Designs on Masks

[Craig]

Battery-powered neon signage affixed to the back?

Mine will be for Duff Beer.

With all these straw men being built up and torn down I'm going to have to find a barn.

Craig

[CvilleFencer]

Originally posted by Craig
Mine will be for Duff Beer.

With all these straw men being built up and torn down I'm going to have to find a barn.

Craig

Okay, I give up. I got the simpsons referance, and that was funny, but I have not idea what the bit about staw men refers to. If anyone would care to help out the slow kid in calss, I would appreciate it!

And I kind of think that Ashigaru flags would be cool! We could all get our own Kanji symbols and put them on all our gear, and we could start painting really cool mempo mask style faces on our helmets or maybe even get the mesh shaped like the old mempo designs... Okay, I will stop now.

[Craig]

Straw Man: An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

[Wizardly]

It's a type of fallacy. Straw man because it's easily destroyed/burned down.

Straw Man:
-A claims X
-B oversimplifies or distorts X and refutes distorted-X, thus X is false.

Slipper Slope:
-If X occurs, then extreme and bad X will occur, thus X is bad.

example: allowing self-expression in fencing uniforms means that people will dress like Elton John or James Brown, and we don't want that! Straw man because nobody is advocating glitter and glitz, slippery slope because it assumes the extreme case will necessarily occur.

[CvilleFencer]

Thanks for the clarification guys! I caught the slippery slope bit, but I had never heard the starw man referance before! Fencing.net, its fun and Educational!

[Wizardly]

"Spot the fallacy" is a fun game I play, particularly in the "loud people" thread. It's fun...10 points for every one you can spot. It plays a lot like wordracer on yahoo games.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Has anyone heard of the "slippery slope" fallacy?

Certainly. However, the fallacy necessitates that each succeeding stage be assumed to be inevitable. I hope that I have not been so bold as to infer this.

I DO argue that the slide into bad taste is LIKELY given more liberty in the use of color and decoration, and that it would be bad if it did so. Speculating upon the consequences of our actions, even pessimistically, is decidely NOT fallacious. ( For that matter, not every slippery slope argument is fallacious, either. )

We can argue the strength of the causal connection between each stage of the putative slide if you wish, though. I'm always up for an argument. Perhaps you've noticed?

let a fencer color teh cloth as they wish provided
- the coloring of the cloth does not in any way camoflage the fencer
- the coloring does not depict anything offensive, distracting, or grotesque <sp>. No religious or political symbols (government symbols are allowed i.e. flags, icons), no blood, death, swearing, nudity, discrimination/racism....

Etc.

Aha, Wizardly, you are a diplomat! Find the middle ground, come to a compromise....

Don't you know that in the real world no one is ever happy with a compromise? Both sides just begin agitating to have their own way again, perhaps after a brief period of abeyance. ( Think the affirmative action issue, for instance, is really settled now? Ha! )

Assuming your solution were to be adopted, you'd soon be seeing arguments here about every item of the plan. " Why no skulls, mine is tasteful, it ought to be allowed, 'cause it's FUN and it makes me FENCE BETTER! And who's it hurting? And EVERYBODY wears those boring colors now, I want to stand out from the crowd!"



- painted masks? makes me wish i had one of those plexiglass numbers so I can paint my face and have the same effect
- no glittering, glowing, visually distracting items (sequins, rivets, buttons, glitter, rinestones)
- perhaps a color limit, i.e. 5 colors or less?
- names must be clearly distinguishable (solid color background a different color than the name 1-2 cm from the edge of the name)
- school mascots, club affiliations are allowed [/b][/quote]

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly


example: allowing self-expression in fencing uniforms means that people will dress like Elton John or James Brown, and we don't want that! Straw man because nobody is advocating glitter and glitz, slippery slope because it assumes the extreme case will necessarily occur.

As I said, we can argue the merits of each successive stage of the slide I have direly predicted if you like.

As to no one advocating glitter and glitz, I would add: yet. No one was advocating designs painted on masks before colored uniforms were permitted, either. And this sort of process has been demonstrated in many other venues---violence and sex in movies and television, dress in popular music, and don't forget the aforementioned pro wrestling. Look at the trends in tennis. Look at auto racing. All have gotten progressivley "flashier" over the years, and the process shows few signs of stopping. Why is fencing any different?

[JAySE SUiCiDE]

yes, in a comprimise there's going to be someone who disagrees. but if someone who argues and cares more about the colors or patterns or materials they wear more than fencing, then they shouldn't be fencing in the first place, and choose an inferior sport, such as football

~JAySE Spencer

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Certainly. However, the fallacy necessitates that each succeeding stage be assumed to be inevitable.

Not inevitable; unsubstantiated likeliness suffices to qualify.
Actually, you really have been so bold. Since neither of us are experts in the evolution of social behavior, I imagine we are ill equiped (and I lack the resources or interest) to debate this to the logical conclusion.

