Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefort
I skipped most of the posts so not sure if somebody has said this already or not and I know its been discussed before but..
Let everyone change their sn's once/month = even playing ground for everyone.
More games will get started. Tracking becomes difficult/impossible. And players still have the option to keep the same name for the sake of attempting to achieve any sponsorships or attention for whatever reason.
This has been discussed many times before and there are good reasons not to do it. To name a few: collusion becomes harder to spot, less people will rail high stakes games and get interested in poker if nobody knows who anyone is, people generally behave worse when their reputation isn't affected by their behaviour. Also it's debatable if it does create more action as often people just deny action to anyone who is clearly a reg in case it is someone very good they are playing. It was allowed on party poker with detrimental results imo and the day that stars/ftp start following where party poker lead will be a sad day for all of us lol.
Also, most people seem to get it but to the few who do not, try not to get so caught up in the words that are used to describe things. Language is just a way of communicating ideas and isn't perfect. Just because 2 things are both called "multi-accounting" doesn't mean they are both the same and that blanket rules/punishments should be used for everything that can be described by that word. Think about what is actually going on, who the victims are and how badly they are harmed and then form a judgement on how serious the crime is (if it is a crime at all).
If a reg breaks the rules by creating a new account with the specific purpose of gaining an unfair edge on their opposition then their opponents are harmed by the rule-breaking, it costs them money compared to playing the rule breaker on their own account and the regs who were cheated will rightfully be unhappy and the sites should attempt to stop this behaviour and reimburse the cheated players where possible. If a fish makes a new account to preserve his anonymity because he enjoys playing poker but would be embarrassed to have his name linked to large losses then nobody in their right mind will be offended by this. It is what the fish desires and it keeps him in the game longer which is what the regs and the sites desire. This is clearly not a crime, nobody is a victim here. The fact that you can link the fish's behaviour to the previously mentioned multi-accounting regs behaviour is just a flaw of language in that we use 1 word to describe a broad spectrum of actual behaviour. The fish technically breaks the rules but only because there is a rule in place using imperfect language which is there to protect people from the multi-accounting reg scenario so the sensible option is to just assess multi-accounting on a case by case basis and deal with it based on the severity of the case. There are a lot of multi-accounting scenarios in between these 2 (such as getting a new account for rakeback, getting a new account because you are in a country which denies you the freedom to play poker online etc) which could be discussed at length but the most important thing is to deal with those cases on the most severe end of the scale and then perhaps a discussion on the grey areas and where the line should be drawn could take place afterwards.