not engage in the activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you play speed chess and throw sand into your opponent's eyes, you are likely to be disqualified, not? Because most games have developed a code of conduct and this code of conduct is enforced by giving an arbitrator room for judgement. Chess, soccer, golf, many games are run that way. It should be clear for everyone that these people are breaking the established codes of conduct in poker. The sites needs to have some way to address that and ban such players. It is what I and many other players demand to keep this game fair.

I know that in the SNG-community on 2+2 there is a culture for bending the rules as far as possible, I think it is a culture which needs to be defeated, and I think that failing to do so is ultimately going to lead to this game losing credibility wrt being fair and thus the game will become much less popular among recreational players.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
there aren't defacto rules just because it's what you, or even a majority of people, think there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave the house once in a while, please. Then observe how the world continues to function from day to day. Remove the respect for the de facto rules and most of our business life would collapse within months.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there aren't defacto rules just because it's what you, or even a majority of people, think there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave the house once in a while, please. Then observe how the world continues to function from day to day. Remove the respect for the de facto rules and most of our business life would collapse within months.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this does is further illustrate the point made earlier in this thread.

If you want to debate whether it should be legal to do what Nation is saying these guys are doing, go ahead.

But NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with Nation's ability to moderate his forum.

All of the moderators on this forum are different people with different opinions. I'm sure plenty of us do things that some people may not approve of(yes poker related things), but none of that has anything to do with our ability to moderate our forums.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'd like to hear more people (specifically non-mods) chime in.

[/ QUOTE ]

this thread is pathetic

[BluffTHIS!]

ZB,

I tangled enough with nation in that thread and am not going to express an opinion on whether he should or shouldn't be a mod. And your distinction between his ethical opinions and his modding conduct is correct, *provided that* he hasn't lied in that thread to back up his buddy. FWIW I think the more likely explanation is that nation has poor judgement of people, and that his friend has deceived him. Note however that Nate tha'Great, who is hardly a regular flame thrower, just said in post#10314159 the following:

" My bullsh*t detector registers a very high number when I read nation's posts".

I have read a lot of Nate's posts in the past and they are to be respected. For me though again, the "BS" is in nation's judgement most likely, and not his truthfulness.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chuck is a good guy, and to be honest, doesn't even know how to configure his virus protection; I had to do it for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

nation implies that Chuck is too computer illiterate to program a bot by saying the above.

But he's bright enough to install, program and update hotkey scripts:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post8932154

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post8988150

Note that nation was involved in other hotkey programming questions ans script threads with Chuck. nation isn't directly lying to mislead people, but his truthiness is approaching zero here.

Are mods allowed to run smokescreens to cover for friends?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also from that thread, nation claimed to have no involvement with Chuck's scheme in the beginning. He later revealed that he attempted to stake people into this scheme but things fell through. Again, not a direct lie, but not truthy at all.

If mods are held to some standard, these two examples certainly violate most standards. nation was an unknown to the thread. He threw himself onto the grenade to try and cover for Chuck and typed himself in and out of corners in the process.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
ZB,

I tangled enough with nation in that thread and am not going to express an opinion on whether he should or shouldn't be a mod. And your distinction between his ethical opinions and his modding conduct is correct, *provided that* he hasn't lied in that thread to back up his buddy. FWIW I think the more likely explanation is that nation has poor judgement of people, and that his friend has deceived him. Note however that Nate tha'Great, who is hardly a regular flame thrower, just said in post#10314159 the following:

" My bullsh*t detector registers a very high number when I read nation's posts".

I have read a lot of Nate's posts in the past and they are to be respected. For me though again, the "BS" is in nation's judgement most likely, and not his truthfulness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, if that indeed is the case and he's being honest, but a bad judge of character, can you explain the two examples I've cited? First he's not involved, then he tried to buy into this. First Chuck is unfrozen caveman computer user, then nation is responding to Chuck's hotkey script threads on 2+2.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, you are saying that multiple players to a hand is ok online, but not ok live-- is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
tied,

FWIW, there's been a lot of previous discussion on 2p2 about the "one player to a hand" rule online. There is at least one group of poker pros, one of which is Jerrod Ankenman (I don't remember the other names), that talk on the phone and give advice to each other while splitting all of their action. Naturally, when this came out, there was a lot of controversy and idignation surrounding it in the same gist as your OP. However, they were completely upfront and honest about what they were doing, and Stars gave them the okay. The bottom line is that there is no "one player to a hand rule" online because it is impossible to find. It becomes very problematic, and is generally a bad idea, to have rules in place that can't be enforced.

So essentially, yes, multiple players to a hand online is fine, while live it obviously isn't. I understand that it's counter-intuitive, but you have to realize that online and live poker are two different things, and that there have to be separate rules to adjust accordingly. It's okay if you think it's unethical, but I don't see how that leads to nation being demodded. I hate to bring this up again because so many people use this analogy, but there are plenty who think PT and PAHUD is unethical, and they probably have a better case than the ones who think one is fine but not the other. Just ask Bluffthis.