Opinions on lying in a youtube video

[Albert]

That makes sense.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh.... my brain is broken right now >.<
I don't have any witty things to say...

[theheron]

hey guys, thought i'd share this.. it may give you a good veiw on deception and lying in tricks..

[Rokk]

Yeah! This has turned into quite a heated argument! I like that!

Originally Posted by Albert

I never said lying isn't part of magic. Magicians often lie and have to when performing a trick; that's why I said "Depending on the situation, you have to lie in a trick".

True! I didn't read your post very well. Sorry!

The situation that therippertormentor explained is a situation where that guy is trying to make himself bigger and better in front of other magicians, not just laymen. The motive is just not the same. He's not doing it simply to fool laymen. He is lying to fool magicians in an unethical way. That's what really differentiates between a lie that you should do and shouldn't do.

I don't really see what the big difference is between lying for laymen and lying for magicians. In a way we are always laymen in regard to the tricks we don't know! And the motive is just the same: to make our actions appear greater then what they are. All for the sake of entertainment. Could you please explain what makes fooling magicians unethical? (I don't necessarily disagree on this one. I just haven't made up my mind on what to think! )

Also, referring to using another method to achieve the same effect really would be pointless to bring up here, since we are only talking about that one method used by that guy who lied.

I don't think it is pointless though. To a spectator any method to achieve the same effect IS the same trick. And I wasn't thinking about a completely different method either. More like just palming of the card and handing out the deck...

To me it seems like we magician gets so used to lying that we tend to not see it as a lies anymore. (lie = tell an untrue statement. Doesn't necessarily bear any negative connotations to me)

However, from the spectators view I think no-one would think there is any difference between "Your card is not on top" and "The deck may be shuffled by a spectator". If you are caught lying in either case, you are busted! But that doesn't mean they don't expect that you are lying!

And every now and then we are turned into laymen again when we can't figure out a trick. We are amazed and we love the trick! And the method is propably a new one that we didn't think of, for example: lying when we expected him to be telling the truth! So, why would that method be "unethical" when we would lovingly embrace any other method to achieve the effect?

The reason why Chris Angels stooge-tricks seems lame is not simply beacuse he is lying, but because it is so easily seen through. Just think of it. Suppose he told a person to think of a number between one and a million and guess it correctly! Imagine if you would NOT think that the spectator is a stooge (but he is!). That would be a totaly amazing effect! Not very tecnically advanced, but as always: the simplest tricks are often the best.

But maybe what all boils down to is wether you think of magic as an art or just entertainment. An entertainer can lie unscrupulously. But an artist shouldn't cause it is disrespectful for the art! I dont know...

Imho in magic a lie is good lie if it is believed!

tl:dr: I still think I am right and Albert is wrong!

[Albert]

Haha let me clarify

It's quiet tough to distinguish an unethical and an ethical lie, but let me try.
If the lie is part of the patter meant to entertain the spectators, I believe that's completely fine.
If the lie is part of the patter meant to one-up himself to making it seem like he has an ability he does not, then that's a bad lie, although the spectators won't be able to tell most of the time.

Let me give an example:
(Good lie): So, the card goes into the middle of the deck, but with a snap of the fingers, the card comes up to the top (like an ACR Routine)
(Bad lie): Perfect example is Toby Bromfield's Engima (falsified palming technique).

If that Engima move was used for the spectator as a patter to further enhance the trick, that's fine. We can make act like we did something sneaky all we want. That's the motive to entertain.
However, in reality, Enigma was presented as an "advanced palming technique", in which the motive behind it was to fool other magicians into thinking that he created a new move, not to simply entertain viewers.

I guess in that sense, Mark made a very good point in simply claiming that lies should be made only necessary, but that can also sound kind of vague unless clarified

[Mark]

Originally Posted by theheron

hey guys, thought i'd share this.. it may give you a good veiw on deception and lying in tricks.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvXqX...ture=autoshare

Great link. I seen it before but I don't really agree with everything Marco said. Basically he says magic is self-deception, but that would mean the magician should shut up during his performance or at least not say anything about what seems to be happening.

But I fully agree that magicians do what people expect from them. This is also why I would support all psychics (even fake ones) as long as they don't do any harm, because they do what people expect them to do. If you would take all fake psychics down, you are not just exposing them, you are messing with people their beliefs which could end up really bad and much worse than those non-harmful psychics would have things end up.

