We would like to warn you against our worst enemy, Steam. They eat children, devour souls, and sacrifice neighbours! .

Really? Cool. definitely getting Civ5 and Steam.
(You should meet my neighbours) :crazyeye:

How quickly can I get Steam? I need it soon.

It's neither hard nor time consuming to install.

Wow there's a lot of crocodile tears here, and yes, I'm an American.

Want the sociological answer?

Europe has expansive mass transit systems that link the majority of nations with each other, this coupled with their extreme proximity means that European citizens will often travel for work and play to many nations other than their own. The constant flux of visitors between nations has bred a society with a much higher international awareness than say... the United States of America.

See here in the US, the majority of us live 500+ miles from a neighboring country (Canada or Mexico). Being such a large country with such diverse territory, the majority of us have no reason to regularly travel to either Canada or Mexico; or any other country for that matter. Thus we lack the international mindset of Europeans.

In short: being bombarded by many different cultures and nationalities has made Europeans more 'internationally aware' than Americans, who are separated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans and who are neighbors with relatively insignificant cultures (sorry if you take offense, but it's true).

Cultural superiority plays a part as well. When you're an American and you travel, you see vast amounts of your culture emulated in most countries. That sense of superiority makes Americans slightly ego-centric.

fyi, I've spent 10 years in Europe.

So, sociologically speaking, the logic is:
* Unions of little countries with mass transit systems have higher international awareness.
* Big countries with diverse territory lack international mindset.

And that is the reason why Americans have a blindspot for everything between Greece and China?

I'm not sure where you dug that up at, but let's bury it again. That logic makes no sense to the statement of geographical ignorance in a place where Americans have a whole lot going on in world events.

It's not a bad thing to point out ignorance.

Of course not, it's in Africa right next to Poland, how dare you accuse us of idiosyncrasy when you don't even know what continent Spain is on, gosh...


:sarcasm:

Dude, all im trying to say is that everyone should just relax and not get offended by this statement. I agree that it shouldn't have been posted on the Firaxis website but it is not a big deal. Its just a joke. After having lived 4 years in the US it is basicly my second home and i didn't get offended by the comment.
BTW, the comment that the US soldiers would be offended is...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Going back to the geography argument i have to agree that some europeans dont know jack about american geography but having wittnessed both educational systems i have to say that Europe's (at least Spain's) is much more advanced and complete. I spent 1 year learning about california's history and another for U.S's history.I completely understand that the Civil War is more important than the Gupta Dynasty but the education is kind of bad there.

Need me speed:

He meant that you should've added tf so it'd become "WTF".

Yeah, I knew that.

Of course, of course.

needmyspeed, you forgot the tf.

:dunno::lol::dunno:
Sorry, but, seeing as I don't like Steam, I'm not going to edit my post and add Team Fortress.
Need my speed:

He meant that you should've added tf so it'd become "WTF".
]Yeah, I knew that.

Of course, of course.

Of course he did.

I'm assuming Zack meant it sarcastically, and you (Yared) means it seriously. It gets a bit confusing now. :P

But yes, I did know that WTF stands for what the smilies (yeah...). Why else would I post such an unlogical reaction?

I meant it sarcastically too :p


Why else? Because you didn't get it?

Then I would ask what he meant.

I knew you meant the post above my previous post serious (I said 'means', not 'meant'). And after seeing your last post (well, the one before that, the one before the one above this one (confusing?)), I knew that you meant your first post sarcastically.

Well...

The Maya actually abandoned the larger cities and that more negative aspect of society.
hahahahaha... well... that's a way to put it.
The Maya actually abandoned their own towns because of ecological collapse (partially self inflicted) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse#Drought_theory): over-population on a region with a strong dependency on precipitation for irrigation, and routinely afflicted by cyclic droughts.
The most recent studies shows that Maya collapse was due to a combination of environmental damage, climate change, and hostile neighbors.

The Anasazi of southwestern North America collapsed due to their destruction of their own forests, causing reduced food production and starvation, and leading to warfare and cannibalism in last effort for survival. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasazi#Warfare_and_cannibalism)
This affection that all native population were like mythical elves with a life in perfect equilibrium with nature is quite childish and proven wrong.
Most of the native communities in the Americas weren't much more ecological inclined than their old-world counterparts.

