Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [DW]Entropy
No you misunderstood my meaning, i didn't say anyone agreed with anything. Though it can be misinterpreted as arguing for the sake of argument, it simply means that people who disagree will often point out the worst in an idea. If the person whose idea it was can get past these negativitys and perhaps make their idea better based on input then all of the criticism wasn't for nothing.
|
The definition for playing the devil's advocate is "debating from a view which one does not actually hold, usually to determine its validity, or simply for the sake of argument" (paraphrased from Wiktionary). I didn't misinterpret your post, you took the term to mean something it didn't. That you didn't realise its real meaning is too bad, because it's a nice debating technique.*
However, I didn't really point out any bad sides to this suggestion per se. All I said is that there are no positive effects (something that appears to be supported by the lack of argument against that particular allegation), so putting effort into coding this is a waste of time. That's not looking at the worst of the idea, it's simply listing pros and cons.
* I just noticed you're actually agreeing with me, so it'd be silly to use this technique against me, but the principle stands