And that's where we find the difference between students worth teaching and those who we might advise into other areas of interest.
Vellos, you should really make up your mind about what sort of game you consider BM. On one hand you discounted Foundation's board game analogy, when the actual point of that was to illustrate BM as a friendly non-competitive game. Rather, you thought it was more competitive. Which one is the correct view isn't my point to argue here.
Now, if we're going by competitive terms, it is fair to provide the rules that apply to everyone, yes. But is it fair to provide everyone with the things that some people must put in a lot more effort to achieve? Are you saying, basically, that by analogy we should be teaching everyone in a post-undergraduate school medicine? That's simply crazy. For one, we know for a fact that some people just aren't cut out for it. Now, granted, real life is a lot more serious, but in BM still shouldn't be a peachy happy world by default.
It is no secret that some, perhaps even a majority, are not cut out for being lords, dukes, council members. Providing too much information leads us to allow too many fakers to pretend more effectively, while in the end being just as incompetent. Only danger here is that sometimes the stupidity realization comes too late.
