Rynes of rise and falls of civilization is a great game, i play this a few times and enjoyed it except the amount of lag i been getting in the game. I have some great ideas for this game, and this idea involve the custom tech tree

I want this game to go all the way back to the age where humans become cavesmans, all the way to the predicted future of our selves. there will be many technology and many ages.

I want to start at when the cavemans have appeared everywhere in the world, and also the disappearance of them as well, then after that, the dawn of the stone age, then it continues on history, the broze age, Iron Age, and many ages that go along history. THERE MUST BE REALISTIC, place in the right area and also to LIMIT TECHNOLOGY, i don't want cavemans already learn gunpowder and granades... Technology limit till your reach the right time, once the time have been reach, the technology will be unlocked. continue doing this so that many civilizations won't be so overpowered and such. Now here is the problem now, choosing the civilization. I say when we start, we cannot yet choose our civilization till after the stone age, then we can select our civilization. I hope this is possible and don't prove a big hassle to deal with, if it is impossible to do, then my idea will not come true (wow that ryeims (SP please)).

i don't understand exactly which technologies could be interesting before the invention of the wheel, domestication, hunting etc. :confused:

I disagree about civilization names not being chosen until after the stone age... It makes no historical sense what so ever! the Sumerians knew themselves and who they were 5'500 BC, the Babylonians knew who they were over 3'000 BC, why should civilizations wander in the land until some period??? I don't get it.

Well, then how about just adding a custom Tech Tree with lots of technology from the dawn of man to the predicted future. Just that.

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.

Basically, I'd love to see the tech tree extended further back in the stone age. This is roughly how it could be done: we start without settlers in the "nomadic hunter-gatherers" age with something like the Mongol camp from the Genghis Khan scenario. We can settle down only when we acquire a specific tech that allows the production of settlers. After settling down, we take control of the appropriate civilization depending on time and location. For instance we cannot settle down as Mongolia before the late twelfth century. How does this sound? How difficult would that be to implement?

it sounds bad because it is beyond the scope of the mod. There is another mod whos focus is on the dawn of man / stone age. This mod starts in 3000 BC, which means far beyond the dawn of men or the nomadic age, at least for the civs that start in 3000 BC. Sumerians and Egyptians lived in big cities much before this date, and they knew hunting, fishing and agriculture from a while as well.

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.
I think you will find that it is a certain group of people who are making a concerted effort to bump old threads (who aren't regular posters on this board), don't ask me why. I'm curious as to how you even found this thread though, was it on the last page or something?

Given that the game is called Civilization, extending it before, you know, Civilization, seems somewhat silly.

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.

Basically, I'd love to see the tech tree extended further back in the stone age. This is roughly how it could be done: we start without settlers in the "nomadic hunter-gatherers" age with something like the Mongol camp from the Genghis Khan scenario. We can settle down only when we acquire a specific tech that allows the production of settlers. After settling down, we take control of the appropriate civilization depending on time and location. For instance we cannot settle down as Mongolia before the late twelfth century. How does this sound? How difficult would that be to implement?

First of all, Umarth was right. Many people with post counts below 30 in this forum seem to be replying specifically to old threads. Also, just because something's is 'in', doesn't make it right.

Secondly, Rhye stated he won't do it. Unless you're willing to do a lot of work on your own creation because someone who disobeyed netiquette just to ask something you said you wouldn't implement, then please don't ask Rhye to do it.

Thirdly, that's what Civilization is. When you settle, you create Civilization. This is the 'Rhye's' of Civilization. When you are eliminated or break into a group of squabbling city-states, that's the Fall of Civilization. At which point in this do you expect to see nomads being nomads for hundreds of years?

I think you will find that it is a certain group of people who are making a concerted effort to bump old threads

You will also find that a certain group of people is making a concerted effort to open new threads. Uhmmmm... conspiracy? :lol:

Given that the game is called Civilization, extending it before, you know, Civilization, seems somewhat silly.

Despite its name, the game "Civilization" includes barbarians, who aren’t exactly what we call “civilized” people. If there already are barbarians, why not nomads too?

By the way, most historians don't restrict use of the term "civilization" to sedentary cultures only. In fact, historians often speak of "nomadic civilization" as opposed to sedentary ones.

Rhye stated he won't do it. Unless you're willing to do a lot of work on your own creation because someone who disobeyed netiquette just to ask something you said you wouldn't implement, then please don't ask Rhye to do it.

I'm not asking Rhye to do anything. I am only developing Darkedone's idea. So, Churchill’s Hat, what's your opinion on adding nomads?

