When is taking both sides or no sides a problem?

[AgnosticBoy]

For the topic here, I wanted to talk about any potential problems with taking both sides or not taking a side at all. I covered one aspect of this in another thread on 'both sides=ism', but I want to expand more here to include "no sides" or even any other bad reasons to take both sides. Some agnostics and other undecideds tend to be known for not taking a side or even trying to play to both sides (perhaps to show balance or to not upset one side).

For discussion... when is taking both sides or no sides a problem?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's my list of when it's a problem:
1. When it's not genuine. Perhaps you do agree with one side but don't want to accept it or you want to hold out revealing that for some other disingenuous reason.
2. When the position is held out of willful ignorance or apathy. This could apply to those agnostics and others that don't try to look for answers and perhaps don't even care.
3. Having a bias to take both sides or no sides. If someone is always saying that they are neutral or don't take a side or taking both sides or nearly all issues, then you have to question if they are just mentally predisposed to taking both or no sides no matter what. I feel that this can happen even on isolated issues, like say the Israel and Palestinian conflict and the both sides-ism there. Perhaps some are always looking to blame both as to appear fair (which means they think that's the only fair option, as opposed to just going by what's true no matter how it appears), even when evidence doesn't support that.