On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
>>> thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason
>>> to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it is
>>> acceptable.
>>
>> Um, IIRC I wrote (d), and I beg to differ on it what it deliberately
>> cares about. -G.
>
> Looking at the archives, I guess you probably did. But I don't know
> how else you expected people to interpret a change from the old
> wording ("UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed
> that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule") to one that
> uses "could have". And, well, I think it's an improvement.
All I'm saying is that if a defendant admits that e could have known,
we should take eir word for it.
Here's an example. Let's say there's a really obscure way that everyone
in the game is violating a rule, but no one knows it. Then, one person
does eir own research and learns about it, and is very sure about it.
But e continues to knowingly violate it anyway. And then, later, e
confesses. Well... given the research, that particular person could
have/should have known. And when e confesses, we take eir word for it
that e knew what e was doing. -G.