I realise that the term Civilisation isn't completely PC however those historians are using the term wrongly. Anthropologically speaking (which, ftr, is my degree subject) Civilisation refers to sedentary, urban peoples practising agriculture and to be honest I've never heard it use differently. Barbarians are indeed in the game, but they're an unplayable game play element. You might as well say, "Forests aren't exactly what you'd call 'civilised' but they're in the game".

I realise that the term Civilisation isn't completely PC however those historians are using the term wrongly. Anthropologically speaking (which, ftr, is my degree subject) Civilisation refers to sedentary, urban peoples practising agriculture and to be honest I've never heard it use differently. Barbarians are indeed in the game, but they're an unplayable game play element. You might as well say, "Forests aren't exactly what you'd call 'civilised' but they're in the game".

I'd like to chime in just to say that the OB (original bumper?) of this thread is essentially correct is saying that the word civilization is also used to describe nomadic peoples. Cities and civilization are not necessarily connected in so-called 'civilizational theory'. Even the great historian Toynbee avoided that association and in his monumental study of human civilization, 'A Study of History' (1961), viewed nomadic civilizations as having existed (see especially vol 12).

I am surprised to hear that anthropologists use the term differently, in a narrower way. But then again I have often found that, in comparison to historians, anthropologists tend to be rather narrow-minded. ;)C

It's not narrow-minded or even narrow, it's just a way to distinguish two very different models of subsistence and society. There's no value-judgement contained in the term.

I'm sure you're right and Mr Toynbee did use it like that (back in the sixties), however since "cave men" fall under the realm of anthropology not history I think they have right of way here.

if what my Toynbee says is true then we also have the African Lions Civilization or the Canadian Wolves one.

if what my Toynbee says is true then we also have the African Lions Civilization or the Canadian Wolves one.

Wait a minute... what's going on here? Are you implying that nomadic humans are like wild animals??? You are Italian, right? I know that in your country nomads are not held in high esteem, but this is going a bit to far...

Wait a minute... what's going on here? Are you implying that nomadic humans are like wild animals??? You are Italian, right? I know that in your country nomads are not held in high esteem, but this is going a bit to far...

I agree. Haven't you seen 10000 BC? They speak English, and can throw javelins about twice as far as us, and killed the Egyptian king-god. So much for civilization. :lol:

AFAIK, thieves aren't held in high esteem anywhere in the world.
Also, I am italian but this does not mean I am a fascist. Moderate your subtle implications. I did not imply anything like you have yourself made up, my thought is that certain answers are just completely useless. Saying "This is not necessarily true" without providing the alternative is just plain useless to a discussion. It's the same as saying that language and traditions don't define a culture without providing WHAT defines a culture. In the same way, if you don't define "civilization" you can claim that wolves are a civilization.

After all wolves and lions are exactly the same as human barbarians in CIV! Maybe Sid Meier is a fascist?

I agree. Haven't you seen 10000 BC? They speak English, and can throw javelins about twice as far as us, and killed the Egyptian king-god. So much for civilization.
Thankfully no I haven't :D

AFAIK, thieves aren't held in high esteem anywhere in the world.

Uh-uh. Now it's getting even worse. You're basically implying that nomads are the same as thieves. You know, this is the same sort of generalization made by those who have recently burnt to ground the gipsy camps near Naples.

Also, I am italian but this does not mean I am a fascist. Moderate your subtle implications.

I never said you were fascist, not even "subtly". In fact, I did not mention the word "fascist" at all. You remind me of that ancient Roman motto: excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta. Unasked apology, evident self-accusation.

I really don't like the direction this thread is taking.

I really don't like the direction this thread is taking.

Neither do I! Can we get back on topic please?

Enough with pointless musing on the meaning of the term civilization. Darkedone and I made a suggestion, and I would like it to be discussed on its own merit (no more semantics please!).

P.S. to Umarth: actually there is a official mod from the Warlord expansion in which barbarians are playable. It's called Barbarians!. By your reasoning, to have such a mod in a Civilization game is a contradiction in terms. Go and explain your funny anthropology to the developers... :lol:

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.

Basically, I'd love to see the tech tree extended further back in the stone age. This is roughly how it could be done: we start without settlers in the "nomadic hunter-gatherers" age with something like the Mongol camp from the Genghis Khan scenario. We can settle down only when we acquire a specific tech that allows the production of settlers. After settling down, we take control of the appropriate civilization depending on time and location. For instance we cannot settle down as Mongolia before the late twelfth century. How does this sound? How difficult would that be to implement?

If we did that, the "hunter-gatherers" of the proto-Dutch and proto-Turks would be killed off while they wander the high density areas of the urban world, trying to colonize their historical area. Or, if you take over the appropriate civ's spawn area, you may never be able to play as the Dutch or the Portuguese, since you would never get there - never mind England or Japan (boats are too primitive).

