Today this has been the topic of discussion and heated but good natured debate at Anston Towers. There have been some agree to disagree and some: "I can see your point", moments on all sides.
One thing that has had some acknowledgment as having possible viability by all sides , is looking at the actual amount of advantage which is gained by using an adapted position in a more technical and measured way.
I can't say if the adapted kneeling position is easier than proper kneeling (I can't make the comparison) but if I had to guess I'd say it probably is a bit easier. Also, some shooters who I know and trust tell me it is (though not all agree). It could though be tested by a panel of experts and if it were proven (albeit on balance) to be easier than proper kneeling; it should either by adjusted, say by increasing the amount of unsupported arm or by offering a reduced sized kill to the person taking the adapted position. It may not be an exact science but it could be a workable compromise.
A similar measured solution could be tested for the adapted standing. If it is too easy, make it harder by changing it and/or offering a kill reduced by x%, based on tests carried out by a panel of shooters. This sort of solution has been put forward by a couple of people previously and must I think, at least warrant consideration.
With regard to those who unfairly use any adapted position to gain an unfair advantage. This annoys me as much as it does anyone else. For a start I always feel the need to justify my use of the adapted kneeling position and point out that in the Hunter, I take the kneelers standing as my knee doesn't "get better". My view is that if this issue was tackled more rigorously at club level, it could soon reduce the problem at higher levels of competition also.