Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gwross
<slight sarcasm>
Hey Kris,
I like the slippery slope argument, so I use it a lot. But don't you think it's a little hypocritical to first say you hate it, and then proceed to use it? If you are philosophically opposed to the use of this argumentum, then keep yourself away from that slope, and use some of those God-given brain cells to fashion an argument that doesn't conflict with your chosen philosophy.
</slight sarcasm>
|
Not at all - to avoid the use of the slippery slope, one has to allow the things that I mentioned (previously non-standard methods of building), but draw the line and vigorously defend it when it is merited.
I have never had a problem with the new methods that wasn't a problem with the method itself. Of those things I mentioned, I've only actually spoken out against bringing spare or practice robots to competitions, because I didn't feel that it was possible for a team to have a robot to practice with for many weeks without modifying it, and therefore running afoul of the spirit and letter of the law. If I were a slippery slope subscriber, I could have argued against every single one of those changes on the grounds that it would have led to where we are now - where people think that it's ok to build robot parts before and after the 6 week build season. But those changes themselves weren't problematic - this one is. So, I think we should allow the others, and protest against those who would make this change.