Why is the opponents name edited out by the mods? If the opponent was a well know professional player would his name still be censored or is it only censored if he is an amateur player? What if it is a semi-regular player at a given casino that is unknown to the masses. I am just really curious about the standard procedure here.
I figure I'd answer this inquiry here so as to not to derail StandardDeviates thread.
I have never been a proponent of naming names in hand histories. In fact, back in the day, this was extremely frowned upon and basically off limits as the point of an online forum is to be/stay anonymous. It was viewed as a major breach of etiquette to out posters real identity or speak of real names when discussing strategy or that individuals game, tendencies, etc..
I do understand times have changed and many of you have outed yourselves as well as become friends with fellow 2p2ers. But do keep in mind that many still have not and their privacy should be respected. Also keep in mind that this site has grown exponentially from the days of old and more and more people now come here to view and/or participate. Just because you may not think your opponent doesn't read the forums doesn't make it so.
In a practical sense, you shouldn't be naming names for the sake of good business. Why would you want to educate that individual on how to play him/her? Why would you want to risk embarrassing them where they may not want to play with you moving forward? Why would you want to bring attention to a person that you can profitably exploit by allowing others to now be on the look out for said person thus hurting your bottom line since now the "fish" gets divvy'd up amongst the lot of you? Why would you want your opponent to now learn how you view him/her in a very detailed way where they can now make adjustments against you?
I have always thought a detailed description of your opponent (not looks but play) was more then suffice to allow the forum to offer solid feedback and incite good discussion. It keeps the integrity of privacy intact while being able to discuss strategy against that type of opponent and similar ones alike. It carries none of the negatives that outing a player does while still allowing the ability to dissect the play of the hand accurately and in depth.
Don't forget, we play this game to make money (well, most of us) and for some/many it is our livelihood. It seems counter intuitive to intentionally hurt our business or damage our ability to continue to do our job in the most profitable way possible.
Some may argue that strategy posting in general hurts us. I understand that argument and respect those who have chosen to cease posting. The posting of hands and the discussion that ensues though is also a way to improve ones own game so even though you may feel we are educating the "fish" with our posting, I choose to see it as educating ourselves as well. The anonymity aspect was a key component in not allowing our posting to backfire. And of course the "giving back to the community" aspect is very real and very commended. It is a sign that not everything in poker has to be selfish.*
*I can understand how some can see a contradiction here but it is a fine line I choose to walk. Again, if it is contradicting in your world (fine) then not posting yourself solves that problem for your own moral dilemma.
Now, as for mentioning high profile/professional players being the same....in an ideal world I would like for them to not be mentioned either. In these cases it's not about "protecting the fish" or our bottom dollar as it is about respect to privacy, alleviating any possible embarrassment that may come of their actions/play, or simply because it is unnecessary when a small detailed description about the tendencies of the player will do.
The slight difference I see with naming amateur names vs high profile ones, is that high profile players should expect to be in the public eye and spoken about (not always in strategy threads, uhh NVG anyone) if for no other reason then it comes with the territory. Just as a professional in any line of work should not be taken aback when they see their name mentioned in print in the forum of their respected field. Whether that be sports, politics, business, etc, those people have ascended to the point of interest of the public within those fields. Fair or not it is the way of the world/media/internet.
There is no hard rules set for who can be mentioned by name and who can't but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out when it is inappropriate or out of line. If I am wrong on this position, I am all ears..