If the majority of fencers want solid colors, let the FIE chang the rules to allow it. If the majority want stripes, so be it. If the majority want circles, so be it. Let the FIE stop when the majority no longer agrees. That is how you avoid a slippery slope. It doesn't need to be trial and error; it can be deduced ahead of time. Slippery slope fallacies argue against even the first step fearing the last. Nor should we fail to take the first step simply because someone might later advocate it; let them advocate all they want. REASON will triumph in the end (except in the FIE, which seems to take 20 years to consider figuring things out).

A compromise is something that nobody likes but most everybody can live with. I'll take the compromise. I just want school/club colors and insignia on uniforms.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Not inevitable; unsubstantiated likeliness suffices to qualify.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

However, be it as you say---I have still gone farther to argue for and to demonstrate said likeliness than you or Mike have to show that it doesn't exist...

Since neither of us are experts in the evolution of social behavior

Ah, ah, ah----fallacy of unwarranted assumption...

If the majority of fencers want solid colors, let the FIE chang the rules to allow it.

Now THAT would set a truly dangerous precedent.

The rule of the majority seldom leads to anything good. Historically, it has meant repression ( and worse ) of minorities and has had to be tempered with restraints of varying degrees to avoid disaster. I most emphatically would NOT agree to this recommendation.

I could think of a number of possible examples...but I suspect that you would not agree to view them as examples but rather as another "straw man"...

Nothing like a good knowledge of the informal fallacies to choke off all argument ere it begins.

Slippery slope fallacies argue against even the first step fearing the last.

No--they argue against the first step PREDICTING the last, and as unavoidable.

REASON will triumph in the end

Heh heh! HOW old are you, again?

But seriously, we could both grow long gray beards just listing the cases in praxeological history in which reason has NOT triumphed. To assume that it would do so in this case is as dangerous as to assume that it could not...

It might, or it might not. So tot up the costs and benefits for each possible outcome.

Benefits of liberality: Some people will feel better, more "free".
Costs: Some people will be annoyed.
It MAY lead to worse things, such as garish tastelessness
and a loss of the dignity of the sport.
There will be costs to constantly moving the goalposts.


Benefits of the status quo: Some people will feel better.
It will cost us nothing.
Garish excess is avoided, guaranteed.
Tradition and history is retained.
Costs: Some people will feel their sartorial senses to be
repressed.

Counterpoint?

A compromise is something that nobody likes but most everybody can live with.

And let me add, which nobody is content to leave alone. Before long we'd be right back into the fight....probably, as I say, and IMO, over still more "rights to individual expression" ( code for ego gratification ).

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata

It might, or it might not. So tot up the costs and benefits for each possible outcome.

Benefits of liberality: Some people will feel better, more "free".
Costs: Some people will be annoyed.
It MAY lead to worse things, such as garish tastelessness
and a loss of the dignity of the sport.
There will be costs to constantly moving the goalposts.


Benefits of the status quo: Some people will feel better.
It will cost us nothing.
Garish excess is avoided, guaranteed.
Tradition and history is retained.
Costs: Some people will feel their sartorial senses to be
repressed.

Counterpoint?

For a person who demands scientific proof of arguments, this cost benefit analysis is pretty poor. First off, things like tastelessness and lack of dignity is rather subjective. What you find tacky, others may find completely appropiate. As for preserving history and tradition, well, that is also of debatable benefit, and could actually be a cost in preventing the reason why color is being allowed.

A key thing to remember that the rule on color has relaxed because the FIE wants fencing on TV. They believe colors will help fencing's viewability with the public. Having watched fencing on TV, it's true colors help. Is this license to had a neon Bud sign on the back, or dress like Spiderman? No. Is fencing gaining a wider audience and a becoming established on TV? Yes, although, I'm sure that Inq. will start to argue that we don't need TV.

[veeco]

I'd rather see a distasteful painted mask or uniform than a plain white one which hasn't been cleaned in ages, as some people seem to always wear, especially at tournaments.

[Wizardly]

Unwarranted you say? You mean you assume I'm, among other things, a martian just becaues I have yet to tell you I'm not? (I'm sure there's a fallacy here too, but the point is, I think, pretty clear).

You're right, it is another straw man argument. We aren't dealing with principle or morality (except maybe the principle of enforcing strict adherence to uniformity). We are dealing with style and fashion. Nobody is advocating a change in the fundamental makeup of fencing (such as removing ROW from foil). Popular sentiment is quite important in such discussions. Tempered restraint: nobody is advocating unrestricted expression; OF COURSE there would have to be restrictions. The discussion should be over what those restrictions are.

Just because reason fails does not mean that it always fails. (You can look up which fallacy I'm refuting with this statement if you wish).

