There's a big difference between ill-defined and undefinable. We can even define a glitch on our own terms. There are many things that don't make sense that we could hypothetically get rid of. Additionally, things like Sleep Clause are another issue. There is basically no other convenient answer for it (though I wouldn't mind just hypothetically repeating the match until it reaches that point where Sleep Powder/etc miss (obviously doesn't work with Spore)).
This is essentially a pointless argument anyway, I agree that we should stick to the cartridge because we as a community for some reason cannot see this line that shouldn't be crossed anyway.
What's that fallacy where you pick out one irrelevant point that isn't my argument and attack that? I think that's still considered a straw man, but I'm unsure. I'm not arguing about being able to pick out every glitch and define everything as glitch or not glitch. Defining what we consider a glitch is just something to do - it's definitely doable. Now try the other 95% of my wall post.
More leaps? Maybe you're right, it's not a strawman. It's just flat out incorrect. Logic equivalence implies that you are stating a fact. You are stating your opinion. You are trying to push it as fact, but that doesn't count.
Fixing a glitch is not logically equivalent to "making an improvement" (see how easy it was to refute...that's one of many symptoms of an opinion-based argument). Fixing a glitch is removing something detrimental that appears to be unintended by GF. Making an improvement means you're just doing anything to improve the game. Fixing a glitch is removing something that wasn't supposed to be there. It is actually defined. In other words, "making an improvement" implies that the only restriction we have from changing the game is that it has to be "improving it". Fixing a glitch, on the other hand, has many more restrictions, most notably it has to be a glitch. All it needs is one difference (ie a restriction) to be logically nonequivalent.
No you don't....? Why on this earth would that happen - that's a huge leap. Just because once something happens another thing can happen, doesn't mean it inevitably will. Just because we are removing an annoying "obvious" glitch does not mean people will go ahead and think "oh now we're are improving let's get into some ridiculous shit". Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the opposite either (ie it doesn't mean people won't do that (read: CH thread)).
This is why I mostly agree with Phil....but disagree with what you're saying. What you're saying is a mixture of fallacies: slippery slope and strawman.
Yeah sorry if what I said came off as a personal attack or anything, like I said I was neutral on the issue and only said that a line has to be drawn somewhere between adhering to mechanics and keeping the game competative. Not trying to start a fight :p