Coffee: I don't think you can ever just "believe" that someone will sit your additional lobbies and then do it to them because of that, unless that person actually has done it in the past. I've had a lot of random spats with different people (I still want to get Mattraq1 to hate me, not really sure why, he's just cute I guess), but even though some of them have gotten pretty harsh I don't think I ever would have assumed the person would find my open lobbies and sit them when I'm disconnected. That's just too big of a leap.

I mean in a way it isn't, since he should ship back, but bluntly making threats like "we'll organize a team of people to harass and follow you around" seems sort of out of line.

I'm by no means saying what he did was to be forgotten or accepted, but there's the high road option. You can shun people like that without going to their level of shady ethics.

edit:


If he can argue persuasively why he would believe Bjorni would do that, then I think he deserves at least some slack. IMO.

But so far he has not even ATTEMPTED to argue that, which implies to me that he thinks it would be a lost cause to attempt that. From what everyone has said so far in this thread, Bjorni likely would've shipped back.

I do think that if that's NOT the case it would be relevant.

do you really think people care about bjoerni having 12k or not sol reader? this looks more like people ganging up to make someone pay for doing what they think was wrong, and maybe discouraging people from the same act in the future.

it's not extortion since most of the people couldn't care less about bjoerni's wealth imo

Yeah exactly. Even if Plauzee is scumy enough to not pay as we keep sitting him everyday, we are at least making sure anyone else that considers doing this will not do it or will at least know there will be consequences.

Not punishing Plauzee for doing this basically makes it so that anyone that wants to do it and doesn't care what people think can do it. Whereas by punishing even those people will decide agaisnt it knowing what will happen to them.

That's a pretty sinister word.

The game theory of the poker world policing itself is pretty interesting. There's a sense of "honor" amongst poker players, but the system tries its best to make sure that people have really strong disincentives against cheating/scummy behavior, so that honorable behavior usually happens to be the correct selfish thing to do as well.

I'm living with Gary Neville (in a 13 person house), who is someone still dealing with the nuclear effects of breaking the rules. You cheat once, prepare to be blacklisted for life. You steal money, prepare to forever be thought of as a scumbag who has a much harder time getting games in against fish. And it should be that way. It's how we police ourselves. "Extortion" really just means disincentives for engaging in bad behavior, and for those disincentives to mean anything, they should be enforced. And we're talking about getting in fewer games against fish, not breaking the guy's knees in a parking lot.

Okay, just to clarify this:
PlauZe said in my blog that we've always been disrespectful towards each other and that I would have done the same. First of all HE was disrespectful, flaming and harassing me continuesly throughout the games. Of course I haven't been gentle towards him, but what can you expect if you behave like that. Just dont impute such things to me because I wasnt the one who was disrepectful and stuff like that.
And i want to tell you here again, NO I would NOT have done the same to you and you know that. Your arguments are so poor, it is kinda obvious that you know what stupid thing you've done.

I just mean it can be a slippery slope. I think having hostility against the guy and just individuals deciding for themselves to sit this guy because a) he's apparently not great b) they don't like his attitude regarding poker ethics, that's fine. Organizing a group with the explicit aim to harass someone and with the end goal of probably getting 12k out of him to one of the people involved/friends of the people involved? A bit more shady.

I mean I know everything suggested here so far due to justified anger and contempt, but as a rule encouraging this sort of behavior (getting friends to sit people you don't like) is dangerous even if in THIS case they are "disliked" for very valid reasons.

FWIW I am sure regs will be sitting PlauZee and personally I am far less keen on giving lobbies to people who I know are douchebags, so I've got nothing against that attitude, but when it becomes an organized movement (Thoac gets tuesdays, you get wednesdays, hey Mers can you take thursday night I have a movie I have to go to) I think it gets a bit sketchy/dangerous.

of course encouraging this kind of behaviour CAN be dangerous in case someone is incorrectly accused of something.

discouraging this kind of behaviour is much more dangerous than that though

FYP

Why else did I become king moderator nerd of all the other nerds if not to utilize my power and destroy souls like this? Seems kind of pointless to post ten thousand times on an internet forum if not to gain a bizarre amount of unwarranted influence and abuse it.

I mean, an active mechanism of sitting people that is disliked can be abused, theoretically for instance, if a group of elite players just aggressively disallowed anyone who isn't part of their circle to sit on lobbies, even lower ones, ever, or something, for their own personal gain as opposed to here, which is community justice. It can start as community justice, but we've seen, from history, that it can degenerate into elitist/clique atmosphere which can be quite bad.

Yeah I was just throwing it out there, and not saying anyone here would actually abuse other people like that. I just found the idea of that kind of justice a bit uncomfortable.

