npjnpj wrote: Now, Talking Heads are included, and I would argue that if they are, so should XTC be, because in spite of the musical differences, there are still a lot of similarities. I think that’s a valid argument, but if I use that, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I you would have to argue against XTC so much as you might feel obligated to defend the inclusion of Talking Heads.

Aside from the immutable fact that once added a band cannot be removed so defending a band that is already here is both unnecessary and pointless, I never defend an inclusion here and have no obligation to do so. I will defend the team that added them whether I agree with their decision to add them or not. But that isn't the same thing. 

To be able to defend an addition I would have to know the precise justification that was used to add them in the first place. Since it is unlikely that I would know the rationale and thought processes used by every voting member of the team involved then all I can do is give my best guess at why a band was added. So unless I was privy to every part of the evaluation discussions I cannot actually say why a band was added therefore I cannot defend the addition itself.  

Following on from that, for me to agree with adding Band Y because Band X is here requires me not only know the precise justification why Band X were added, I also have to recognise that Band Y meets all same criteria in every detail. 

Now the problem with 'If Band X then Band Y' is that the parameters that makes the two bands similar are not necessarily the same parameters that were used to include Band X. 

Consider: 'IF The Moody Blues are here THEN XTC should be here'. Without further explanation or clarification people may either be scratching their heads trying to work out what the similarity between those two bands is, or they are coming up with an inventive list of possible similarities. But that is irrelevant. Even though there is common similarity between them, it doesn't matter what it is because it isn't one of the reasons why The Moody Blues were added here so I don't have to defend The Moody Blues addition. 

Now, by coincidence Supertramp shares the same 'trait', so the conditional statement can be expressed even more forcefully: 'IF The Moody Blues AND Supertramp are here THEN XTC should be here', making the 'argument' look even stronger and even more valid. But it isn't one of the reasons why Supertramp were added either so I also don't have to defend their addition.

Of course the giggle here is I know the criteria used to add Talking Heads because I was on the Admin Team at the time and approved their addition. So while I am not permitted to divulge anything that was discussed in private and can tell you that being "unique, influential, and have been widely copied in the past" was definitely not part of the decision process.  

npjnpj wrote: That could open a pretty ugly can of worms and it’s understandable should you attempt to avoid the issue by playing the non-argument dismissal card.

If a can of worms exists then it was opened when Band X was originally suggested, evaluated and discussed. Band X has already survived the ordeal by imaginary worms.

I have compulsion to avoid the issue, I just see it as wholly irrelevant... 

By calling the addition of Band X an 'ugly can of worms' you are effectively saying the "IF...THEN..." argument implies that if Band Y are not added then Band X should be removed. And I don't accept that line of reasoning.

npjnpj wrote: At the same time, please ask yourself honestly if this isn’t just an easy way of avoiding an unpleasant discussion.

Truthfully. No it isn't. Discussing why so-called controversial bands are here is a pointless exercise that goes nowhere because the Admins do not have the ability to delete a band even if they wanted to, but it's not something that I avoid because it is unpleasant. However, I'll probably not be overly enthusiastic about it because, frankly I don't get motivated that much about things I cannot change.

npjnpj wrote: It's management talk.  It's very much on the lines of "we've always done it that way."

No it very much isn't. (To be pedantic it is closer to "we've never done it that way, nor ever will we.")

In management talk the "IF <conditional> THEN <consequence>" argument is invariably used as an argument against the conditional not as an argument in-favour of the consequence. And it has been used in that form here too as an argument against adding a band, and this too has been dismissed as a lazy non-argument.

In that form the argument would go: "IF we add XTC THEN we must add Squeeze" where the threat of having to add Squeeze should be enough to prevent the addition of XTC, which is dumb. There is no more reason to add Squeeze that is justified by the addition of XTC than there was to exclude Talking Heads because six years later someone would try to use their addition to justify the addition of XTC. 

When the IF...THEN argument is invalid in one form it is equally invalid in the opposite form.

npjnpj wrote: To be clear, though, it isn’t just here that I have a gripe with that argument, but I’ve come across it in so many places that it annoys me that people tend to use it as such an easy way out. It's management talk. I’m really not bothered whether XTC are included here or not (although I wouldn’t mind); my major issue is with that argument. I still maintain that it’s arrogant, overbearing, and lazy.

The History of Rock 'n' Roll