Originally Posted by Rokk

The reason why Chris Angels stooge-tricks seems lame is not simply beacuse he is lying, but because it is so easily seen through. Just think of it. Suppose he told a person to think of a number between one and a million and guess it correctly! Imagine if you would NOT think that the spectator is a stooge (but he is!). That would be a totaly amazing effect! Not very tecnically advanced, but as always: the simplest tricks are often the best.

Criss' tricks seem lame to us, but many think he's the very best magician on this planet. It would have worked if he wouldn't have said anything about not using camera trickery or stooges, and magicians would have actually liked him a lot more because he wouldn't be lying for no reason. It's like saying "I don't use a Double Lift", there just is no reason to say that to your spectators.

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by Albert

If the lie is part of the patter meant to one-up himself to making it seem like he has an ability he does not, then that's a bad lie, although the spectators won't be able to tell most of the time.

Isn't all magic about faking abilities we don't have? Like faking the ability to make a card come to the top with just a snap?

(Good lie): So, the card goes into the middle of the deck, but with a snap of the fingers, the card comes up to the top (like an ACR Routine)
(Bad lie): Perfect example is Toby Bromfield's Engima (falsified palming technique).

Well, about that enigma-thing. His video is not really magic in that way wich we tend to expect magic to be like. It is more like meta-magic, magic for magicians or something... But should magic really be confined into our narrow definition? Why not broaden our art?

If that Engima move was used for the spectator as a patter to further enhance the trick, that's fine. We can make act like we did something sneaky all we want. That's the motive to entertain.
However, in reality, Enigma was presented as an "advanced palming technique", in which the motive behind it was to fool other magicians into thinking that he created a new move, not to simply entertain viewers.

Well, we can't really be sure what his ultimate motive was (unless you are a real mindreader Albert! ). Maybe he is a immoral lier, maybe he isn't. But, most propably, many people who watched his video was fascinated and entertained by it. And what was fascinating wasn't that he had invented a move, but the move itself. And here's the thing: in the same way that we might fascinate laymen by decieving them into thinking we could do impossible things, he fascinated magicians by decieving them into thinking he could do an impossible move! It's the same thing! Only difference is that now we are the fooled ones instead of the foolers (IF you were fooled that is).

[Albert]

Originally Posted by Rokk

Isn't all magic about faking abilities we don't have? Like faking the ability to make a card come to the top with just a snap?

NO! Of course not! Magic is all about entertaining people, not just deceiving and lying. Deceptions and lies are used to entertain in magic; however, if one's only motive in doing magic is just to lie and deceive people, no offense, but I would never ever accept that person as a magician. That's just pathetic and a waste of a life. The difference is minimal, but those are difference that change a person's entire perspective on things. Here's an analogy "It doesn't matter how much money you stole. It's the fact that you stole it that matters."

Originally Posted by Rokk

Well, about that enigma-thing. His video is not really magic in that way wich we tend to expect magic to be like. It is more like meta-magic, magic for magicians or something... But should magic really be confined into our narrow definition? Why not broaden our art?

What do you mean "it's not magic in that way which we tend to expect magic to be like"? Using terms like meta-magic to try and justify one's unethical action is not justifiable in my opinion. You ask 'why not broaden the definition of magic?' But, what's the definition? Unless that's cleared up, I can't say anything about that. No offense at all Rokk, but what you just said above really doesn't convince me at all. I don't care how crappy one's DLs are, or how terrible he palms a card; magic is magic. There are other categories of magic, but they branch off from the idea of magic as a whole.

Originally Posted by Rokk

Well, we can't really be sure what his ultimate motive was (unless you are a real mindreader Albert! ). Maybe he is a immoral lier, maybe he isn't. But, most propably, many people who watched his video was fascinated and entertained by it. And what was fascinating wasn't that he had invented a move, but the move itself. And here's the thing: in the same way that we might fascinate laymen by decieving them into thinking we could do impossible things, he fascinated magicians by decieving them into thinking he could do an impossible move! It's the same thing! Only difference is that now we are the fooled ones instead of the foolers (IF you were fooled that is).

True, I'm no mindreader, but I don't think I'm too far off. Given that Tom explicitly described this as a new and advanced palming technique, what do you think he tried to accomplish? If he really just wanted to perform his new move like it really was magic, he wouldn't say something like "it's a new palming technique I made". Almost every magician wants to eventually contribute to the art and make their names known. What's the easiest way to do that? Lie your ass off. This lying is not for performing; it's for faking an invention that was never invented. What for? I'm sure the entertainment value was not the biggest factor. If that's the case, what do you think he wanted to accomplish?