If we did that, the "hunter-gatherers" of the proto-Dutch and proto-Turks would be killed off while they wander the high density areas of the urban world, trying to colonize their historical area. Or, if you take over the appropriate civ's spawn area, you may never be able to play as the Dutch or the Portuguese, since you would never get there - never mind England or Japan (boats are too primitive).

Good point. But what I have in mind is a little different from what you have described. Civilizations spawn as they normally would, even if the wandering player doesn't colonize the area. The idea is that you play, not as the Proto-Turks or the proto-Dutch, but as a generic nomadic civilization, until you decide to settle down. It's a bit like switching control of civs in mid-game: even if you decide not to take control of America, they spawn anyway, don't they? Which civ you become when you settle down will depend on the time and the location. (Incidentally, at some point nomads should be able to produce boats and cross the sea). After a certain date, when all the slots have been taken, you will no longer be able to settle. There should be an UHV for the nomadic civ. Its primary condition could be: survive until the end game without ever settling.

What if I settled in central Africa? Or Mongolia in 300BC?

To Carolingian: Okay, I see that I did imply that you wanted Rhye to do it. But who will do it? It seems to me your post implies that you won't be doing it, so who will? Darkedone hasn't revisited this forum in forever, and Rhye hasn't released the code for modding AFAIK and said he won't do it. Personally, I think this should close the thread.

Also, RFC is a historical simulation. Making new civs every time is just...odd. If you want that, then play an Earth map with random starts, there are plenty out there. But it won't happen to RFC.

EDIT: to Umarth: I meant that Rhye won't use darkedone's suggestion, not that he won't release the code.

Darkedone hasn't revisited this forum in forever, and Rhye hasn't released the code for modding AFAIK and said he won't do it.
I'm pretty sure if you asked he'd give it to you :)

Carolingian: I did discuss your proposal, extending the mod before 3000 BC is out of its scope. And btw, it's even beyond the scope of the game itself.

OT: I want to post this not to PM only because I don't want people to think that italians hate nomads.

Uh-uh. Now it's getting even worse. You're basically implying that nomads are the same as thieves. You know, this is the same sort of generalization made by those who have recently burnt to ground the gipsy camps near Naples.

I must really suck at english, what I meant to say is that what are disliked in Italy aren't people who don't live in a house, but people that go around stealing in others' houses; and I am pretty sure this feeling is shared everywhere on Earth. You generalized calling them all "nomads" while I made a precise dinstinction between nomads and thieves.
The camp near Naples wasn't burned by xenophobists as you think but my Mafia which had interest in kicking them off and exploited a series of events at the right moment.

I never said you were fascist, not even "subtly". In fact, I did not mention the word "fascist" at all. You remind me of that ancient Roman motto: excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta. Unasked apology, evident self-accusation.

You clearly implied I may consider nomadic human beings the same as animals and that it may be because I am italian. Since this sort of xenophobic philosophy in Italy is fascist, you hence implied I am fascist. Also, I did not apology for anything, but you probably should.

What if I settled in central Africa? Or Mongolia in 300BC?

If you settle at the wrong place or the wrong time, outside historically civilized areas (=spawn areas), the simplest solution is that you found a normal city, but this becomes independent and you immediately lose control of it. Alternative options to consider are as follows:

Option 2) You found a normal city and retain it. This is similar to a barbarian city. It can't be your capital (nomads can't have palaces) and it has a very high chance of flipping to neighboring civs, or even to independents. Every time you found a normal city and retain it despite being a nomadic civ, you also suffer a stability hit.

Option 3) You found a nerfed version of a normal city, a "nomadic settlement", and retain it. Same as above, plus such settlements are not permanent. That is, they’re prone to spontaneously disappear after a while if certain conditions are not met, such as stability being above a certain threshold.

Option 4) You only build a fort-style improvement. This could be better than a normal fort. For example it may allow you to produce some units. But it cannot have buildings in it. This improvement should be unique to the nomadic civ. If it falls in somebody else's hands, it will convert to a normal fort.

Making new civs every time is just...odd. If you want that, then play an Earth map with random starts, there are plenty out there.

I did not suggest that players should be allowed to make new civs every time they want. And my suggestion has nothing to do with random starts :rolleyes:

You generalized calling them all "nomads" while I made a precise dinstinction between nomads and thieves.

So basically what you are now saying is that "nomads" is too general a name, because we must distinguish more "precisely" between honest people and thieves. But of course your "precise distinction" is by no means unique no nomads. It equally applies to all human beings (any claim to the contrary would be racist). So what exactly is your point then?