I don't really want to derail the thread too much from the topic of PLAUZEE STOLE MONEY WTF, so yeah.

Touche

wow i'm so dissapointed sol

hahahha

=(

Meh I should've just said nothing. It just struck me as a bit mob-like for a second.

I'm not here to defend PlauZee and I don't want people to think that I support that behavior, or think that what he has done should not be punished or shunned at all. As you are, gentleman.

It's all we have. There's also community justice to police the people trying to unfairly implement community justice. The fact that we have the power to discourage bad behavior is super cool. Let's not kid ourselves: The reason why you can trust so many people with so much in the poker world isn't because poker players are more ethical than the general population. It's because the system is very successful at giving incentives for good behavior and disincentives for bad behavior.

The warning of "getting carried away is sometimes a problem" is a good one. In the case of this thread, though, I think you should probably keep your objections to when people are actually getting carried away, and argue why.

And so I acquiesce.

Have not been writing many novel-posts lately so my fingers were itchy to type up some pseudo-intellectual posts.

How the hell is there a difference between blinding someone out on a table you are playing on versus blinding someone out on a table you weren't playing on? There is no ethical difference between these. Being okay with one but not the other is stupid.

+1

1) When your opponent disconnects in the middle of a tournament, you entered a tournament with this person because you thought you had a legitimate edge. Why should you be forced to sacrifice that edge and make $0 from the SNG just because your opponent disconnected in the middle of it?
2) Your opponent voluntarily started the SNG knowing the risk that they might disconnect. That's different than starting an SNG with somebody who is involuntarily sitting and can't unregister.
3) In one, you're playing a game you'd play anyway, in the second, you're starting games specifically to take advantage of a disconnected player. In one, your intent in joining is to play poker, in the other, your intent in joining is to take free money. Intent matters. It's a pussy thing to do to join a game of poker just to try to take a free buy-in.

In short, winning a match because your opponent disconnected in the middle of it is definitely different than winning matches because you headhunted lobbies and went out of your way to try to start as many games as possible against a disconnected opponent.

Regardless, both are pretty standard ship back situations.

Another thing that doesnt make much sense in Plauzees behaviour. He said they have some history blabla, dont know anything about this but I translate you a post from him in Bjoernis german blog, a week before this happened:
Lately he edited this post in Bjoernis blog by deleting the part after the cardrunners link. Dont know what to think about that but his behaviour really looks ******* like. On the other hand, he feels somehow guilty or why is he deleting this. Maybe hes just too proud to admit he made a mistake
Didnt know much about Plauzee, just read his interview on husng.com (which btw made him looke like an average skill highstakes bumhunter) but after all this I belive hes just one great ****ing douchebag.

I have no idea about this part. I wouldn't mind having this clarified either actually, considering I've sorta gotten mixed up with this before.

I think it's more complex though. When you sit someone, you might've expected to have a certain % RoI against them so it sorta makes more sense that you win something off them...? I guess you can say you'll ship back only if they give you a match afterwards or something stupid except you'll both pay rake again which is like, okay? Or I guess instead of sending back full amount you send back BI - rake - x% Edge if you legitimately think you're better. I think, also, that some freedom on this should be given to the guy who shipped back, since, I guess, he's also been wasted time/whatever. idk about this. I'll leave it to people who actually have a conclusive opinion.

When you sit someone who's disconnected that you would never sit otherwise, that's obviously more clear-cut as angling.

edit: Meh this is such a sore/weird spot for me, I really think I should keep out of this, although I am quite interested to see what high stakes regs think about reg ethics. I've heard a lot of weird contradictory things and obv have a terrible history of messing up, so my opinions not likely to be very useful here, so I'll stfu for now.

I'm sure you're just trying to get back at me with that, but it only confirms what I'm saying. What Plauzee did is hardly much worse then what most ppl do. Blinding someone down is stealing and the reason most ppl wouldn't do what plauzee did is their concern with their reputation rather then actual ethics.

Tbh its part of the reason that makes me send back at times. Piggybank has death threatened me I don't feel bad to steal from such a person. Its ethically very wrong to do so.

You can also add this argument which has some merit to it:

4) I pay a good amount for a backup connection that keeps me from losing money when I disconnect in the middle of games. I can keep money I win in legitimate games from people who aren't willing to be good at the internet part of internet poker when they really could and should be.

The key point again being the difference between decisions in legitimate poker games and decisions outside of legitimate poker games, and the belief that you should join a game of poker because you want to play poker, not some other angle.

But again, shipback in this situation is standard as well, but there are more legitimate reasons to say no.