This affection that all native population were like mythical elves with a life in perfect equilibrium with nature is quite childish and proven wrong.

The best book on the subject, the one that everybody anywhere should read, and the one that Civ fans will love, is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/) by Jared Diamond. It will change the way you look at history and it will change the way you look at race. Then, after you are done with that, read his "Collapse", which is ever more fun if you like Civ.

You can have both done by September. And yes, it will be on the test.

The best book on the subject, the one that everybody anywhere should read, and the one that Civ fans will love, is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/) by Jared Diamond. It will change the way you look at history and it will change the way you look at race. Then, after you are done with that, read his "Collapse", which is ever more fun if you like Civ.

You can have both done by September. And yes, it will be on the test.

I already read both of them... very instructive books to understand not only the past but also the present and the future.
I warmly suggest to everybody.

That Iroquois factoid is completely ridiculous, but then again look at America's...

i'm not sure what your definition of "ridiculous" is.

i'm not sure what your definition of "ridiculous" is.

probably the claiming brown/native-americans ever did something important (I'm being facetious)

facetious, but probably right. but he also said, "but then again look at america's"
the way i see it:
iroquois: their constitution was used to write another one 2 centuries later by people who generally looked down on their culture. interesting.
america: first to land on the moon. interesting, though common knowledge.
siam: thailand won the miss universe competition a couple times. not quite as interesting.

what iroquois constitution?
and are you saying the american constitution is a rip-off of it?

The Watauga Association at Sycamore Shoals near Elizabethton drafted the first constitution ever written by white men in America in 1772. It was patterned after the constitution of the Iroquois League of Nations, a federal system of government developed 200 years earlier for five eastern Native American tribes. that iroquois constitution. and "used to write" doesn't mean "rip off," just means it was one of the sources used. sorry if i made it sound like that.
the constitution of the united states might've also taken some ideas from it, like it did with other documents, but no, it's definitely not a rip off of anything.

According to tradition the Iroquois Confederation came into being around AD 1570. The Confederation was a union of five (later six) Native American tribes. The Iroquois are an amazing people: with a population that probably never exceeded 20,000, lacking a written language and possessing no manufacturing base at all, for two centuries the Iroquois managed to hold their own against the French, English, Dutch, and later Colonial Americans.

Factoid:
The Watauga Association at Sycamore Shoals near Elizabethton drafted the first constitution ever written by white men in America in 1772. It was patterned after the constitution of the Iroquois League of Nations, a federal system of government developed 200 years earlier for five eastern Native American tribes.

Evil americans copied a non-written iroqui constitution? :confused:

That american overview looks like it was written by a high school emo, someone that is fat, with greasy hair and nasal whiny voice complaining about USA for all the wrong reasons whenever he gets the chance. How incredibly unproffessional to unload your emo tripe at work and on the game website you are designing. Really cheapens my impression of the Civilization brand.

The United States of America is a world "super-power" (which more or less means that it possesses weapons capable of destroying everything on the planet). A relatively young civilization, the United States formed in the 18th century, nearly self-destructed in the 19th century, and became the most powerful and dominant military, technological, cultural and economical civilization in the 20th. One can hardly guess what will happen to it in the 21st.

My first impression of Civilization 5. Its gonna be a fat, depressed and whiny game.

Luckily, the person/people who create the website usually have nothing whatsoever to do with the development of the game itself. So while I find it annoying, it doesn't look to impact my enjoyment of the game.

it's not even annoying. who cares?

I care because its incredibly unproffessional to whine on your paid assignment. He has an easy job designing webpages yet he cant do it properly. It looks nice, the animation of George Washington is more realistic then in civ4 but when you read the text its childish and immature whining coupled with utter stupidity instead of interesting historical facts.

The whole site is advertisement for Civilization 5. Who hired that person to create an attractive image of their new game? Who paid that person money to write something so stupid and offensive? He couldve just kept his opinions to himself and done his job like any normal person would.

americans tend to know the most about the people we don't like, so maybe it's a good thing for turkey we don't know too much about them.

Oh go and get a sense of humor. Nationalism is for suckers. The most popular (and relatively new) monotheistic religion, nationalism is practiced by a vast majority of the world's population and transcends the classic emotional loyalties once reserved for traditional religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc etc).

