Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvaughan
I think this is the post of the thread and probably a conclusive argument, but to play devils advocate, here are some thoughts on the arguments:
1. It's against the TOC. For one thing, it seems more plausible that the way this works is the TOC tracks fairness, not that fairness tracks the TOC. That is to say, something can't be right simply by being in the TOC of the site because the reason it's in the TOC is presumably because it's fair.
Additionally, I think this argument has to bite at least one bullet in proclaiming that the use of sharkscope while playing is wrong. I do this all the time and I have a hard time beleiving that I'm doing anything wrong.
2. Not what your opponents expect. I assume the idea here is that if you opponents knew you were a bot they wouldn't play, but this might be true in the ordinary case of being a winning player. If a fish really understood that over the long run they are fundamentally incapable of winning money against me, they may not want to play. Similarly, most people don't know about HUDs, sharscope, poker table ratings, or awesome SNG programs like SnG wizard. It's at least unclear that people would continue to play if they did.
3. Harmful to others. If the harm is that other players lose money, then being a winning player is harmful to others in precisely the same way.
You may be miss-taking my argument, so I'll be clearer.
First, I distinguish between arguably-ethical breaking of rules in a voluntary environment, and arguably-ethical breaking of rules that can't be avoided. No one has to play on (e.g.) PokerStars; everyone born in (say) the United States is realistically bound by US law, and in a practical sense bound by the laws of his own state.
I make the distinction because I think it is worse to break Stars' T&Cs than US laws (
ceteris paribus). I think this because there is an additional issue with violating Stars' rules:
you agreed to abide by them when you signed up. That's on top of whatever fairness issues are also there.
Now, it's a basically principle of contract law, for good reason, that one isn't bound to a contract term that's unfair or that someone could not reasonably have understood or believed was part of the contract. That's where the second and third prongs come in. If the term were unfair — and it's arguably unfair to ban something that doesn't actually give you an advantage over other players — then maybe it would be OK to break it, though I happen to disagree that that's unfair enough to make it OK. And if we were talking about something that everybody did or expected others to do, then again I think you could argue that holding someone to it is unreasonable, essentially because the person in some sense didn't really agree to it in a a conscious sense.
So consider Sharkscope. It's against the terms players agreed to, so as a default we should think breaking the rule is unethical, but we'll look further. It helps the player and isn't necessary for the game, so a rule against it is basically fair. But if the rule is unenforceable and as a result everybody understands that everyone else is doing it, then I think you have a case that it's not unethical. (I disagree, but my personal position is extreme.)
Re your addressing of my second point, I'm just saying that
if bots were like Sharkscope or HUDs — ubiquitous and expected (let's assume arguendo) — then there would be a decent argument that using one is not unethical. That's not the case. Your argument that the fish don't really expect things like Sharkscope actually supports my position that using it is unethical. If you assume your own conclusion that it's not (probably because so many people here on 2p2 use it, so you've just grown up, in a poker sense, thinking it's OK), then of course you'll have a problem with the logic.
Re your counter to my third point: I'm saying that if the proscription is of conduct that does not harm anyone, there's an argument that it's OK. The inverse doesn't work: conduct that
does harm people, such as playing well, is OK if it is an accepted, legal part of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pen15
You are assuming the terms ban bots.
Please leave. You are making zero effort to further any discussion. I'm sure you find it amusing, but please get over it and let us enjoy intelligent and thoughtful conversation.