The camp near Naples wasn't burned by xenophobists as you think but my Mafia which had interest in kicking them off and exploited a series of events at the right moment.

Actually it was the Camorra, not the Mafia (these are not the same). That’s right, the gipsy camps were burned by xenophobes who were probably instigated by local Camorra bosses. But the fact that the Camorra may be behind the aggression against the Roma doesn’t make it any less xenophobic.

You clearly implied I may consider nomadic human beings the same as animals and that it may be because I am italian. Since this sort of xenophobic philosophy in Italy is fascist, you hence implied I am fascist.

This convoluted syllogism is completely of your own doing. I was not thinking of fascism at all. I was only referring to the recent wave of xenophobic aggressions targeting Roma gypsies who live in Italy. (And before you jump to hasty conclusions: no, I am not implying that you must be among those who have burnt the Roma camps).

Also, I did not apology for anything, but you probably

I owe you an apology? For what? Just to clarify, excusatio in the Latin motto I cited earlier is only loosely translated as apology. In that context, it really means something like unnecessary self-justification. You did not need to say "I am not a fascist" because nobody ever claimed you were.

OT: I want to post this not to PM only because I don't want people to think that italians hate nomads.

Once again, I never said nor implied that all Italians hate nomads. Italian has a nice phrase to describe this kinds of overreactions: tail of straw, coda di paglia.

If you settle at the wrong place or the wrong time, outside historically civilized areas (=spawn areas), the simplest solution is that you found a normal city, but this becomes independent and you immediately lose control of it. Alternative options to consider are as follows:

Option 2) You found a normal city and retain it. This is similar to a barbarian city. It can't be your capital (nomads can't have palaces) and it has a very high chance of flipping to neighboring civs, or even to independents. Every time you found a normal city and retain it despite being a nomadic civ, you also suffer a stability hit.

Option 3) You found a nerfed version of a normal city, a "nomadic settlement", and retain it. Same as above, plus such settlements are not permanent. That is, they’re prone to spontaneously disappear after a while if certain conditions are not met, such as stability being above a certain threshold.

Option 4) You only build a fort-style improvement. This could be better than a normal fort. For example it may allow you to produce some units. But it cannot have buildings in it. This improvement should be unique to the nomadic civ. If it falls in somebody else's hands, it will convert to a normal fort.



I did not suggest that players should be allowed to make new civs every time they want. And my suggestion has nothing to do with random starts :rolleyes:
Alright I actually do think this is quite interesting now, however what you're saying would radically alter RFC... its probably better off as a standalone mod in itself.

Greetings to everybody. I read this group for a long time since I became a great admirer of Rhye's mod. I never write messages because written english is difficult for me but for this time I cannot resist because I do not want people to think that every italian is ignorant about our racist problem. Probably Onedreamer does not explain very well the problem beacuse we italians suck at english (as you can see I suck also! :blush:) But let me try. Unfortunately there is a lot of propaganda in Italy and consequently many people think that this equation is true: rom = thieves. I do not know if Onedreamer was influenced by the propaganda or if it was not what he wanted to say. But the situation in Italy is very very bad. Worse than fascism! Mussolini did not have 6 television channels and many newspapers to do propaganda every day to attack the roms and the immigrants. :(

^ Sounds like France... Sarkoberlusconism is on the rise...

Greetings to everybody. I read this group for a long time since I became a great admirer of Rhye's mod. I never write messages because written english is difficult for me but for this time I cannot resist because I do not want people to think that every italian is ignorant about our racist problem. Probably Onedreamer does not explain very well the problem beacuse we italians suck at english (as you can see I suck also! :blush:) But let me try. Unfortunately there is a lot of propaganda in Italy and consequently many people think that this equation is true: rom = thieves. I do not know if Onedreamer was influenced by the propaganda or if it was not what he wanted to say. But the situation in Italy is very very bad. Worse than fascism! Mussolini did not have 6 television channels and many newspapers to do propaganda every day to attack the roms and the immigrants. :(

dont worry, everybody knows some Italians are racist, some not, most not in fact. Same with everyone, Irish, German, Russia, Greek, etc etc. and don worry about your English, its a hell of a lot better than my Italian:lol:

So basically what you are now saying is that "nomads" is too general a name, because we must distinguish more "precisely" between honest people and thieves. But of course your "precise distinction" is by no means unique no nomads. It equally applies to all human beings (any claim to the contrary would be racist). So what exactly is your point then?

You have serious difficulty reading english: as I have already written, my point is that italians, like anyone in the world, dislike thieves, and not nomads. The fact that some nomads are thieves doesn't mean that italians are racist.

