|
I'll confess I didn't read your long post from earlier in the thread. I'm coming from a practical and selfish point of view, with little concern for ethics (somewhat normal for poker players, I would guess). The moral/ethical question is complicated since we don't have all the information (even if shady stuff has been and continues to go on, the site might generate enough profits in the long term to pay out americans _and_ remain open for non-us business), but hailing Ivey as if he's raptor christ reborn seems naive regardless.
Even if he does have damning inside information, why would you assume that ethics has played a major role in his decision to file suit? From what I've read of cliffs of the lawsuit it's pretty clear that he's first and foremost concerned with himself - afaik it only mentions players not being paid in reference to the damage this does to his name/brand. Nothing wrong with him looking out for himself, and nothing wrong with spinning it so that he appears a hero. Happens in other areas every day. But I don't agree with blindly accepting the spin as truth, especially when it has obvious practical impacts that will affect every player american or not. Not that this thread is anything close to what 2p2 had going on when the news broke, it's mostly the thread title that gets to me.
btw, I've personally been happy to keep generating rake on FTP since BF and would prefer that the site survives even if there has been and continues to be shady shit going on. If they make it through this with acceptable player pools I will keep giving them some of my action, for purely selfish reasons and knowing that my on-site bankroll will be at a certain risk. For now, though, this lawsuit makes me keep my ftp roll and action at the absolute minimum to keep my iron man status. Of course I'm way more aware of the situation than the average eurofish who our hypothetical player X is trying to protect, but if he wants to protect the fish then he really shouldn't be promoting online poker to begin with. Sooner or later the fish goes broke anyway. (like I said, though, I'm not too concerned with ethics, so to save time I'll just counter this argument myself by saying "So it would be okay to super-user vs the fish?" )
|