Here's a perfect example. Do you ever perform for a spectator and say "Look! This move I'm using here is an advanced palming technique". No magician in the right mind would ever reveal what they are doing in the middle of a performance, unless their patter flowed nicely with it. I don't think Tom is that stupid or senseless to include the word 'palm' as part of the patter.

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by Mark

Criss' tricks seem lame to us, but many think he's the very best magician on this planet. It would have worked if he wouldn't have said anything about not using camera trickery or stooges, and magicians would have actually liked him a lot more because he wouldn't be lying for no reason. It's like saying "I don't use a Double Lift", there just is no reason to say that to your spectators.

Well, you don't say "I don't use a Double Lift" because usually people don't suspect that you do. However, if the spectators suspect that you do you better lie and try to convince them that you dont do a Double Lift. But I don't know how you would do, maybe you would just confess and stop the trick? I think most people are aware of that magicians might use camera trickery and stooges and might suspect that, so there IS a reason for that kind of lie. It's the same as saying "This is a fair shuffle" if you can convince people that it is fair (but in reality it is false), which might be better than if you just do a shuffle without commenting upon it and later people start to suspect it wasn't a fair shuffle. Anyway, Criss got his style and I'm not very fond of it, but I don't think what he is doing is immoral or something, other then his stoogery and camera-trickery might make laymen think every magician use those kind if tricks.

[Mark]

But laymen believe him on not using stooges and camera trickery, and then they buy tickets to his show and find out he is not nearby as good as he seems to be on TV. Even the couple of actual stage performances I've seen him do on Mindfreak were full of performance flaws and heavy video cutting to somewhat get rid of the errors as much as possible. I know quite some people who went to see his show live and returned upset because they didn't get what they expected to get as result of his unnecessary lying Criss does in his TV shows.

If you don't use stooges or video editing, don't say you don't use them. It only implies you actually use them or at least have thought of doing that. If you ask a stooge "we have never met before, have we?" you can only expect an answer that comes off as fake. If you don't say anything about it at all, maybe like "what's your name?" it comes off as real, simply because it is.

I don't say "this is a fair shuffle" either. I just shuffle and let the spectators decide whether it was fair or not. And if I say "the card goes into the middle of the deck" when it actually doesn't, it's only because that's exactly what the spectators believe to see.

Video and product descriptions just shouldn't include lies because they can and will be seen seperated from the performances. If you perform a palm and manage to show there is nothing in your palm, it's fine to say "see, there is nothing in my palm" during the performance, but then to put in the description that there was no palming involved, is lying without any purpose other than false advertising.

And Albert, you may want to take a deep breath before replying next time! You seemed to look tomato red in the reply.

[la0o9]

@Rokk: the thing is, the spectator's were fooled willingly, while we expect the truth, the whole truth and only the truth( court thing, sounded nice) from a conversation with a magician, you can lie to a layman to make yourself look cool, and thus entertain them as well, but if you lie to a fellow magician who would never be entertained by finding out you were not being truthful, you can only be thinking about how to look like the better magician, it's an unethical and lazy way to be a "good" magician.

[Rokk]

WTH? Where did my overly long post go? 0_o
Ok I retyped it.

[la0o9]

@Mark: well, i still believe that manipulate is only used for things, sure, if you treat another person as a thing and manipulate them it's fine to think like that( "manipulate" translated to my language is a word that only have a negative meaning, so i use the word only if i want to mean something negatively), but lying there are white lies as well as lies, if it's a lie when you talk to the spectator and entertain them, it's a white lie, as it actually doesn't do any harm, but actually does good from time to time, but if you lie to your fellow magicians who wants the truth, and gets found out( which, seems to happen so much more easily), then it's a lie, a bad one, thus being unforgivable. But a lie is still a lie, whether it's white or not, and thus, i say that magicians lie in every performance they do( well, unless you shut up the whole time...), and not manipulate people( like i said, lying is a lower offense than manipulating)

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by Albert

NO! Of course not! Magic is all about entertaining people, not just deceiving and lying. Deceptions and lies are used to entertain in magic; however, if one's only motive in doing magic is just to lie and deceive people, no offense, but I would never ever accept that person as a magician. That's just pathetic and a waste of a life. The difference is minimal, but those are difference that change a person's entire perspective on things. Here's an analogy "It doesn't matter how much money you stole. It's the fact that you stole it that matters.".

