to call not speaking up 'cheating' is laughable.

This might be more convincing if you hadn't posted your "ethical dilemna" question in another thread started by you. It's not uncommon to find someone who's ethics are malleable but please don't try to convince yourself or others that yours are strong.

No, it would make you human.
But apart from the fact that your example is pretty extreme, the problem with your position is that ethical behavior on your part isn't (or shouldn't usually be) conditioned on others' behavior. Fairness and ethics aren't the same thing.
The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; not "Do unto others as they do unto you". The latter is fair (tit for tat, eye for an eye, etc.); but not necessarily ethical.

We're all human, and almost all of us occasionally succumb to human nature, leading to ethical lapses. And almost all of us will naturally want to treat people who've been good to us better than we treat those who've hurt us.
It's human nature not to want to help someone who's injured you (or just acted like a jerk at the table); this is fair. But a code of ethics is an ideal to strive for in your own behavior, not simply fair exchange.

In the OP case (a jerk at the table, not my sister's murderer), I would feel obligated to speak up, not because of my opinion of the jerk, but because of my opinion of myself. In a more extreme case, it might be much more difficult to bring myself to do this, and I might remain silent. But the ethical thing to do wouldn't change.

I'm amused that the person holding up an absurdly ridiculous hypothetical as the basis of his argument is criticizing others for not seeing "gray area".

While this post is clever aggie's point is valid IMO.

You don't have to get all the way to the end of the spectrum to understand why he feels uneasy about making this "black and white".

My problem with inserting my personal feelings into this situation is that while I like to believe I know it all, I don't. As a previous poster noted, what if I'm wrong about my judgment about another player and I find out later he is a terrific guy who gives all of his winnings to charity. I've had people classify me as an a**hole only to later come up to me and say they were wrong about me. I think my wife might even be coming around after 20 years...

In the end I try to help uphold the rules of the table so there is no appearance of impropriety. I have been surprised by the results. I gave a $250 pot to its rightful owner, a guy who wasn't speaking to me. He has since reached out to me and coached me regarding tournament play. Not that I did it for personal benefit, nor did he need the money (he's a big winner), but it works out well for me and my conscience when I speak up.

So Mr rick understands my point and you don't. I'm glad you're amused but it seems to me your amusement is based on failure to follow simple logic.

Remove the bolded word and i agree with your entire post. Nobody takes the moral / ethical high road ALL the time. We are all flawed human beings.

There is a lot I would say if the situation was different but I will bow out of the discussion that has derailed this thread.

I doubt it would accomplish anything anyway.

I also agree with what Mr Rick is saying, so I'm not sure why you're so angry. I merely find your presentation to be toxic. I stopped considering your point because I'm put off by how you deliver it.

I'm not going to point out a mistake that will help the murderer of my sister because I'm not sitting at that table nor staying in that casino. You may as well ask me what I'd do if I found a million dollars on the moon. It's a question I'll never have to answer, so it doesn't factor into my overall perspective.

I don't care if you point out a mistake or if you don't. I'm not making any kind of judgment. I will point out mistakes. And that's good enough for me. If you feel insulted by this, it's not from anything I've said.

You'll note I've said all this in the thread already, but you don't seem to have read it.

I've read all of your posts and wasn't angry with you. I took an extreme example that would obviously never happen to show that most people have a threshold where they'll compromise they're own ethical standards - and you decided take the example literally. No big deal, and if you were amused by my unrealistic scenario that's fine.

I'm about done with this thread now. Originally i was just trying to make the point that there are certain people who i would not help - and didn't feel the ethical obligation regardless of what it says in RROP. I was truly surprised by the harsh reaction (IMO) calling me immoral, unethical, and a cheater as i don't think i am any of those things. I guess i'll just have to accept that many of you feel otherwise.

If that's how you talk to me when you're not angry, then I really hope I never piss you off.

The thing about these threads is that we can go back and read what you've said. I suggest you try that now with your own posts. Try to filter out the righteous anger you feel about what others think about your hypothetical behavior, and instead read how you're coming across to people right here right now.

Following rules isn't about ethics. It's about following rules. You can choose to not follow the rules, but don't compare it to a situation involving ethics.


You are bound by the rules of the game in which you choose to participate.

Your speeding example. You break the law, and I have no problem with that...but I do have a problem with you saying that you have done nothing wrong. You have. I do it every single day, but I can admit that what I'm doing is wrong and if the law wishes to punish me, I wouldn't dare hide behind some sort of argument about grey areas. It's a law. It's not grey. Have you seen a speed limit sign? They're actually black and white.


Again, I'm not here to say that you're a bad person for speeding..that's not even close to the point I'm just saying that you're picking and choosing the rules you want to follow, and sitting there trying to rationalize it by saying other people do bad things all the time doesn't make you right. It's okay if you don't follow the rules, man. No one's going come out of your screen and physically hit you with a rulebook, but at least admit that you're in the wrong.



*edit* I'm routinely the fastest person on the highway. I'm in no way trying to condemn your personal moral code.

To me the issue is that RRoP is a poorly written rules document. Get rid of the word "ethical" in rule #3 (in bulls_horn's post, above) and it works much better as a rule.

My reading of the rule is that the word "ethical" is in there for flavor and is not meant to be exchanged with "optional". I can see where others read it the other way. As has been pointed out many times, these are not immutable rules of the game, but a documentation as to how the game is played.

I think there'd be power in making a stronger rules text that squeezed out these particular gray areas (order of showing hands at showdown as well) and made strong, non-weaselly statements regarding what is correct and what isn't. (Do not spend text justifying the rules if folks are going to use that text for justifying not following those obligations.).

I do not think the rules should eliminate the gray area offered up by Rule #1, however.

I fail to understand why I should follow RROP at all. What percentage of all poker players have read these rules or even know about them? Less than 1% maybe? Unless the casino I'm playing at has a freely accessible set of rules they want me to definitely follow that outline this, I will continue to decide which times I speak up at the table and which times I am quiet.

That being said, I have spoken up 100% of the time that I have seen this happen, but that sample size is fairly small and I see no reason to not leave it up to my own discretion. BTW, I find it perfectly acceptable to break laws which I feel have no negative impact on society. Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong.

These threads are kind of repetitive and probably could benefit from a single containment thread, like the tipping debate.

This is really the interesting point here. Is there any meaning to a written declaration of ethical expectations if there is no way to enforce the consequences?

I'd imagine the written rules of golf and of American football are very different from each other. It seems to me that golf thrives on a culture where new players are socialized into an expectation of self-reporting minor violations. It's hard for me to imagine football persisting on that same basis. Is one preferable to the other?