I was born in the USA and I couldn't give a crap about anybody taking a verbal (or written) piss on it. I thought it was kinda funny. Although it makes no sense from a marketing perspective as it seems like the US has a fairly large customer base for 2K products... at least as much as in other "Western" "nations" ;)

The most important concern should have been on the fact that we don't give a damn of what most americans know or know not about the Ottoman Turks. Even in describing Ottomans they are actually describing Americans? THIS was the real problem :D

"Even in describing Ottomans they are actually describing Americans? THIS was the real problem"

Indeed. Same goes for the Iroquois factoid.

I care because its incredibly unproffessional to whine on your paid assignment. He has an easy job designing webpages yet he cant do it properly. It looks nice, the animation of George Washington is more realistic then in civ4 but when you read the text its childish and immature whining coupled with utter stupidity instead of interesting historical facts.

The whole site is advertisement for Civilization 5. Who hired that person to create an attractive image of their new game? Who paid that person money to write something so stupid and offensive? He couldve just kept his opinions to himself and done his job like any normal person would.

It's not whining. Not even close. It's a backhanded joke. Not the end of the world.

And so you're upset that a firaxis employee was unprofessional? Really? I once heard of this guy who came into my office dressed casually NOT on casual fridays.:mad: My hands are trembling from anger just thinking about it.

It's a backhanded joke. Not the end of the world.

Let me write openly what some of us here are thinking: In my company, an international corporation, I'd very probably get fired for a stunt like this. Insulting the customer is not funny, it is not clever, and it simply not done. They pay your meals, they feed your family, they keep your kids in diapers. The customer is (a) god. You show him respect, or you find another place to work. Except with that attitude, not even McD's will want you.

In the Internet age, when Google Never Forgets and and blogs spread things like wildfires, it is beyond stupid. At the very least it is damaging to the brand, because it reeks of unprofessionalism. Just what kind of a shop do these people run? How did this slip past the copy editor or quality control? Do they even have quality control? What does this tell us about the quality of the code?

I hope nobody did get fired, obviously. I do hope they grow up, fast. Not the end of the world, no, but not trivial, either. This is not how you do serious business.

Once again, its not an insult. I could think of all kinds of things to insult Americans in general whether they be true or not.

This statement was a joke. People could laugh at the mounties dumb pants, I wouldn't get offended. Noone is trying to say America is inferior. This would simply be untrue. They have the most powerful military and economy, and in civ terms would be winning the game at the moment.

Noones trying to say that Americans are bad at geography either. Many of you know all the states and capitals of the states. There is no inherent deficit in Americans' ability to learn geography.

However, there is a stereotype of Americans that they do not look outside their country as much as other nationalities do. Again, noone implied that this is true for EVERY american. Their geography and history lessons are much more focused on American history and geography. This stereotype is not racist, nationalist or any -ist. It is stereotyping a very specific kind of knowledge. It is the same as if I said Canadians are mostly liberal and don't know a thing about proper conservative values.

Secondly, people are able to laugh at the 'big brother' becuase noone actually believes they are inferior. Comedic TV shows are in general very sexist toward men. They often depict the lead character as a fat, stupid husband or father (a la Simpsons, King of Queens, etc.). They are allowed to do this, and the joke is considered funny not insulting because there is no historically sensitive issue brought up by this. A show depicting women as useless house cleaners who aren't allowed to vote would be insulting, because these memories are still fresh in people's minds.

And finally, are you personally offended by this statement? Because more than anything you seem to be offended because this statement could be considered offensive (which is the basis for the over emphasis on political correctness).

This is funny because they're an American company. And it shouldn't be taken as serious business, it's a game. There's always been humor within the Civ games.

I'm an American, and I think it's funny. I think all of my friends with a sense of humor would think so, too. It's funny because it's so true.

First allow me to agree that they shouldn't have put the definition like that. It was ill conceived, BUT it wasn't the end of the world.

Regarding your comment...

In the Internet age, when Google Never Forgets and and blogs spread things like wildfires, it is beyond stupid. At the very least it is damaging to the brand, because it reeks of unprofessionalism. Just what kind of a shop do these people run? How did this slip past the copy editor or quality control? Do they even have quality control? What does this tell us about the quality of the code?

