Ethics was Nominees for 2004 vpFREE HALL OF FAME inductee - REMINDER

[tedchee]

Bill will never know because they're gone now.

You need to have been there to know what's missing.

What we're talking about aren't specific instances but a way of thinking.
This group & others spend a lot of time discussing how to squeeze an extra edge
out of every play. At some point we cross a line. For some, it's a gray line
& they pass with care. For others, they never see any line & pass when they
feel like it. For a few, it's a solid double line which means no passing at
any time.

OK, to go concrete examples how do you see the line in these situations?

--Bribe an employee to get extra benefits such as seating, suites, drawing
tickets you're not entitled to? If bribe is too harsh, substitute "gifting".
Gifts are our "mordida" for norteamericanos; an accepted way of doing business.

--You've been overpaid by the cashier by $100. Do you bring it back knowing
the shortage could cause him/her trouble? What if you didn't know one way or
another?

--A machine has been left with $200 in credits. Do you take it over & cash
out as soon as you can? Or do you try to find the owner first? Casino policy
is that unclaimed credits go to the casino. However, found money can go to
lost & found to be claimed by its owner.

Etc, etc. Don't expect any answers. It's just to get you thinking. I'll
admit I've been involved in all 3 of the above so I can't pass judgment on anyone.

What happens to us is that we get so used to getting that "extra" edge that
we don't notice when we've crossed the faded line. Later on there's no line to
be seen as we take as much as we can get.

The truth of the matter is that most of us are good enough to win without
pushing it to the limits. But we can't break the habit can we?

In a message dated 7/19/2004 3:40:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:

<<< Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:09:17 -0000

Bill Velek wrote:

The part that I was agreeing with Ted concerned the fact that Bob also
has to rightfully assume responsibility for his part in much of the
demise of many positive game opportunities.

What opportunity was it that Dancer cheated you out of Bill?>>>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Nominees for 2004 vpFREE HALL OF FAME inductee - REMINDER

[Harry_Porter]

TedChee wrote:

The truth of the matter is that most of us are good enough to win
without pushing it to the limits. But we can't break the habit can
we?

That's a fine general sentiment. But it was in response to my tongue
in cheek question to Bill concerning Dancer.

The motivation behind that question was simply that vague accusations
are lobbed in Dancer's direction with a frequency and tone that
suggests he's to be blamed for all that is ill on the vp frontier.

I won't suggest that his aggressive approach to strong opportunities
hasn't had it's downside. But only a limited few have suffered
adverse consequences. (Would you, for example, hold him solely
responsible for the dearth of FPDW at the $1 level?) And of those who
may have suffered a decline in strong plays, I suspect only a small
handful would pass the ethics challenge that you put forward.

I steadfastly hold that the common, recreational player (a group of
which I consider myself to be a member) has benefited strongly from
Dancer's many efforts.

- Harry

[Bill_Velek1]

Harry Porter wrote:

TedChee wrote:
> The truth of the matter is that most of us are good enough to win
> without pushing it to the limits. But we can't break the habit can
> we?

That's a fine general sentiment. But it was in response to my tongue
in cheek question to Bill concerning Dancer.

Sorry, Harry, that I had taken your question seriously. I didn't realize that it was tongue in cheek, so please forgive me for retaliating with my attack accusing you of employing Democrat campaign techniques ... which was also tongue in cheek, which I believe I indicated with a smiley.

Cheers.

Bill