i remain torn too. my first post was going to be a simple "agree" with kmason's pussification post. but i always fall down on the grey area and how different people might perceive what that means. anyway i think a lot of coaches say "who will believe X Y Z" - i just have a comment on that, not really necessarily to support either side of the debate. it seems to me, for the statement to be OK, it has to be ok under 2 paradigms - 1) you dont know to believe the coach, and 2) you believe the coach. the reality is if you allow these kinds of comments a lot of coaches just make them honestly, i mean if you study game theory at all, or just think about it a little bit, its very common in these kinds of situations, the best long term strategy for players in many situations is to always tell the truth. now, the other player having better info ALWAYS gives them an as good or better solution - but that says nothing about how their solution effects you - you can very well benefit from telling the truth in those situations. so to me, the argument that well, you dont know if they are lying - that should be discounted, because its not a valid assumption in all cases.
where i really struggle is when player 1 goes "im going all in on the local PF", which i cant differentiate from, "im going all on on player X", then school 2 goes "im going all in on player Y", then school 3 goes "im going all in on player z", and now the 3 schools going all in, who used to have a great chance of screwing each other over royally, now, are off scott free. this kind of encounter is CLEARLY beneficial to all 3 schools in the long run, assuming thats a common strategy for them - and thus, is unfair/cheating/whatever.