Actually it was the Camorra, not the Mafia (these are not the same). That’s right, the gipsy camps were burned by xenophobes who were probably instigated by local Camorra bosses. But the fact that the Camorra may be behind the aggression against the Roma doesn’t make it any less xenophobic.

Again you have serious problems with english. Mafia in english is a general term to describe organized crime like Camorra.
And you have absolutely NO CLUE of what happened in that camp, so please don't come here to spit sentences. You are just one more victim of our modern mass disinformation.

I was only referring to the recent wave of xenophobic aggressions targeting Roma gypsies who live in Italy.

what wave ?

I owe you an apology? For what? Just to clarify, excusatio in the Latin motto I cited earlier is only loosely translated as apology. In that context, it really means something like unnecessary self-justification. You did not need to say "I am not a fascist" because nobody ever claimed you were.

Fine, in the same way I didn't self-justify anything, heh.

Once again, I never said nor implied that all Italians hate nomads. Italian has a nice phrase to describe this kinds of overreactions: tail of straw, coda di paglia.

Once again you are making subtle implications...

Unfortunately there is a lot of propaganda in Italy and consequently many people think that this equation is true: rom = thieves. I do not know if Onedreamer was influenced by the propaganda or if it was not what he wanted to say.

I do not trust mass media so I am definitely not a victim of propaganda. I am an objective person and I know that gypsies have been hated and persecuted since forever, it's certainly no news or propaganda from Berlusconi. All they (Italy's right wing) do is feed these feelings do distract people from the real problems that afflict the country. Also I grew up near gypsy camps and I know how they live and how they think. They live the day, some of them are thieves, not the kind that robs a bank but the kind that steals your wallet on the bus, for them it is art and life-style. If you catch them they may even give it back and without pulling out a knife (unlike your random thief). Hence before any bigot hypocritical brainwashed "goodthinking" poster may think to accuse me to be racist, just know that IMHO, that person who just stole a wallet on the bus is a thief indipendently from the nationality or life-style. If that person also happen to be a gypsy is almost irrilevant, the only relevance it makes is that random gypsies can be found easily in order to provoke a retaliation, random thieves not. And that's how ignorant people get pushed (paid might be more precise) into burning down a gypsy camp. However this does not give the right to the average bigot hypocritical brainwashed "goodthinking" poster to come here and write that "Nomads are not held in high esteem in Italy" and that I might think even worse of them. I wonder how high in esteem are held nomads in Bigotland.

ok, since this wave of bumping threads, with all the b****ing and yapping, i have been quiet all along but i can't hold it in any longer...

Dabur: i don't EVER wanna see you start a post with "hmmmmm" again, okay!! (i know, he's not even on this thread...)

ok, since this wave of bumping threads, with all the b****ing and yapping, i have been quiet all along but i can't hold it in any longer...

Dabur: i don't EVER wanna see you start a post with "hmmmmm" again, okay!! (i know, he's not even on this thread...)

hi ,

you have a problem with a five day lapse , .... :confused:


and btw , if you dont want to see :hmm: again , just close your eyes , .. :mischief:

Have a nice day :)

hi ,

you have a problem with a five day lapse , .... :confused:


and btw , if you dont want to see :hmm: again , just close your eyes , .. :mischief:

Have a nice day :)


lol... *sigh* i have nothing against you bud... it was just the hmmmmmmmm... what does it meeeaaannn?

... ok, so i tried closing my eyes... i see you going hmmmm... :cry:

I find this discussion an interesting cultural one. I suspect a bit of language barrier being at the root here.

In English, nomad has no negative connotation. When someone says "nomad" the connotation means early civilizations or tribes (or whatever term you prefer) who migrate and have not settled into a city. In other words, hunter and gather societies without a permanent basis.

I have never heard anyone refer to gypsies as nomads in English. There are many other bigoted words however, which I will not list here.

Oh and for the record: Precivilized civilization to me would be interesting, but a contradiction in terms of the game. I have no interest in seeing it added into this mod.

kbk, it's exactly the same in Italy. Otto called gypsies "nomads" because he had to infer at all costs that I am a racist or who knows what. Note that gypsies aren't even much nomads, more homeless. Also, gypsies have always been called as such ("zingari") where I live but in the last years the mass media call them "Rom" and consequently common people do the same. I really dislike this since this term is dangerously similar to the adj. for ppl from Romania, which incidentally immigrated in hundreds of thousands in the last years in Italy, causing not few cultural problems as it is obvious when 2 different cultures come in so close contact. Consider that gypsies also have similar features to slavs, at least they do at the eyes of the average italian, and you get dangerous generalizations ready to feed to common people, and Mass Media are the masters or generalization and disinformation.