IMO It doesn't' tell me nothing about the quality of the code. Companies aren't a single entity, they are different people. One guy mistake is not everyone's incompetence... Some times people make mistakes and has long has they acknowledge them and correct them there's no bit deal.

But more important to me...

They pay your meals, they feed your family, they keep your kids in diapers. The customer is (a) god.

I have a business, granted it's a small business, but I show respect IF people show me respect. I refuse to deal with stupid and rude people. I lose some money but money isn't the most important thing in the world. I don't know if you are american but I think this is a very american way of thinking (the almighty dollar :)). Money has its uses for food, clothes and shelter, but after the basics there are LOTS of thing that are more important to me.

All your historical references are moot.

Education, information, and history is taught, recorded, and presented according to ruling elite wishes.

That which is not wanted to be known will not be known. That which is desired to be known (even if it may not be true), will be as truth via multiple platforms of media and information dissemination.

I have a business, granted it's a small business, but I show respect IF people show me respect. I refuse to deal with stupid and rude people. I lose some money but money isn't the most important thing in the world. I don't know if you are american but I think this is a very american way of thinking (the almighty dollar :)). Money has its uses for food, clothes and shelter, but after the basics there are LOTS of thing that are more important to me.

This. A thousand times. This.

The customer is always king is an attitude that belongs in the same historical garbage can as <insert random historical injustice here>. (I'm not going to pick one because people invariably focus on whether the two are equivalent rather than the point of my post.)

My wife has a customer facing job and she has to deal with a lot of very arrogant people who feel they are entitled to absurd levels of customer service equivalent to groveling and bootlicking.
Guess what they are more trouble than they are worth so she focuses on the ones that will work with her and be reasonable. Unfortunately she doesn't work for herself so she doesn't have the latitude to do this all the time.

When you interact with a corporation you are typically interacting with other human beings (who deserve respect as the default) not the person making decisions. I am fed up with my wife coming home upset because some total jerk couldn't be bothered to learn how to balance a check book and thinks he has the right to verbally abuse her to make up for his failings...because 'the customer is always right'. Guess what that attitude gets you nowhere...it's those customers that show respect and understanding that get her attention and access to the limited power she has to reverse fees and charges.
Sorry...hot button for me, I'll go back to being mild mannered shortly.

All your historical references are moot.

Education, information, and history is taught, recorded, and presented according to ruling elite wishes.

That which is not wanted to be known will not be known. That which is desired to be known (even if it may not be true), will be as truth via multiple platforms of media and information dissemination.

So what do we base our decisions on?

I find that Europeans are not any less ignorant about history than Americans. The only reason they know geography a little better is because they need to because of where they live. Yea, and I doubt that the average Chinese person or African person knows a lot about European history.

Its not that saying Americans are ignorant is insulting, its just dumb... its idealizing every non-American country as some haven of enlightenment.

So what do we base our decisions on?

:D

I just like to throw that out there so everyone realizes that nothing is really all that concrete. I guess I try to lighten the air. Or open some minds.

Obviously, if you're going to have this kind of discussion, you need to go by what you have, right?

When you interact with a corporation you are typically interacting with other human beings (who deserve respect as the default) not the person making decisions. I am fed up with my wife coming home upset because some total jerk couldn't be bothered to learn how to balance a check book and thinks he has the right to verbally abuse her to make up for his failings...because 'the customer is always right'. Guess what that attitude gets you nowhere...it's those customers that show respect and understanding that get her attention and access to the limited power she has to reverse fees and charges.

While I believe in treating EVERYONE I talk to with as much respect as possible, your wife works for thieves, usurpers, usurers, and general bastards (if I'm right in assuming she works for a bank). When you get a job in customer service with the contract-crazy-usurer-bastard banks, you're going to be dealing with a lot of SERFS (that's what we really are) who think that they are actually free people and have been wronged. If these "customers" realized that they were really serfs, they probably wouldn't be giving your wife a hard time... they'd probably be cooking up a revolution ;).

