Fake card: what would TMD do?

[Cab]

WTF is your guys problem? Why would you pass off a fake to *MORE* people so that they can be pissed off at you and think that you are some asshole that just wants to make a profit off magic, some damn cardboard. Everyone here (well, practically) condemns the pros for cheating and doing crap similar to this at various high profile events, and then those same people come right back around and sell a fake piece of power to someone else. Essentially cheating them of their money, and selling your integrity for a couple hundred bucks.

I stand by what I said earlier that you should burn the card if you are not able to get compensation for it. If you are, make the dealer rip up the card in front of you so that you know that no one is ever going to get ripped off by some either
a) asshole
of
b) unknowing dealer (highly doubtful)

Wow, this is really sad that I even have to argue this point.

EDIT: At least people on MOTL aren't complete idiots...

[Bram]

Allright; this is aggrivating me far to much for me to stay out of this. Plus, if I do, you'll all just start agreeing with eachother and we can't have that.

Sorry to say this, but as a member of a civilized culture and as a decent human being, the burden has fallen to you to stop this cycle of fraud and deception.  It's the right thing to do, and if you're a prudent sort of person, it's the smart thing to do.

Who is this 'you' you speak of? The guy in question isn't even participating in this thread. If by 'you' you mean any of the self-righteous bastards in this thread that should prove their point by buying the damn thing off him and shredding it, then I concur. If however you mean 'me' then I would repeat that I am not (nor will I ever be) in this situation. I'm not stupid enough to let shit like this happen tol me.

EDIT: At least people on MOTL aren't complete idiots...

As opposed to what, me? I don't believe 80% of the people in this thread would react the way they advise.

Why would you pass off a fake to *MORE* people so that they can be pissed off at you and think that you are some asshole that just wants to make a profit off magic, some damn cardboard.

Caring what other people think about me is obviously not my big concern; otherwise I would have simply LIED LIKE THE REST OF YOU and told him I would have taken the loss and destroyed the card.

Essentially cheating them of their money, and selling your integrity for a couple hundred bucks.

Everyone is responsible for his own actions. The buyer should be more cautious. That is not my problem. Nowhere am I lying to him; nowhere am I stating the card is real. I'm just omitting stating that it's possibly a fake. Heck, this holds true for every card sold on eBay. It's just that we're a little more certain that this one isn't real than I am about other cards on there. It boils down to individual responsibility. Also, everyone's integrity is theirs to do with as they please, and let me tell you sir, it would take a hell of a lot more to lose it than some smalltime shit like this.

Right. Now I AM pissed off, so my next analogy is going to be in poor taste, but I ask you to consider it anyway. I just read about this in the paper (because it pertains to a case the media are all over). If you are HIV-psitive in the Netherlands and know about it, it is not punishable by law to have unprotected sex with another person without telling them. Yes, you're effectively killing them. Yes, it's morally dispicable. But unless there's something 'wrong' with the sex act (i.e. dependant relationship, forced, wahetever), the HIV guy is in the clear. Why? Because the law says it boils down to individual responsibility. Yeah, maybe the guy was consciously trying to murder the gal by not telling her he was HIV positivie and not using protection, but the choice to not use protection and run the risk was hers as well as his.

See where I'm going with this? I'm not making any false pretences. I'm just putting a piece of cardboard online. 'Look! Nice Mox! Near Mint! Buy It Bitches!'. Just because I'm being dishonest (which, incedentally can NEVER BE PROVEN) doesn't relieve the buyer of his individual responsibility to make sure he's not getting screwed. AND, LIKE I SAID A MILLION BILLION TIMES BEFORE, IF HE DISCOVERS ITS FAKE, THEN I WOULD ADVISE TO REFUND HIM.

[Jacob Orlove]

If by 'you' you mean any of the self-righteous bastards in this thread that should prove their point by buying the damn thing off him and shredding it, then I concur.

I already addressed this. There is NOTHING we can do to change the fact that he lost $300. We can give him a different $300, but at that point there are significantly better charitable causes that our money could go to.

Caring what other people think about me is obviously not my big concern; otherwise I would have simply LIED LIKE THE REST OF YOU and told him I would have taken the loss and destroyed the card. 

So now I'm a liar? Thanks.

Nowhere am I lying to him; nowhere am I stating the card is real. I'm just omitting stating that it's possibly a fake.

Blatantly false. By presenting the card, there is an implicit claim that it is real--this has been established in the US for quite some time. You'd be just as guilty of false advertising as someone who makes a false explicit claim. Lies of omission are still lies.

Right. Now I AM pissed off, so my next analogy is going to be in poor taste, but I ask you to consider it anyway. I just read about this in the paper (because it pertains to a case the media are all over). If you are HIV-psitive in the Netherlands and know about it, it is not punishable by law to have unprotected sex with another person without telling them. Yes, you're effectively killing them. Yes, it's morally dispicable. But unless there's something 'wrong' with the sex act (i.e. dependant relationship, forced, wahetever), the HIV guy is in the clear. Why? Because the law says it boils down to individual responsibility. Yeah, maybe the guy was consciously trying to murder the gal by not telling her he was HIV positivie and not using protection, but the choice to not use protection and run the risk was hers as well as his.

Your laws are wrong. That particular form of murder may be legal, but that doesn't mean it is moral, and that doesn't mean you can use it to justify any other immoral act. Let's keep looking at your example, though. So, now the woman has HIV. Does that mean she should go around having unprotected sex? After all, it is "legal", and she has the "right" to get revenge on unsuspecting strangers, doesn't she? No. It may be legal, but it is not something I would do, it's not something I would advise anyone else to do, and it's something I wish no one actually does.

AND, LIKE I SAID A MILLION BILLION TIMES BEFORE, IF HE DISCOVERS ITS FAKE, THEN I WOULD ADVISE TO REFUND HIM.

At which point you would proceed to sell it again, right?

[Hi-Val]

I'd toss the card in my 5-Color : )

If we want to bust out this idea that we can do whatever we can get away with, we might as well go balls-out. If you're ripping some guy off for $300 on fake power, why not rob the March of Dimes jar at the drugstore? Why pay for chapstick when you can pocket it?

I find the notion of "I do what I can do without being punished for it" to be quite juvenille. It's how a four-year-old acts, not a mature adult. Society is formed on the expectation that you'll observe laws (including fraud) so that you don't get burned by it yourself. Because wanting to pass off fake power is nice until the guy you sell it to gives you fake twenties for it. And when you go to cash them in, it's discovered and the Secret Service gives you a call. And you lose all the "money" that you got from selling your "power". After all, turnabout is fair play if we go by that ethical code, right? And if you sell me fake power, I have every right to steal your car radio and other valuables to make up for the loss as long as I can get away with it. I can do other things to you if I can get away with them too, including stabbing.

We all want to be little Roskolnikovs here, but thankfully most of us can overcome the urge.

[Bram]

Your laws are wrong

Thanks. I'll be sure to pass that on to the Supreme Justice, along with the comment that our Anti Discrimination Act should be scrapped to appease the Americans :-/

That particular form of murder may be legal, but that doesn't mean it is moral

Scroll back to what I said:

Yes, it's morally dispicable.

The point I was trying to convey is that you cannot throw aside your personal responsibility in such matters. The buyer has an judicial obligation (at least over here) to check if I'm cheating him. I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do (if you'll recall, I've been saying it's the wrong thing to do since the beginning of this thread); I'm just saying that you can't put all of the blame on the person who sells it. Apparently, this immoral course of action is so perfectly understandable that there are legal provisions in place for these scenarios.

If we want to bust out this idea that we can do whatever we can get away with, we might as well go balls-out. If you're ripping some guy off for $300 on fake power, why not rob the March of Dimes jar at the drugstore? Why pay for chapstick when you can pocket it?

Yeah, and while I'm at it, I could delete TMD, pocket the cash I raised with my charity, sell my sister into slavery and burn down Rome over the holidays. Oh come on. Now you're just being childish. This slippery slope argument you are all so incessantly fond of is pure nonsense. You know perfectly well that this isn't the same thing. I've answered your inane question on so many levels (personally, ethically, judicially) that I'm not even gonna rehash any of it. Just reread my posts, will you? You're all making me out to be some sort of greedy immoral bastard while I'm just being realistic, and honest with you. Apparently, neither is appreciated.

I can't even bear to talk to you guys anymore. I'm gonna be out for a couple of days until this stupidity dies down. Have fun being saints in the meanwhile.

[Limbo]

Why is it that every example used in this discussion is either in the white (good) or black (bad) side of the "spectrum"? I think there is a huge grey area, with huge amounts of different shades of grey. And every action a person takes will be influenced by huge amounts of factors, like education, social setting, environment, time, mood, past experiences and so on.

Examples for the white side:

Homeless person gives other homeless person half of his bread just to be friendly : huge white karma bonus
Person with a regular job gives $1 to a homeless person, so he can buy a bread (beer?) : normal white karma bonus
Bill Gates gives $5 to a homeless person : a lot of people will already consider this in the grey area, as "he can give more, as he won't miss it".

Examples for the black side:

A person kills someone else just for fun : huge amount of black karma points
A criminal kills someone else during a robbery : large amount of black karma points
A criminal kills another criminal (I am talking badass drugdealers here) to settle a feud : "normal" amount of black karma points
A person kills another person that has an affair with his wife : entering the grey area
A person kills another person that fucked his wife, killed his kids, burned his house and stole his car : entering (or already in) white karma points

Applying this to the current discussion / arguments (huge in previous examples does not equal huge in these examples):

Buying a fake card from someone who discovered it to be a fake carc just to cover that someones losses : huge white karma bonus
Creating a fake card to sell it for a lot of money : huge black karma points
Discovering you have a fake card, and destroy it to stop the loop : huge white karma bonus
Discovering you have a fake card, and sell it to "regain" your money : grey area (pending on history of the person)
Selling a card, and after that discover it is a fake, and shutting up about it : grey area (pending on history of the person)

According to some people here, considering their argumentations, the only thing we should use in everyday life to make decisions is our moral compass, resulting in the argumentation : Selling this fake is morally wrong -> so you can't do it. If you do sell it -> you don't have morals -> so you could just as well kill people. This argumentation is flawed.

Is selling a fake knowingly morally wrong : yes (everyone agrees on that)
Would I (if I had to) personally judge every person that ever sold a fake card to be a backstabbing, lunchmoney robbing criminal : no
Would I understand (and agree with) it if someone sold a fake card he bought thinking it was real given certain circumstances : yes

To turn a musquito into an elephant to amplify my argument (as that seems the way to strengthen our argument in this discussion):
Is it morally wrong to kill a person : yes
Would I understand (and agree with) it if someone killed another person given certain circumstances : yes
Would I personally kill someone else given certain circumstances : I think everyone can kill pending on the circumstances (be it very very very unlikely circumstances)

[Jacob Orlove]

Your laws are wrong

Thanks. I'll be sure to pass that on to the Supreme Justice, along with the comment that our Anti Discrimination Act should be scrapped to appease the Americans :-/

That's not what I said, and you know it. A wide-reaching anti-discrimination act is great, but one that allows people to kill each other goes too far. That doesn't mean it should be scrapped--just that the particular aspect you referenced needs to change. This is exactly why we can't rely on empty legalisms to tell us what we should and shouldn't do: the law is an ever-evolving thing, and it isn't always right.

The point I was trying to convey is that you cannot throw aside your personal responsibility in such matters. The buyer has an judicial obligation (at least over here) to check if I'm cheating him.

That is not at all the case over here. If you defraud someone, it is not his fault for being taken in by your lies (or your withholding of the truth). The blame (at least over here) rests squarely on your shoulders. It is not the victim's fault, but the criminal's.

I'm sorry, but I just can't comprehend a system where lying about something is wrong, but misrepresenting it is perfectly fine.

I just want to remind people what this whole thread is about: we're here to give advice to Aaron's friend. Sure, there could be a situation where selling fake power is acceptable (easy example: someone puts a gun to your head), but we all know, realistically, that he is not in one of those situations. That is why all my examples are so black and white--because there are no mitigating factors that turn things to shades of gray.

We both agree that it's the wrong thing to do, and we agree that on the scale of wrong things to do it is not especially high (I was never challenging the fact that you're a good person). You suggest that he goes ahead and sells it anyway, because it's what you would do. This is so obvious that some people ignore it, but he's better off when he has the $300 then when he doesn't. I'm acknowledging that, and suggesting that he forego that $300, because it's what I would do.

[Slay]

Has it dawned on anyone that you can simply use the fake piece in a tournament? If it's a good fake, you'll never be caught by anyone unless they work for PSA. It isn't unfair by any kind of logistical standards: you paid full price for a piece of power, you get to use it as such. There is no distinct advantage that is created if you pay $500 for a piece of fake power and use it as such. It would be just as likely that you would have gotten some real power for that price. There is no shame that comes from using fake power that you paid full price for, and you certainly aren't ripping any other tournamentgoers out of their money. You paid for your advantage, you deserve to keep it.
-Slay

[Mykeatog]

This is getting out of hand.

If any of you who are bitchin' about how bad selling this thing is have EVER in your ENTIRE LIFE made a trade in which you feel like you "got the better deal" then you are being highly hypocritical. What the fuck is the difference between making 3 dollars off one guy, 300 off another,  or 3000 off the next? There isn't one. Most of you are talking all this shit about moral's and value - but you just aren't even sure what you are really talking about.

Dealing is a game of information and speculation. Let's say you were tipped off that Mox Sapphire was going to made a promo and 100,000 more of them were going to be distributed - would you tell that to the person you were selling your Unlimited NM one too? No, you would keep your damned mouth shut make your 450 bucks, and get one of the stupid promo ones to play with.

The card in question seems very real to me - any of you who have been with this thread from the beginning should know that I have ALREADY OFFERED TO PURCHASE IT FOR WHAT THIS GUY PAID. Why? Because if it took this guy a full year to notice that it didn't match his other power then it is real enough for me to buy it and sell it. I won't think twice about it - I know many people who collect good fakes, I know many people who collect odd power. Some of the fakes out there are from 'fake prints' that each have names and can be distingushed from one another.

What's going on here is a bunch of people who don't know much about value are arguing as if they were the moral code incarnant, but they wouldn't think twice about ripping someone off in a trade. We live in a world of information. Every stock traded every day is traded on speculation, promise, and hope. People lose money in the market when they are lied to, cheated, or make bad trades.

I know this is going to spur alot of criticizm, and I know that recently Bram and I haven't been on the same side of an arguement - but enough is enough.

We're all assholes (accept maybe Jacob), every single one of us - if I can sell a card for twice what's it worth I do it - so do you. So please, stop pretending that this is a big deal, and be smart enough to not get yourself into this mess, or - taking it to the next level - realize how to turn this situation into a positive one.

I've got so much more to say, but I really don't know what is relevant to this discussion or what is more relevent to a larger discussion about the overall schemeatic's of positive investment trading.

[Mykeatog]

I am speaking to the general voice of the thread, not any one person in peticular - if you are one of those guys who tries to make a trade fair for everyone then kudos to you.

My stock market example was supposed to jsut bring a brief overview of Magic vs. The Real World. There are stock scandals, but they are certainly above my knowledge. I woudl go so far as to say that on a deeper level I don't know shit about stocks - but I do know that the situations mentioned might be a little more complex than what we are dealing with.

Not to be insulting; but I don't remember you. I am certainly assuming that we have talked before - but if it was about anyting relevant know that I can't put your face to your TMD name. Bring this up next time we are in the same place together - so I can associate the two.

And again, I wasn't aiming my comment at you. I was aiming it at any of the people in this thread who have ever reported to me (or even just their friends), about some awesome deal they made where they came out on top of it by ten dollars. Because there is very little ethical difference, and I was pretty sure that is where the thread was heading.

I tend to argue aggressively, I'm not actually trying to start shit, it's just the way I've always done it. Most of you knew that; the rest of you now do.
 

[Nova442]

I thought I'd throw a few cents out there into the storm.  What I'd like people to remember is that although the consequences of varying paths of actions may yield the same end result, the means are ultimately important.

@mykeatog:  selling a real card for what an informed buyer is willing to pay is fundamentally different than intentionally defrauding an unsuspecting person EVEN IF the net result is the same ($ to your bank).  The means are morally repugnant in the latter case.

@HIV thing:  I'm glad we have laws here that require disclosure of HIV status.  In the news recently the USA reached a milestone of 1 million people living with HIV/AIDS.  That's out of 300 million.  And a big part of the reason the onus falls on those WITH the disease to disclose rather than the innocent bystander is because of this SMALL percentage.  It's not like some parts of sub-saharan Africa where the infection rate is 40% or higher.  It's also part of our legal tradition that the "seller" gives the "buyer" informed consent, whether that be an actual transaction, agreeing to take part in medical research, or contracting a deadly virus.

I can understand if your culture doesn't value this very much, though.  I mean, why not take advantage of people by spinning half truths and omitting information crucial to the decision?  Perfectly acceptable!  /half-hearted tongue in cheek

@The initial dilemma:  Of course he should try to get his money back, and selling it as a high quality proxy is a great idea (I wouldn't even have thought of that, good one).  And if at the end he gets a new, real card instead of the tainted one he has then I'm sure he'll be happy AND have learned a lesson. 

If he wants to do the absolute "rightest" thing the owner would have to stop playing with it in tournaments too (except as a proxy) because then he'd be taking advantage of the fake as a chance to win $$$.  I'm surprised that even some of the "do the right thing" crowd said to keep playing it until he can buy a new one. Come on people, right is right is right, amirite? :/ Taking the *known* fake to a tournament under that situation would be attemping to gain money or property under false pretenses

And as much as I'd like to say I'm the good little boy, I'd be tempted to keep playing with it too.  But I definitely wouldn't bilk someone out of hundreds of dollars, that's too far over my moral line.  I do not think 80% of the "do the right thing" posters would steal $300 like that.  No way in hell, yo.  I've had this opportunity (ok, it was ~$200) before and passed, and I didn't find it isn't so hard to spend a few hours getting back my money the right way instead of bending over some random stranger and making him take it up the ass.

And just remember to any more hypocrite talk, the credibility of the speaker has nothing at all to do with the logic and pure truth of the statements themselves.  It's the definition of a hypocrite to pronounce a principle and not follow it, but that doesn't lower the weight of the statement ^^;  It can be, and often is, still true regardless of the speaker's character. 

There's no logic in dismissing someone's argument because they are bad or would act bad, the argument itself must be attacked.

P.S. As much as I disagree with what Bram would do, I still think it's virtuous to be honest about it.  I do suspect there are some of us, for all the moral indignation, that would indeed resort to fraud to recover that $300.  It's easy to armchair quarterback when it's not your money   So, in closing, props to Bram for his Ginormous Man-Balls.

P.P.S. Lied about the closing, sorry.  Wish me luck on the MS 150 Bike Tour this weekend.  Two days to beat the hell out of my body to raise money for multiple sclerosis research (my aunt has MS).  If I don't make it back to the forums, you may assume I died on the road.  GL HF GG.

[Dozer]

I find the notion of "I do what I can do without being punished for it" to be quite juvenille. It's how a four-year-old acts, not a mature adult. Society is formed on the expectation that you'll observe laws (including fraud) so that you don't get burned by it yourself.

The underlying assumption here is that people want to stay inside their society. What if that's not true? My personal experience and belief is that you can do anything if you are prepared to face the consequences. Morals are arbitrary and personalized. No two persons have an identical moral system. Only two things stops us from doing what ever we want: fear of the conseqences, and our personal convictions. Our beliefs and morals are shaped by our upbringing, our education, our environment, by everything we perceive and everything we think. They are the only barrier between us as the so called "civilised human beings" and us as true predators. Mind you, it is a high barrier, higher for some than for others.

It strikes me as funny that on a multi-cultural body like TMD, people are trying to actually find or force consent on an appearently moral issue. It is impossible by default. Only if we have similar stances we can agree; convincing someone that his stance is wrong on moral grounds is next to impossible unless there are reasons that both parties perceive as valid.

There is no "right" or "wrong", and certainly no "black" and "white" for solving the issue with the appearently fake card. Every one of us has a solution for it, so we present these as options. The original poster can choose from one of those, or make one up for himself. This is not an argument that can be solved by logical argumentation: Our frames of reference are too different. Between strict adherence to the intent of the law and a freewheeling dealing with the situation, the original problem owner must choose.

We can only present options. Choose the option with the consequences that you feel most comfortable about.

For the record, I'd keep playing with it until the fake gets busted in a tournament, then sell it as a high-quality proxy.

Dozer


/edit: formatting

[Jacob Orlove]

It strikes me as funny that on a multi-cultural body like TMD, people are trying to actually find or force consent on an appearently moral issue.

This thread has 74 replies, and 963 views. It's a safe bet that there are people reading who aren't posting. Most of the arguments in this thread are not to convince anyone who has chosen a position and posts in favor of it, but instead are there for those who haven't posted, and indeed may not have come to a firm conclusion yet as to what they would actually do--people like Aaron's friend.

[Saucemaster]

This thread has 74 replies, and 963 views. It's a safe bet that there are people reading who aren't posting. Most of the arguments in this thread are not to convince anyone who has chosen a position and posts in favor of it, but instead are there for those who haven't posted, and indeed may not have come to a firm conclusion yet as to what they would actually do--people like Aaron's friend.

And some of us are watching with interest, but feel like Bram's been dogpiled enough.   For all that I agree that a person in this situation should NOT sell the card, I will say that Bram's has been one of the most mature replies so far.  We all have a threshhold beyond which we know--if we're being honest with ourselves--that regardless of knowing the right thing to do, we simply will not be able to do it.  Where that line is for any given person says a lot about that person's character.  Acknowledging that there is such a line, knowing where you stand, and taking action to prevent being put in a situation where you might be nearing the limit of your willpower demonstrates self-knowledge and a healthy dose of pragmatism, and I think that's what Bram has demonstrated.  Insisting that you have no such limit (which, to be fair, no one has explicitly done) is just naive.  Note that I'm not calling anyone out here.  I know Jacob fairly well, and I firmly believe that he would do exactly as he's advising were he in this situation.  I don't know Rich that well, but from what I *do* know of him I have no doubt that he would also do as he's advising, and take the hit.  I honestly think that I would also refrain from selling the card, but I can imagine circumstances in which that $300+ is just too big a temptation.

So anyway, I for one appreciate Bram's honesty, even if I don't think I'd do what he believes he'd do in this situation.

[Smmenen]

I realize this thread has meandered enough - but I think this is a good time to broaden the issue:

I have seen a growing number of fakes being played in tournaments.

At origins last year, a guy had a Lotus that I could tell at a glance was a fake.  However, Mike Guptil, a level four judge, looked at it and couldn't disprove its authenticity - therefore it was legal for play.

At Starcitygames Richmond last fall, my opponent had a very good fake Mox.  He went through the whole tournament without anyone saying anything. I could tell at a glance and when the judges were called over - they couldn't tell. 

Even Ted Knutson wasn't sure.  It was only because Pete Hoefling and Ben Bleiweiss were there a they had plenty of experience and power to compare it to tha they decided it was a fake.

The point I'm leading to is: if it is a fake, and I know its a fake, but a TO can't prove that its a fake becuase it is so well done, where does that bring us?

The price of power is so high that it only seems natural that more and more fakes will be entering the market and over time the quality will only increase. I have seen lots of people with power I know is fake but I don't even bother to tell them unless they ask me anymore because the often gave an arm and a leg for it.

By no means would I ever sell a card that I knew was a fake as real, but I can't bring myself to tell some poor kid who traded half his collection and a pile of cash for a card that it is a fake. 

If only very, very few people can tell when a card is a fake, what do we do? 

[Bram]

First, some more meandering!

You suggest that he goes ahead and sells it anyway, because it's what you would do. This is so obvious that some people ignore it, but he's better off when he has the $300 then when he doesn't. I'm acknowledging that, and suggesting that he forego that $300, because it's what I would do.

Fair enough.

And yes, doing this wouldn't make you a terrible person.  But it might expose you to civil or criminal liability, with consequences far more serious than the loss of a few hundred dollars.  And even beyond that, it's not a compromise I'd make.

Again: fair enough. Finally we're moving towards the discussion I had in mind here. We're all in agreement here, I think, on the following:
a. selling it won't make you go to hell
b. not selling it is the ethical optimum
c. there's more people that advise against selling than for it
d. there's really no way of knowing if anyone's being hypocritical about this unless they are or have been in the situation themselves

any of you who have been with this thread from the beginning should know that I have ALREADY OFFERED TO PURCHASE IT FOR WHAT THIS GUY PAID.

That is beyond awesome.

I know this is going to spur alot of criticizm, and I know that recently Bram and I haven't been on the same side of an arguement - but enough is enough.