You have serious difficulty reading english: as I have already written, my point is that italians, like anyone in the world, dislike thieves, and not nomads. The fact that some nomads are thieves doesn't mean that italians are racist.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. You are saying that Italians dislike those Roma gypsies who are thieves. This is a racist remark, because you are making an unwarranted generalisation that associates a criminal activity to an ethnicity.

Also I grew up near gypsy camps and I know how they live and how they think. They live the day, some of them are thieves, not the kind that robs a bank but the kind that steals your wallet on the bus, for them it is art and life-style.

If someone said: "I know black people very well, some of them are thieves, to them robbery is a life-style" how would this sound to you? I think you would probably regard it a racist.

What you have said of gipsy camps is the same sort of generalisation regularly made on the newspaper that belongs to Berlusconi's brother, "Il Giornale". You claim that you "do not trust the mass media", so I bet you don’t read Il Giornale. If so, that’s good for you. But the view you have just expressed show that you are much more biased than you think.

kbk, it's exactly the same in Italy. Otto called gypsies "nomads" because he had to infer at all costs that I am a racist or who knows what.Gypsies aren't even much nomads, more homeless.

Not at all. I did not say you are racist. However, some of the claims you have made do sound racist.

On the use of the word "nomad": acutally, in Italian the word "nomadi" is often used to describe Roma gipsies, as in the expression "campo nomadi" (gipsy camp).

Again you have serious problems with english. Mafia in english is a general term to describe organized crime like Camorra.

You are confusing again the Camorra with the Mafia. Although the Camorra it is somewhat mafia-like, there are important differences between the two criminal organisations. Maybe you are not aware of the difference because you live in Northern Italy.

And you have absolutely NO CLUE of what happened in that camp, so please don't come here to spit sentences. You are just one more victim of our modern mass disinformation.

I admit I am not an expert of Naples’s rubbish crisis, but, frankly, you don’t seem to know better. You even thought that the fire-raisers were instigated by the Mafia. Are you confusing Campania with Sicily?

what wave ?

Have a look at this article from the Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/italian-tolerance-goes-up-in-smoke-as-gypsy-camp-is-burnt-to-ground-1378001.html

The article even speaks of "ethnic cleansing" to describe the recurrent episodes of xenophobia that are currently taking place in Italy.

Fine, in the same way I didn't self-justify anything, heh.

You said "I am not a fascist" as if you had to justify yourself. But nobody said you were fascist. Coda di paglia?

Once again you are making subtle implications...

What subtle implications? All I am saying is that you are overreacting. Maybe you got nervous because your national football team got trashed the other day. :lol:

I do not trust mass media so I am definitely not a victim of propaganda. I am an objective person and I know that gypsies have been hated and persecuted since forever, it's certainly no news or propaganda from Berlusconi. All they (Italy's right wing) do is feed these feelings do distract people from the real problems that afflict the country. Also I grew up near gypsy camps and I know how they live and how they think. They live the day, some of them are thieves, not the kind that robs a bank but the kind that steals your wallet on the bus, for them it is art and life-style. If you catch them they may even give it back and without pulling out a knife (unlike your random thief). Hence before any bigot hypocritical brainwashed "goodthinking" poster may think to accuse me to be racist, just know that IMHO, that person who just stole a wallet on the bus is a thief indipendently from the nationality or life-style. If that person also happen to be a gypsy is almost irrilevant, the only relevance it makes is that random gypsies can be found easily in order to provoke a retaliation, random thieves not. And that's how ignorant people get pushed (paid might be more precise) into burning down a gypsy camp. However this does not give the right to the average bigot hypocritical brainwashed "goodthinking" poster to come here and write that "Nomads are not held in high esteem in Italy" and that I might think even worse of them. I wonder how high in esteem are held nomads in Bigotland.

GRRRR I hate these ignorant stereotypes :mad::mad::mad:

I've a lot of friends from the Romani community in my town. They are all good people with moral integrity. Only the most stupid bigoted people still think that they are wandering thieves!!

I understand perfectly what you are saying. You are saying that Italians dislike those Roma gypsies who are thieves. This is a racist remark, because you are making an unwarranted generalisation that associates a criminal activity to an ethnicity.

I wonder if you twist words on purpouse or you really can't grasp the meaning of words. I said italians, like ANYONE in the world, dislike THIEVES. The fact that some gypsies are thieves does not mean in any possible way italians are racist, and I am not generalizing at all, like I said I am specifically targeting a kind of person and you answered for the third time with a racial generalization. YOU are generalizing.

If someone said: "I know black people very well, some of them are thieves, to them robbery is a life-style" how would this sound to you? I think you would probably regard it a racist.

no, it would sound an objective observation.... do you even know the meaning of the word racism ?

from wiktionary:

The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
The belief that one race is superior to all others.
Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.


