I think this is an important thread, even for those who don't stream and never has/will. There certainly are differences in paper and online magic, but that's not what we're talking about in this thread (if I understand the views correctly). Similarly, the enforceability of a rule is not what's at stake here. Rather, this topic should (in my opinion) focus on a discussion about ethical implications of streaming. To be upfront, I am undecided on this matter, though I find myself leaning on the side of it not being unethical - note that this is different from my saying that it is ethical. I do see both sides of the issue, and encourage those who only see it one way to attempt to find a framework that allows them to see the other view as well.
To begin, we need to separate rulings and potential enforcement from ethics. This will quickly get knotty, because people will reasonably point to the idea that something is not unethical if it is not against the stated rules: if it is allowed, it is not wrong to do. Those who rally against this idea are thinking about the way the rule should be, not at it currently is. This sense of how things should be will differ depending on ethical framework. The sense that 'everyone is doing it, and you could too' does not address and underlying ethical issue at stake for these people. So ask yourself, do I think something is right or wrong because the rules do or do not permit it?
Second, we need to disentangle consequentialism from virtue. Would your feelings about finding out an opponent was streaming change if you won or lost? Or would you feel slighted (ethically) either way? If the former, we need to unpack the advantages and disadvantages of streaming to measure the expected utils on both sides. In this case, the question will become one of which is on average better overall for people streaming and playing against streamers. However, in the later case, we need to acknowledge that the question of whether someone streams is a question of honor, as Islandswamp put it. If that is the case, the real why someone is streaming* will be of crucial importance. Ask yourself if it would matter that an opponent is streaming to incur tactical benefits or to bring more exposure to the format. There are those that would argue that streaming will incur those tactical benefits implicitly and unintentionally, so that is an important point to keep in mind.
Last, let's talk about realsits and logistics. There are benefits and disadvantages to streaming, but that is a more consequentialist consideration. Here, I want to talk more about the notion of 'If it's not enforceable, why even talk about it or try to regulate it?' The answer to this question: community. While that argument may render discussions moot in other contexts, the vintage community is an important one, and the hallmark of our format outside of the technicalities of what vintage is. I believe strongly that we should discuss this issue so that we try to approach (ideally) a consensus or (at least) mutual understanding of the issues that are at play here. So try to understand where people are coming from when they express their opinions, and try to think about your own underlying assumptions when giving your own views. Whether something is regulated or even if it can be, we can adopt our own practice surrounding this issue.
I hope we have some good conversations here! Also, if you have questions about the ethical terms used, feel free to ask, as I was trying to keep this somewhat concise.
- Note: In all of the above, I am using steaming to mean broadcasting in real time that allows for strategic input from others, unless otherwise clarified.