If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.
This is bluntly wrong. Read the 'agnostic/dgaf' votes as people who will go with whatever works and wins. If the code for a fork is deployed, they'll go right on mining - possibly with new software that advertises a new block version, or possibly without updating. If their client tells them that the majority of blocks out there are a new version and they risk being on the losing side of a fork if they don't upgrade, they'll upgrade, 'cause they don't want to be on the losing side of a fork. If the software they upgrade to advertises a new block version, they don't give a crap but that could easily push support from 50% (where they got the warning) to 75% (where a >1Mbyte block can actually be formed).
And if they find themselves on the losing side of a fork with majority hashing power already supporting a different chain, they will FIX THE PROBLEM immediately by updating.
'agnostic/dgaf' means that a choice between these options is not going to be the motivation that causes these people to do anything. A risk of being on the losing side of a fork would certainly be a motivation they'd respond to. Having some other reason to upgrade to the next version (or just upgrading because upgrading is "normal") is also something they'd do. They just don't give a crap whether, by so doing, they choose one block size limit or another.