Let me rephrase myself: "Magic is about faking abilities we don't have for the sake of entertainment. "
But I agree with you: those who don't use deception as entertainment usually use it to get money and are called con artists. Other use it to gather a group of followers and are usually called cult leaders. And those are unethical because they inflict harm unto others.
And that is where I draw my line between a good lie and a bad lie: if it harms other people.
But lying in a youtubevideo doesn't really harm anyone, does it? At least as long as you dont sell the trick.
That analogy I do not understand. Maybe what you meant is: "It doesn't matter how you got the money, ethically or not. It's the fact that you got the money that matters." Is it correct? If so, I agree with you. But we seems to have different viewpoints on what is "unethical"

What do you mean "it's not magic in that way which we tend to expect magic to be like"? Using terms like meta-magic to try and justify one's unethical action is not justifiable in my opinion. You ask 'why not broaden the definition of magic?' But, what's the definition? Unless that's cleared up, I can't say anything about that. No offense at all Rokk, but what you just said above really doesn't convince me at all. I don't care how crappy one's DLs are, or how terrible he palms a card; magic is magic. There are other categories of magic, but they branch off from the idea of magic as a whole..

Here is a suggestion of a definition of magic: "Entertainment by deception". Btw you should also give your definition.
Magic is a certain kind of entertainment. With this comes certain kind of things that are associated with magic (and some that is not). Like cards, coins, thimbles,etc. Also different methods that magicians use, like sleight of hand, misdirection, psychology, etc. And also for who the magic is performed, which is usually in front of laymen. And that is how we tend to expect magic to be like. But these things easily becomes clichés, certainly there are other things you can perform magic with, and certainly there are other methods that can be used other then those we usually use. As well as magic doesn't have to be performed for laymen. And that is what I mean by "broadening the art"; to perform new kinds of magic. I don't mean that we should broaden magic to involve unethical things.
And maybe meta-magic isn't a very good word (sounds a little pretentious, doesn't it? ). Maybe "Magicians fooler" is a better word? I dont know...

True, I'm no mindreader, but I don't think I'm too far off. Given that Tom explicitly described this as a new and advanced palming technique, what do you think he tried to accomplish? If he really just wanted to perform his new move like it really was magic, he wouldn't say something like "it's a new palming technique I made". Almost every magician wants to eventually contribute to the art and make their names known. What's the easiest way to do that? Lie your ass off. This lying is not for performing; it's for faking an invention that was never invented. What for? I'm sure the entertainment value was not the biggest factor. If that's the case, what do you think he wanted to accomplish?.

I don't think you are to far off either. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that he did it purely for entertainment. Would his lying still be unethical? If he tries to sell the technuiqe: undoubtly yes! If he sells it as a trick? Nah... Maybe. But as far as I know he hasn't tried to sell it.
What I think he wanted to accomplish? Supposing he is innocent it would be to fascinate magicians. Supposing he is guilty it would be to get admiration.
Btw by the definition of magic I have given above his trick IS just magic for anyone who was entertained by it.

Here's a perfect example. Do you ever perform for a spectator and say "Look! This move I'm using here is an advanced palming technique".

Yes I actually might do that! In the trick "Invisible palm" that is essentially what you are saying. That tricks works the same way as "Enigma": You try to convince the spectators you can do a real impossible move, you do an overly suspicous move and then you use a different method to achieve what the alleged move does. The only difference is that "invisible palm" is used on laymen but "Enigma" is used to fool magicians. That seems clear to me since no layman, I think, would be interested in a new palming technuiqe.

It was really interesting to discuss with you Albert, but we live in different time-zones and I have to go to bed. If I said anything that upset you I appologize. We just seem to have diametrically different viewpoints on some things. I hope we can continue our discussion tomorrow.

tl;dr. Lying is only unethical if it harms people.

