Kerim Aydin wrote: >The standard needs to be "would a reasonable player with the same information >(including knowledge of motives) believe the same thing?" Otherwise, anyone >can always avoid punishment by saying "I believed that [through a completely >and utterly unbelievable loophole] I would be proven true."
We don't necessarily need to change the standard. We need to consider whether the proposed loophole was actually believed by the offending player. There must be a point beyond which we'd say that this player can't actually have believed that the loophole would work, as e now claims to believe. Note that believing that a loophole *might* be accepted is not sufficient; the player must honestly believe that it *will* be accepted. That threshold could be belief on the balance of probabilities, maybe stronger? I find it difficult to say what BobTHJ could have honestly believed on the balance of probabilities. Retroactivity doesn't seem at all like the sort of thing that Agorans would be likely to allow, and I'm sure a reasonable player would judge that the same way. But BobTHJ is the epitome of unreasonableness. -zefram