If I'd say: I know gypsies, they are thieves. THAT would be a racist comment.

What you have said of gipsy camps

Funny, I have not said anything of gypsy camps... why don't you quote what I said of gypsy camps instead of making up things ?

On the use of the word "nomad": acutally, in Italian the word "nomadi" is often used to describe Roma gipsies, as in the expression "campo nomadi" (gipsy camp).

Campo nomadi is a general term not necessarily referred to gypsies. Gypsies aren't called nomadi, and anyways you called them nomads, in english.

You are confusing again the Camorra with the Mafia. Although the Camorra it is somewhat mafia-like, there are important differences between the two criminal organisations. Maybe you are not aware of the difference because you live in Northern Italy.

Do you even read what I write ? In english Camorra is called Mafia, this is what I have written.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/camorra


Have a look at this article from the Independent:

I thought you didn't miss the part in which I wrote I don't trust mass media. And you shouldn't , as well. You seem a reasonable person, wake up and stop being brainwashed.

The article even speaks of "ethnic cleansing" to describe the recurrent episodes of xenophobia that are currently taking place in Italy.

oh cool, that Peter Popham really must know facts. I see three possible scenarios:

1) He was there and hasn't done anything.
2) He was there and helping burning down the camp.
3) He wasn't there.

I kinda think the third hypothesis is the most probable, hence my opinion of his article is, in short: a bunch of suppositions and illations.

You said "I am not a fascist" as if you had to justify yourself. But nobody said you were fascist. Coda di paglia?

Like I said I do think you are a reasonable person, but certainly you have some problems in conducing a discussion. I never said "I am not a fascist", I said "Also, I am italian but this does not mean I am a fascist", and I said it in a precise context, which is not a justification nor an apology, but a criticism toward one of your many generalizations.

What subtle implications? All I am saying is that you are overreacting. Maybe you got nervous because your national football team got trashed the other day. :lol:

If you think I can be so easily provoked you're mistaken :D

I wonder if you twist words on purpouse or you really can't grasp the meaning of words. I said italians, like ANYONE in the world, dislike THIEVES. The fact that some gypsies are thieves does not mean in any possible way italians are racist, and I am not generalizing at all, like I said I am specifically targeting a kind of person and you answered for the third time with a racial generalization. YOU are generalizing.

Consider the following hypothetical conversation:

X: “A gipsy camp near Naples has been burnt to the ground by the angry mob. It seems that many Italians are growing more and more intolerant of gipsies.”

Y: “Not really. Let me explain. Italians don’t really dislike gipsies qua gipsies. Rather, they dislike thieves.”

Quite a part from its having racist implications, Y’s generalisation is both stupid and misleading. It’s misleading because it implies that a serious act of ethnic discrimination can be explained in some other way (“it’s not xenophobia, it’s natural dislike of thieves”, “it’s not xenophobia, it’s the Camorra” , etc.). And it’s stupid because it suggest that people can somehow identify as an object of dislike a sub-group of supposed thieves within the larger ethnical group of gipsies. How do Italians know which gipsy rightfully deserves to be disliked. Do gipsies walk around showing to the crowd their criminal record?

The wave of racial discrimination against gipsies is currently being investigated by Amnesty International and the European Commission, with special attention to the complex Italian situation. Try and explain to the EU’s investigators that there is no racial discrimination as “Italians just dislike thieves, like everybody else does”. I bet they would laugh in your face.

Finally, is it even true that “Italians, like anyone in the world, dislike thieves”? Italy’s prime minister has been several times on charge for false accounting, tax fraud and embezzlement. Yet he’s very popular, and the majority of the population (even many of those who have voted for the opposition party) don’t dislike him at all. As the Los Angeles Times has recently commented, in Italy not only does crime pay, but it may also get you elected: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-italy13apr13,0,4967271.story
Each general election, an unusually high number of convicted criminals is elected to a sit in the Italian’s Parliament (examples: senator Cuffaro, who prior to the last election had been sentenced to eight years for mafia association; Giuseppe Ciarrapico, sentenced to seven years for a number of frauds). If Italians really disliked thieves as you claim, they would burn to the ground, not the gipsy camps, but their own Parliament!

If I'd say: I know gypsies, they are thieves. THAT would be a racist comment.

But this is more or less what you said. More specifically, you said: “I know how they live and how they think. Some of them are thieves.” You seem to think that the little phase “some of them” makes for a big difference, marking the thin line between a racist comment and an harmless one. This is not so. Racial slurs need not take the form of absolute universal generalisations. Vague generalisations, as the one you have made, can be derogatory too.

