Sorel Mizzi And Chris Vaughn...

[finztotheleft 0]

Cardcore..........I appreciate that you have put some thought into your position. I can follow your rationale, but I disagree with your conclusions. I think the reasons why it is cheating have been covered already, The arguement that this should not really be considered cheating (either because everyone can do it or that the place in the tourney was paid for) is really mute. It is against FT's rules and both participants were aware of that. If FT makes a rule that you cannot wear a blue hat while playing, you might consider this arbitrary and unenforcable, but it's their site and their rule....take off the hat.I also think you are way off base regarding a six month ban being adequate punishment because Sorel needs the income because he is a poker professional . As a professional, it is up to him to protect his livelihood. My example is applicable to many professions, but the one I will discuss is my own profession, nursing. If I am overworked on a busy shift and accidentily give your medication to your roommate, I am liable for any harm that is done. I will most likely get sued and probably have my license suspended for a time. It was an accident that hopefully I would learn from. If I purposely divert narcotics and get caught, I will lose my license. It doesn't matter if I had a sore back that day and "needed them" Taking the meds is a purposeful act in violation of the law. No more nursing license.I am very happy to see this being a civilized discussion all around.

[20TN40 0]

""What I'm saying is that if the poker room makes it possible for the player to do this, they shouldn't punish someone when the inevitable happens.""Dodge created a truck that allows me to do 120MPH on the interstate even though most places have a speed limit of 70MPH. So when I get a ticket for truckin down I40 at 110MPH, I'll try telling the cop that it's Dodge's fault because they made it possible for me to go that fast.We gotta grow up Kids and take responsibility for our actions. If there is a question that puts your integrity on the line, it is YOUR responsibility to handle it in the correct manner lest we anger the Big Guys and they throw some more regulations at us.

[Mercury69 3]

I love the "momentary lapse of judgement" part. While I understand that perspective, I don't think it's reasonable to phrase it as if they flicked a light switch off and back on again. It's more like making a left instead of a right turn, a conscious decision, clearly based on financial gain.Bottom line: There should be much stricter enforcement and the punishments should match. Personally, I would absolutely hate to find myself at an FT (God willing) with, say, BKice or The_Toilet0. There's no way some off the other Pokerhaus inhabitants aren't going to gether around the monitor, offer advice and otherwise "interfere", while I would be playing alone, at home, with my gf bugging me about getting dinner ready.(Not to single out Pokerhaus, but it's the first example I could think of...)No, I don't want to be playing HU for $$$ against more than one player, thanks. No way to enforce it atm, but Bizzle is right: Enforce what you can and make it stick.

[psujohn 0]

Small, nitty, aside:

Do you remember the old rebuy trick on PartyPoker? If you moved all-in, you could rebuy, regardless of the amount of chips you had. Unethical, sure, but the nature of the software allowed you to do it.

Even though it's not a standard rule in live events Party actually said this was legal. Which actually segues into my main point:Selling accounts is something that's not inherently right or wrong. It's either allowed or disallowed by a site's rule. I haven't examined FTP's rules on this but I that they're pretty clear. I know that Stars had it spelled out pretty clearly.Yes, there's a lot of gray area in these types of rules. Where exactly does it become cheating?you're in a tourney and- you tell your friends your hole cards over im- your friends offer their notes on the other players- your friends point out reads on other players and offer generic advice (re-steal against this guy)- your friends offer advice about what play to make- your friend tells you exactly what play to make at each step- your friend sits in your chair and takes over your account- your friend log's into your account to play out the tourneyThe trick is that each of these is just a small step "worse" than the previous action. And the vast majority of them are completely undetectable. Because of that it's up to the site to determine where to draw the line. You can disagree with where they draw the line but you still need to abide by it while playing there.I think an argument can be made that since the majority of these are undetectable they should be allowed. That way an honest player won't give up a disadvantage to an dishonest player. In fact I can see it even being sanctioned by the site:Admin: BluffMagCV has sold his account and will be replaced by Imper1um for the remainder of this tournamentHell if I luckboxed my way deep into a major tourney I'd love the opportunity to sell my account off to a better player. I wouldn't though since it's against the site rules. As for the argument about whether the punishment is fitting ... I'd say that the punishment also needs to be spelled out in the rules and then followed. I certainly have no problem with a life ban for two players who clearly knew that what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway.