Is it ethical to alter cards and sell them without disclosure?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, I don't think there is anything close to the consensus here as to what is acceptable and what isn't. You and I might agree on nearly every case, but even going back many years there were disagreements about a lot of things, like erasing pencil for example.

100% the case. And I doubt, that if we sat down for 5 hours and discussed the limits of self-defense, we would have exactly the same boundary. Or for robbery. Or for tax fraud. Or for any other crime under the sun. And yet, we would both be fully able to render an opinion on the subject.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

100% the case. And I doubt, that if we sat down for 5 hours and discussed the limits of self-defense, we would have exactly the same boundary. Or for robbery. Or for tax fraud. Or for any other crime under the sun. And yet, we would both be fully able to render an opinion on the subject.

Right, but in a poll that uses a term we both use differently, our answers would not convey much.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right, but in a poll that uses a term we both use differently, our answers would not convey much.

Surely as people who possess common sense, we could say we are for or against tax fraud, jaywalking, murder, watch thievery, illicit ticket scalping, or literally any other crime of your choice except this one. We could convey our general framework and values because we speak English and know perfectly well what we are talking about. And then we might dive into some fun 'what if?' scenarios and play with the edges (possible with our fingers or a tortillon or a spoon), but in no other crime of which we were both generally informed would we play dumb and pretend we can't render a judgement.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

jaywalking

Personally, I'm cool with jaywalking.

[brianp-beme]

I don't believe the alteration of the T205 Ewing on the right was disclosed when I bought it. But then again, I must have a predisposition toward cards that have undesirable alterations.

Brian (I am, however, an anti-jaywalkerite)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Surely as people who possess common sense, we could say we are for or against tax fraud, jaywalking, murder, watch thievery, illicit ticket scalping, or literally any other crime of your choice except this one. We could convey our general framework and values because we speak English and know perfectly well what we are talking about. And then we might dive into some fun 'what if?' scenarios and play with the edges (possible with our fingers or a tortillon or a spoon), but in no other crime of which we were both generally informed would we play dumb and pretend we can't render a judgement.

Fair enough, I think this is in a different category though, because to me yes there's a core (trimming, recoloring, adding material) but there are many other things as to which there is no consensus and which to me are more than the examples around the edges in other cases. Thus, when one says murder, it has a relatively common meaning. I don't think that's true, any more anyhow, for alteration. It just means different things to different people. So people could say yes, selling an altered card without disclosure is fraud, but they might think cleaning was fine.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Fair enough, I think this is in a different category though, because to me yes there's a core (trimming, recoloring, adding material) but there are many other things as to which there is no consensus and which to me are more than the examples around the edges in other cases. Thus, when one says murder, it has a relatively common meaning. I don't think that's true, any more anyhow, for alteration. It just means different things to different people. So people could say yes, selling an altered card without disclosure is fraud, but they might think cleaning was fine.

The reason I chose that particular example as one of my three specifics, is precisely because the line between punishable by law homicide and legally protected self-defense is very very gray. In most jurisdictions it is poorly defined both within the legal code and among the public conception, relying on clauses about 'reasonable fear' etc. that are not strict lines or well defined at all. And yet, you and I are still able to state the absolutely obvious - we are against murder. Now, if we were together on a panel of two judges, we would almost certainly come into conflict playing with those further refinements - is this particular case a 2nd or 3rd degree murder, or a legitimate act of self-defense? We surely both believe those two things exist, a murder and an act of self-defense, and that one of them should be punished by the law, but will we draw the line in the exact same narrow spot? Probably not, because we live in a complicated world of grey. We would surely both understand that there was room for grey, and that disagreement on a particular case may happen. And yet, as functioning people, we could surely still express a negative opinion on the central issue. We don't have to sit and pretend that we can't say murder is wrong. You don't start with the grey, you start at the center for any other crime, and we are fully capable of rendering our judgment of that crime, while being cognizant that there are many particular cases that reasonable folk may or may not consider to be covered by the edges of that rendering.

Again, replace this crime with any other crime about which the two or more people conversing are somewhat informed on, as we all are about card alteration. We are able to function - except when it's card alteration in a group of hobbyists. Only here is it so tremendously difficult.