[Albert]

Originally Posted by Rokk

Let me rephrase myself: "Magic is about faking abilities we don't have for the sake of entertainment. "
But I agree with you: those who don't use deception as entertainment usually use it to get money and are called con artists. Other use it to gather a group of followers and are usually called cult leaders. And those are unethical because they inflict harm unto others.
And that is where I draw my line between a good lie and a bad lie: if it harms other people.
But lying in a youtubevideo doesn't really harm anyone, does it? At least as long as you dont sell the trick.
That analogy I do not understand. Maybe what you meant is: "It doesn't matter how you got the money, ethically or not. It's the fact that you got the money that matters." Is it correct? If so, I agree with you. But we seems to have different viewpoints on what is "unethical"

Yes, I do agree on what you said on the first half, about con artists and such. However, as I've said before, it's the motive that's important. Lying in a YouTube video usually doesn't hurt someone; however, that doesn't just related to when one is selling tricks.

You have to know the difference. Laymen/hecklers/(and often)magicians all watch the same trick. However, magicians think differently.
Laymen expect to be entertained. They are usually not concerned with the method until they see it happen and once their 10 seconds of initial thinking and logic can't figure it out, they will just enjoy the show.
Hecklers is another category of people, but irrelevant in this discussion, so I'll leave the details out.
Magicians have a different perspective. As la0o9 has said before, we want out fellow magicians to be truthful to us. A magician lying to a magician are okay in instance where they are a spectator. A magician lying (in a bad way; not a white lie)to a magician to hide the method is not right. A fellow magician should just say, "I can't tell you". It's not something we can explain; it's another part of the magician's code if you think about it. There's just a general understanding that fellow magicians shouldn't lie to another fellow magician. You can avoid the question or hide the method, but telling a completely different method when asked for it is just disrespectful. As I've said, what's written here doesn't convey half of what I want to say; it's something we just know inside.

Originally Posted by Rokk

Here is a suggestion of a definition of magic: "Entertainment by deception". Btw you should also give your definition.
Magic is a certain kind of entertainment. With this comes certain kind of things that are associated with magic (and some that is not). Like cards, coins, thimbles,etc. Also different methods that magicians use, like sleight of hand, misdirection, psychology, etc. And also for who the magic is performed, which is usually in front of laymen. And that is how we tend to expect magic to be like. But these things easily becomes clichés, certainly there are other things you can perform magic with, and certainly there are other methods that can be used other then those we usually use. As well as magic doesn't have to be performed for laymen. And that is what I mean by "broadening the art"; to perform new kinds of magic. I don't mean that we should broaden magic to involve unethical things.
And maybe meta-magic isn't a very good word (sounds a little pretentious, doesn't it? ). Maybe "Magicians fooler" is a better word? I dont know...

What you say is completely fine and agreeable
However, what I'm trying to say is something a little different. It certainly doesn't have to be performed for laymen. I guess one of the more final conclusions I can make is that depending on how ethical a person is, their views really differ. Mark, for example, will socially corner you and slowly kill you until you become a small rotten cherry that fungus starts growing out of it if a magician is untruthful about their method (maybe that's a little extremely xD) but that's because Mark believe strictly that one should not lie unless necessary, or more accurately, not lie unless absolutely required (I assume?). Maybe you have a less strict ethical approach, so that's why you think that lying is composed of in a broader sense, while I like to really narrow it down.

Originally Posted by Rokk

I don't think you are to far off either. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that he did it purely for entertainment. Would his lying still be unethical? If he tries to sell the technuiqe: undoubtly yes! If he sells it as a trick? Nah... Maybe. But as far as I know he hasn't tried to sell it.
What I think he wanted to accomplish? Supposing he is innocent it would be to fascinate magicians. Supposing he is guilty it would be to get admiration.
Btw by the definition of magic I have given above his trick IS just magic for anyone who was entertained by it.

If he did it purely for entertainment, then I have to say, his patter is just terrible... However I 95% know that that wasn't his motive and his motive was to make it seem like he created a fascinating new move. To spectators, everything looks the same, so they could care less about the specifics. To magicians, we want the honest to God truth about a move (not the secrets necessarily), especially since magicians are crazy about the history of it and credits. That's another part of ethics that are unique to magicians; they are (or should be) respectable to their fellow mates, unless one does something disrespectful. Think about it this way, the most famous magicians in the world got there through hard work and effort. Crappy fakers (like Criss Angel) got there with camera tricks and stooges. Criss probably got as much or more fame when he was still very active than, say, Ed Marlo from the public. I highly doubt that the consensus of the magic community respected him too much as Criss claims that he doesn't used camera tricks.