Asside from appeals and attacks...

Status quo:
benefits: some people will be happy
costs: some people will be annoyed
note: it may lead to an excess of white equipment everywhere, most of which will be a dingy gray. fencing will remain the same.

Alteration:
benefits: some people will be happy
costs: some people will be annoyed
note: it may lead to self expression, group expression, or it may not. it will lead to diminishing uniformity. fencing will remain the same.

[Marcos]

there seems to be a general concensus that designs on masks and kit would be a good thing so long it is not taken to excess.

National colours at international events are OK, simple designs on masks also good.

however overly fanciful or garish designs not good

[Nusy]

I quite like when someone has the national colours on his/her back. I f you wanna, you can buy one (inox or non) at the PBT Hungary www.fencepbt.com

[shlepzig]

Personally I think the all white outfit is kinda spiffy, but am all for adornment that can enhance the sport.

This argument seems to be following many of the same lines as the "yelling fencer" discussion which I see a number of the same participants.

Many sports now are endorsing individual colors and dress to allow for personal expression and corporate sponsorship.

USCF (US Cycling Federation) used to mandate white socks and black shorts for all USCF events, this disappeared in the early eighties.

I believe tennis has undergone a similar transformation starting in the 60's and 70's

Sailing teams are showing more color and graphics on their boats than ever before (though I don't think there were any specific rules regarding it the change has been in the advent of materials and printing process).

I suspect that we will seem similar transformation in other sports like horse jumping or other less popular sports.

Making the sport more acessable:
Part of the move was to make the sports seem less gentrified which would serve fencing well, as it is viewed as a country club sport. Another part of the move allowed sponsors more space to advertise, which brought more money to teams and more pressure to the media to televise.

Making it easier to watch:
People find the thought of fencing and the idea behind it visceral and exciting. Watching a bout with no knowledge of the sport can be as agonizing as watching grass grow. That and it's hard to identify one person and another without being able to read the name on their uniform.

Helping us be who we are:
As fencers it allows us to demonstrate our group affiliations and whatever else we like about the sport. Having a team name or patch on a jacket, painting national colors or inisgnia on a lame or mask all help us identify ourselves with who we are and what we want to be perceived as.

Resistance to change:
People seem to have a strong resistance to change in terms of this and tradition. I have heard stories that there was skepticism and other doubts about the future of electric scoring when it was introduced to the sport (well before my time so I have no first hand knowlege). It has been wholeheartedly integrated into the sport since. I still hear purists go on and on about orthopedic grips and how they diminish the subtlety of bladework. Orthopedic grips are also here to stay.

Personally I would like to see the basic uniform remain white, and allow small flourishes to the gear rather than major modifications. I can see how visual scoring and judging could be affected by garish colors and shapes on the gear. But as long as the governing bodies of the sport can determine that there are no concessions made to the performance of the fencers because of the gear why would you not allow this progression to happen to our sport as well.

My 2 cents
Shlepzig

[Marcos]

can someone nominate shlepzig to be FIE president

nice one

the best post I've seen on any website forum

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
For a person who demands scientific proof of arguments, this cost benefit analysis is pretty poor.

You're right. Those were just what occurred to me off the cuff. Clearly a full analysis would need a lot more thought...more than I had leisure to do just before Nationals. Sorry about that.

First off, things like tastelessness and lack of dignity is rather subjective.

Well, yes...it all does come down to opinion, does it not?

Will allowing colors, designs, etc. confer any tangible cost or benefit? None that I can see. Absent concrete effects, subjective judgements are all that remain.

As for preserving history and tradition, well, that is also of debatable benefit, and could actually be a cost in preventing the reason why color is being allowed.

Uh...not allowing color could make allowing color more costly? You've lost me on this one.

But anyway, changing the status quo where no tangible, incremental benefits are to be had is almost always more costly than not changing it. Framing new rules and standards, publishing them, etc. are bound to be more costly than not doing so, true?

FIE wants fencing on TV. They believe colors will help fencing's viewability with the public.

Oh, believe me, I know what the FIE wants. I just disagree that their wishes are going to bring about anything positive for the sport. I also think that they are wrong if they think that all of these cosmetic tinkerings are going to add one scintilla to "viewership" ( read: money ). The problem, if you wish to call it that, of low spectator appeal goes much deeper than that. It lies in the fundamental nature of the sport, and only by changing the latter are you going to turn it into a wide-appeal activity. But until they finally figure that out, we will all have to suffer a lot of costly and ultimately bootless fiddling about at the margins, I suppose.

Is fencing gaining a wider audience and a becoming established on TV? Yes

Can you support this statement? I haven't noticed any such gains myself.

Im sure that Inq. will start to argue that we don't need TV.

Yep. We seem to have gotten by without it up to this point---why is it suddenly indispensible?