Funny, I have not said anything of gypsy camps... why don't you quote what I said of gypsy camps instead of making up things ?

You claimed: “I grew up near gypsy camps”, and then said various derogatory things about people who live in such camps, such that, for some of them, robbery “is art and life-style”. Don’t ask me to pinpoint the exact quote. It’s not really my fault if you don’t remember your own words.

Campo nomadi is a general term not necessarily referred to gypsies.

Although the Italian expression “campo nomadi” can have a more generic meaning, it’s typically used to refer to gipsy camps. This is by far its most common meaning.

Gypsies aren't called nomadi.

Not true. In Italian, gipsies are often called “nomadi”. More exactly, there are at least four expressions which are commonly used to refer to gipsies: “rom”, “zingari”, “gitani” and “nomadi”. The name “Rom” is mostly used by the media. “Zingari” is quite common but somewhat derogative. “Gitani” is rare, literary and old-fashioned. “Nomadi” is the generic politically correct expressions.

Do you even read what I write ? In english Camorra is called Mafia, this is what I have written.

In English, the Camorra is called “Camorra”. For example, in the English subtitles to the movie “Gomorra”, based on Roberto Saviano’s novel, the word “Camorra” is never translated into “Mafia”.

But this is besides point. The point is that Camorra and Mafia are not the same, regardless of how they may be called in English. To say that the fire-raisers in Naples where instigated by the Mafia is both imprecise and incorrect. It’s more precise to say that the fire-raisers might have been instigated by a mafia-like organisation known as Camorra.

I thought you didn't miss the part in which I wrote I don't trust mass media. And you shouldn't , as well. You seem a reasonable person, wake up and stop being brainwashed.

So anybody who reads the Independent is brainwashed? :lol: How about the BBC? Have a look at this BBC article, “Italy condemned for 'racism wave'”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7423165.stm

my opinion of his article is, in short: a bunch of suppositions and illations.

This is bare assertion without argument. What exactly were the suppositions and illations in the Independent’s article? Can you disprove what that journalist said?

I never said "I am not a fascist". I said "Also, I am italian but this does not mean I am a fascist".

The latter sentence entails the former. By saying the second sentence you obviously implied the first. Berlusconi is notorious for blatantly contradicting himself (“I never said it”, “I’ve been misintepreted”, etc.). I can see now that he’s not the only Italian with this curious trait. :lol:

I said it in a precise context, which is not a justification nor an apology, but a criticism toward one of your many generalizations.

What generalisations? I never said nor implied that “Italians are fascists”. You did not need to “criticise” this statement because nobody ever made it. Your reaction was totally uncalled for. Hence, it was unnecessary self-defence, as if you had to purge yourself of an accusation nobody had made.

I really don't like the direction this thread is taking.

Neither do I. If nobody else has got anything further to contribute to the original OP then this
thread should close. Endless flaming of each other about things not related to this thread belong
in a new thread, OT or PM's to each other, in my view.:(

@jessie

you're right, my apologies.

you're right, my apologies.

Good. I am glad you finally recognise your mistake and apologise for it.

Vigilante justice against the Roma gypsies in Naples is an unacceptable act of racial discrimination. It would be very silly and misleading to dismiss the whole thing as a mere "dislike for thieves".

I think by now everyone understood your lame tactics of twisting my words Otto. I find it amusing you had to give one last proof of it in such a blatant way, although I kinda expected it.

I think by now everyone understood your lame tactics of twisting my words Otto. I find it amusing you had to give one last proof of it in such a blatant way, although I kinda expected it.

I never “twisted” you words, Onedreamer, but always quoted you literally. On the other hand, you did put in my mouth the claim that you “must be fascist because you’re from Italy”. I never said anything resembling such a silly claim, not even remotely. I think you should apologise for that too.

Hi ,

can this discussion or argument be dropped and can we move back to the topic please , .... :confused:

if you two want to fight with words use your PM feature or mail , ...

thanks in advance

Have a nice day :)


TOPIC ;

could it be possible to have the same gae on the bigger map of Rhye , ... :confused:

[QUOTE=Dabur;6921205]Hi ,

"can this discussion or argument be dropped and can we move back to the topic please , .... :confused:

if you two want to fight with words use your PM feature or mail , ...

thanks in advance"

Thanks for echoing my words exactly. Though your support is welcome.:)

Apparently I missed this discussion.
I don't want to feed it again, but where are you from, Otto?

yeah i like the idea of nomads, also another options in which you can settle down is instead of makeing a fort like improvment you can make a "goody hut" looking like improvement in which you can do the same as the fort but build a bit more buildings ( walls, granaries) with the cost of some of your stabaility....