Live poker games have a well known and very sensible rule, “One player to a hand.” You can’t get advice about how to play your hand because it would create an unfair advantage over the other players. Casinos sometimes let friends sit behind a player, but they can’t give advice.
But what if you play poker on the internet? Should it be against the rules to give or receive advice? And because nobody can see who you are, something even worse happens: An entirely different person, even a famous pro, can play using your name. So people think they are playing against you, but they are really playing against a pro. Both of these violations of the one player to a hand rule have been called “ghosting” and I believe some internet poker sites allow it, and some don’t.
When asked for my opinion about ghosting, my instant reaction was that it should be allowed. But I don’t trust anyone’s instant reaction, not even my own and needed to see whether my answer coud be justified logically. After thinking about it, I realized that anti-ghosting rules belong in a more general category: rules or laws that seem reasonable, but still shouldn’t be “on the books” partly because they are unenforceable. To be more precise, it’s my opinion that this sort of rules should not exist whenever three criteria are met.
1. The rule must be truly unenforceable. That is, it’s nearly impossible to catch violations.
2. The rule, through reasonable, should not involve important moral principles.
3. The rule relates to economic competitions, and rule-breakers would have a definit advantage over rule-followers.
You would probably agree that anti-ghosting rules meet all these criteria. So would a rule against athlete’s taking an aspirin before an event if aspirin helped them and there was no way detect it? My primary objection is the third criterion: Such a rule penalizes the rule-follower who will never cheat. I want him to be able to take that aspirin as well. We should get rid of rules that help cheaters and punish good citizens.
On the other hand, my opinion applies only when there is virtually no chance of catching a cheater and only if the issue involved is not a serious one. If there were an undetectable and dangerous illegal drug that helped athletic performance, it would violate my second criterion, and the rule should remain despite its inability to be enforced. If there are serious moral issues involved, it’s important that society keep the rule to avoid sending the wrong message.