While I believe in treating EVERYONE I talk to with as much respect as possible, your wife works for thieves, usurpers, usurers, and general bastards (if I'm right in assuming she works for a bank). When you get a job in customer service with the contract-crazy-usurer-bastard banks, you're going to be dealing with a lot of SERFS (that's what we really are) who think that they are actually free people and have been wronged. If these "customers" realized that they were really serfs, they probably wouldn't be giving your wife a hard time... they'd probably be cooking up a revolution ;).
The point though is that all the rich bastards at the top are laughing while the serfs are yelling at other serfs. Those bonuses you heard about and the big money that was made didn't make it very far down the chain.

Yelling at the serfs in customer service roles is not going to change anything. All it does is make your situation worse, because the other serf who really wants to be your friend will ignore you and spend her time helping someone else.

There are people with legitimate complaints and she tries to help them, but there are also jerks.

The crazy thing is that she tries to teach these people...if you don't have the money and simply have to buy that lipstick at Walgreens just make one ATM withdrawal and spend cash then you will only get hit with one charge...but they keep using their debit card to spend $8 on this and $5 on that; then $3 here and $4 there and they get hit with 4 fees instead of one. I'm sorry but that is being willfully ignorant.

At the end of the day anyone (and there are several of these) who regularly overdraws their account two or three times in a week, who is told what the effect will be in fees and charges but who keeps coming back over the course of several weeks to claim they didn't know and demands their fees be refunded by yelling and making a scene is being a jerk and I have no sympathy for them.

(Well maybe a little sympathy...if the education system wasn't focused on preparing people for a life of unquestioning service in corporate America but focused instead on what people need to know in life (rather than pointless facts that 90%+ of the students will never use again) they might understand how to manage money and balance a cheque book, but they might also know enough to question their corporate overlords...and that would never do. :nope:)

Anyway I am veering way off topic here...my apologies, I'm still trying to go back to mild mannered...my point has been made by many...shooting the messengers (and the community managers) may be satisfying to some in the short term but it doesn't really achieve anything worthwhile, and probably does more harm than good as it sours the relationship with potential allies.

The notion of "customer is always right" is not really American I don't think. There is a big difference between intentionally or unintentionally offending some of your customers with objectionable comments and tolerating customers who are rude or arrogant to employees.

I'm surprised this discussion is even going on still. Obviously 2K considered it to be a mistake or in poor judgement because it was promptly removed.

Also, I had a massive deja vu reading Johnny Be's post. A brain fart I guess. :dunno:

The notion of "customer is always right" is not really American I don't think. There is a big difference between intentionally or unintentionally offending some of your customers with objectionable comments and tolerating customers who are rude or arrogant to employees.

I'm surprised this discussion is even going on still. Obviously 2K considered it to be a mistake or in poor judgement because it was promptly removed.

Also, I had a massive deja vu reading Johnny Be's post. A brain fart I guess. :dunno:

Removed from the website but still in the civilopedia to provide "charecter"

The point though is that all the rich bastards at the top are laughing while the serfs are yelling at other serfs. Those bonuses you heard about and the big money that was made didn't make it very far down the chain.

Yelling at the serfs in customer service roles is not going to change anything. All it does is make your situation worse, because the other serf who really wants to be your friend will ignore you and spend her time helping someone else.

There are people with legitimate complaints and she tries to help them, but there are also jerks.

The crazy thing is that she tries to teach these people...if you don't have the money and simply have to buy that lipstick at Walgreens just make one ATM withdrawal and spend cash then you will only get hit with one charge...but they keep using their debit card to spend $8 on this and $5 on that; then $3 here and $4 there and they get hit with 4 fees instead of one. I'm sorry but that is being willfully ignorant.

At the end of the day anyone (and there are several of these) who regularly overdraws their account two or three times in a week, who is told what the effect will be in fees and charges but who keeps coming back over the course of several weeks to claim they didn't know and demands their fees be refunded by yelling and making a scene is being a jerk and I have no sympathy for them.

(Well maybe a little sympathy...if the education system wasn't focused on preparing people for a life of unquestioning service in corporate America but focused instead on what people need to know in life (rather than pointless facts that 90%+ of the students will never use again) they might understand how to manage money and balance a cheque book, but they might also know enough to question their corporate overlords...and that would never do. :nope:)

Anyway I am veering way off topic here...my apologies, I'm still trying to go back to mild mannered...my point has been made by many...shooting the messengers (and the community managers) may be satisfying to some in the short term but it doesn't really achieve anything worthwhile, and probably does more harm than good as it sours the relationship with potential allies.