Originally Posted by Rokk

Yes I actually might do that! In the trick "Invisible palm" that is essentially what you are saying. That tricks works the same way as "Enigma": You try to convince the spectators you can do a real impossible move, you do an overly suspicous move and then you use a different method to achieve what the alleged move does. The only difference is that "invisible palm" is used on laymen but "Enigma" is used to fool magicians. That seems clear to me since no layman, I think, would be interested in a new palming technuiqe.

As I've said, magicians have a different point of view. I've already said so above, so I'm not going to repeat myself again. Whew~

Originally Posted by Rokk

It was really interesting to discuss with you Albert, but we live in different time-zones and I have to go to bed. If I said anything that upset you I appologize. We just seem to have diametrically different viewpoints on some things. I hope we can continue our discussion tomorrow.

tl;dr. Lying is only unethical if it harms people.

Nah, I'm not upset. It just feels like I'm not getting my point across, so I'm getting frustrated with myself too xD

[theheron]

i like what mark is saying, if you tell the spectator something that is quite obvious, or rather, should be obvious, then it becomes highly suspicious

[Mark]

@Rokk, I think you forget or don't realize that marketing (and thus advertising) is much more than making money. To get known may as well be the biggest aspect of it. People who lie outside of performances wish to get known, and only once they are known (in the broadest sense of the word) they wish to sell products and services (performances and lectures). There really are no exceptions to this.

That being said, performances can go a lot further than what we see, for instance in case of Uri Geller or the old Asian guy in the Prestige who makes a fishbowl appear. In those cases, it would ruin the complete act if they would say it are just tricks. They live their performances, so in my opinion it is all fine that they are lying. But that goes far beyond what those lying YouTube magicians do. There is no such thing as living a performance of lying in video descriptions.

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by Albert

It's not something we can explain; it's another part of the magician's code if you think about it. There's just a general understanding that fellow magicians shouldn't lie to another fellow magician.

It can be true that there is an unwritten law that says so, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with that law. It is your own decission if you want to obey that law and you will face the consequences of your decission.

Maybe you have a less strict ethical approach, so that's why you think that lying is composed of in a broader sense, while I like to really narrow it down.

Well, I think I am quite liberal about ethics so that's propably true. That might sound like I am some kind of douchebag that does whatever I want, but thats not true. It is more like I let other people do whatever they want to do as long as they don't hurt others with their actions.

If the lie is part of the patter meant to one-up himself to making it seem like he has an ability he does not, then that's a bad lie, although the spectators won't be able to tell most of the time.

This kind of behavior is quite similar to bragging or boasting. And while that sure can be an annoying behaviour, I wouldn't go so far as to call it unethical. It is their decission if they want to try to annoy other people, as well as it is ultimatly the other peoples decission if they want to be annoyed by it.

Originally Posted by Mark

@Rokk, I think you forget or don't realize that marketing (and thus advertising) is much more than making money. To get known may as well be the biggest aspect of it. People who lie outside of performances wish to get known, and only once they are known (in the broadest sense of the word) they wish to sell products and services (performances and lectures). There really are no exceptions to this.

True. I have never thought about it that way...

[TommySteal]

So...back to the topic. Opinions on lying in a youtube vid.
Lying is lying whether it's over the internet or in real life, so for me the title should be simply opinions on lying. But anyway.
It's our job as magicians/entertainers to deceive our audience and they fully understand this. So in this sense I don't think there is anything unethical about this type of deception.
I find that problems start to occur with these young youtubers' lack of sophistication and tactfulness. It's perfectly fine to have a duplicate go into the center of the deck and have another ready on top, but only if you can do it convincingly, because after all that is an impossible feat.
Lying to a magician in an advertisement about a particular method/technique in order to sell a product is wrong.
In fact, lying in general where money is concerned is pretty wrong - but that's another story.
Lying to your girlfriend is wrong - don't do it kids.

[ItsMagicITellYou]

XD if a magician says "the deck can be shuffled" and proceeds to give the deck a false shuffle, i think its ok, but if he says "shuffled by a spectator" and it cant be, i think its a question of ethics, and its wrong. imagine if people started marketing tricks like that, falsely saying it can be 'shuffled'. that would be wrong.

[Rokk]

Originally Posted by TommySteal

I find that problems start to occur with these young youtubers' lack of sophistication and tactfulness.

I agree to that! Let's hope they'll gain some with expirience and age!