On Ghosting

[pacecar86]

Agree with Cornell, unless player(s) disclose to the table. If players are unwilling to disclose, then, I'd like to hear why they think it is ethical to ghost & not to disclose. But, then, who really has an expectation of actually "knowing" who you are facing in on-line play.

[shaniac]

Todd, I totally disagree: trying to enforce the list of things you enumerated is not only impractical, it would criminalize aspects of online poker that are often standard and ethical; measures to enforce those things would have a much worse affect on the legitimacy of the game.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dlizzle - how about every time you play poker, you sign off aim? that would be a good way to keep one player to a hand. how about recognition hardware made mandatory by the sites? that would keep bots and account sharing off the map.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me this is a joke

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me others are seeing the retardedness of this. Yes, Bakes, I could personally do that. No, you are not going to get thousands of people to do this.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

speechless as in good? i think it's pretty much nonsense but i will stop now since I don't feeling like being an even bigger dick than i already am in this thread.

[nath]

quick reply-- I have a sense that we're going to need to be self-policing about this, as players, but right now I don't have many ideas about what that would entail. I'll get back to you on that part.

[BAK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This left me absolutely speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

speechless as in good? i think it's pretty much nonsense but i will stop now since I don't feeling like being an even bigger dick than i already am in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL No, not as in good.

[Ansky]

mcmelchior,

a big lol @ 1000 idiots is all luck, but 1000 top pros is mostly skill. On what basis? That is absolutely ridiculous.

stealth,

For one thing, multiaccounting will allow the possibility of collusion, whereas stake/ghosting does not.

funkii,

By ghosting I merely mean sweating someone and giving advice. NOT clicking the buttons yourself.



ucla,

Where are you? Thought you'd be all over this thread.

[skier_5]

i think ghosting is fine. hell i think backing someone, playing in the same tournament, and then ghosting them when they go deep is fine, though kinda [censored].


I think that backing people and ghosting them from the start/taking over or when you bust, etc is def not fine.

hell i dont even think this is bad if it even happens rarely - as more of a ill coach you while we play kinda thing, though perhaps it would be more appropriate to do this when the coach doesn't have a financial interest.

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[nath]

hey, that loldog kind of looks like your avatar!