Well, that was just that one time in the mod lounge, you know. I can't always agree with you. Lord knows I try 

The underlying assumption here is that people want to stay inside their society. What if that's not true? My personal experience and belief is that you can do anything if you are prepared to face the consequences. Morals are arbitrary and personalized. No two persons have an identical moral system. Only two things stops us from doing what ever we want: fear of the conseqences, and our personal convictions. Our beliefs and morals are shaped by our upbringing, our education, our environment, by everything we perceive and everything we think. They are the only barrier between us as the so called "civilised human beings" and us as true predators. Mind you, it is a high barrier, higher for some than for others.

Quoted for truth. Couldn't have said it better (or even as good) myself.

We all have a threshhold beyond which we know--if we're being honest with ourselves--that regardless of knowing the right thing to do, we simply will not be able to do it.

Indeed. This is commonly known as the'"KAP-gap". K stands for Knowledge, A for Attitude and P for Practice. This has been a subject of research in the diffusion of innovations (mind you: an innovation can be an idea or practice as well as a technology). It is often applied to, for example, solar cells. On average, if you talk to a random person in Europe and ask him if he knows about solar cells, he will. He'll also likely have a positive attidue towards them. He will not, however, resort to using them (which is kinda weird because the idea used to be that if you knew about something, and had a positive attitude towards the relative advantages, you would be prone to adopt). There's several explanations for the KAP gap, but I won't go into those.

Notice how this is similar to our situation? Do I know about the positive effects of discontinuing the cycle of fraud? Yes. Do I have a positive attitide towards breaking the cycle? Yes. I believe it's The Right Thing (tm) to do and admire anyone who does. Would I break the cycle? No. Ergo: KAP-gap (for me personally, at least).

[Saucemaster]

This is commonly known as the'"KAP-gap".

I like to refer to it as the "Adriana Lima phenomenon".  Do I believe that it would be wrong for me to cheat on my girlfriend?  Yes, because we've both agreed that cheating is off-limits in our relationship.  Do I feel good about resisting temptation and do I admire others who do?  Yes.  If Adriana Lima was offering, could I refuse?  I mean, let's just be honest here.

[Machinus]

There is no "right" or "wrong", and certainly no "black" and "white" for solving the issue with the appearently fake card. Every one of us has a solution for it, so we present these as options. The original poster can choose from one of those, or make one up for himself. This is not an argument that can be solved by logical argumentation: Our frames of reference are too different. Between strict adherence to the intent of the law and a freewheeling dealing with the situation, the original problem owner must choose.

One of the more profound contributions to any "debate" here at TMD.

[Nickalisk3]

I realize this thread has meandered enough - but I think this is a good time to broaden the issue:

I have seen a growing number of fakes being played in tournaments.

At origins last year, a guy had a Lotus that I could tell at a glance was a fake.  However, Mike Guptil, a level four judge, looked at it and couldn't disprove its authenticity - therefore it was legal for play.

At Starcitygames Richmond last fall, my opponent had a very good fake Mox.  He went through the whole tournament without anyone saying anything. I could tell at a glance and when the judges were called over - they couldn't tell.  

Even Ted Knutson wasn't sure.  It was only because Pete Hoefling and Ben Bleiweiss were there a they had plenty of experience and power to compare it to tha they decided it was a fake.

The point I'm leading to is: if it is a fake, and I know its a fake, but a TO can't prove that its a fake becuase it is so well done, where does that bring us?

The price of power is so high that it only seems natural that more and more fakes will be entering the market and over time the quality will only increase. I have seen lots of people with power I know is fake but I don't even bother to tell them unless they ask me anymore because the often gave an arm and a leg for it.

By no means would I ever sell a card that I knew was a fake as real, but I can't bring myself to tell some poor kid who traded half his collection and a pile of cash for a card that it is a fake.  

If only very, very few people can tell when a card is a fake, what do we do?  

Where these beta fakes or Unlimited fakes, and how do you tell with such certainty?

What are the distinguishing features that differentiate a fake from a variation in print?  Sorry for the thread necromacy, but as you said, this only becomes a more prevalent issue with time...

As you noted, the Rules generally prohibit posting in threads that have been dormant for 30 days; that rationale applies with even greater force to threads that have been inactive for several years.  Furthermore, the Rules also require that content that would be more suited to a PM be sent through that medium.  -DA