I think you're making this very complicated, you're frustrated with work, but you're treating the customers like the enemy and upper management like the enemy. The fact is, everyone is imperfect, and that includes the workers. I've worked in service and a lot of co-workers didn't really treat their job seriously and made it harder for those working with them, and for management, and for the customers. Eventually a customer will be so ticked off by what they experience generally with service workers, that they'll take it out on a worker that doesn't deserve it. Usually all they want is to be treated with respect. Management, in turn, can get upset at workers, and put them in all sorts of bad conditions out of frustration.

But really, getting along is in everyone's interest, including management. Happy workers in the end are good for a business that wants to exist in the long term.

At the political level, the problem today is just as much the fault of unions as its the fault of business. We get the worst of both worlds, a lot of the time, because both sides have their hand in politics. So, for instance, business wants free trade agreements, and ceding that issue, unions, worried about outsourcing jobs costing them their livelihood demand high benefits and more job security. Free trade makes it hard for workers, but union demands just pile on top of that, without solving the problem, and screw workers doubly.

So thats a result of both corruption and a divided political system in which different interests can control different sides. We need to get to a point just where there's mutual understanding and these things don't devolve into "us vs. them"

I think you're making this very complicated, you're frustrated with work, but you're treating the customers like the enemy and upper management like the enemy. The fact is, everyone is imperfect, and that includes the workers. I've worked in service and a lot of co-workers didn't really treat their job seriously and made it harder for those working with them, and for management, and for the customers. Eventually a customer will be so ticked off by what they experience generally with service workers, that they'll take it out on a worker that doesn't deserve it. Usually all they want is to be treated with respect. Management, in turn, can get upset at workers, and put them in all sorts of bad conditions out of frustration.

But really, getting along is in everyone's interest, including management. Happy workers in the end are good for a business that wants to exist in the long term.

At the political level, the problem today is just as much the fault of unions as its the fault of business. We get the worst of both worlds, a lot of the time, because both sides have their hand in politics. So, for instance, business wants free trade agreements, and ceding that issue, unions, worried about outsourcing jobs costing them their livelihood demand high benefits and more job security. Free trade makes it hard for workers, but union demands just pile on top of that, without solving the problem, and screw workers doubly.

So thats a result of both corruption and a divided political system in which different interests can control different sides. We need to get to a point just where there's mutual understanding and these things don't devolve into "us vs. them"
I agree with much of what you say especially the issues with politics, but I would like to make a couple of points.
I have no frustrations with my work...I enjoy what I do (gathering and analysing my client's requirements and then designing and writing code to address their needs) it is the effect I observe on others that work in support roles that I dislike.
I think you are distorting things slightly with the line 'treating the customers like the enemy'. I cannot accept this, my wife (whose experiences I was discussing) wants to help everyone, but some of them treat her as the enemy rather than a (somewhat) powerless cog in a large machine who will help them if she can. The sense of entitlement, combined with a self-centered and aggressively demanding attitude from those individuals rather than a reasonable work-together-to-solve-it attitude is the problem and dealing with that clearly takes its toll.

I'm also not going to let upper management off the hook that easily; along with increased rewards comes increased responsibility.
The job of the customer facing staff is made a lot more difficult when edicts come down from on high that basically tell the staff not to mention viable, and often legally-mandated, options that would help a customer unless the customer explicitly asks for that remedy...under threat of dismissal. I am aware of this happening at another bank (not my wife's fortunately) and to a friend working a cell company's call center.

Finally I want to call out this sentence: Happy workers in the end are good for a business that wants to exist in the long term.
Unfortunately this only makes sense if upper management is incented to see that the business is successful in the long term, but the fact is that most are not. They are given short term incentives that provide large bonuses for immediate results and little reason to cultivate happy employees or make solid decisions for the long term since most will be gone and on to new pastures before the true effects of their 'strategy' are felt.
Personally I suspect the main reason for this short-termism is a change in investing philosophy. Fewer individual investors are buying stocks as long term investments, they are looking for quick returns and then to move on to another opportunity quickly. This naturally leads to compensation packages for executives that provide large rewards for short term gains but little incentive to think long term.

Removed from the website but still in the civilopedia to provide "charecter"

If I were a gambling man, I'd say, "Willing to put money on that?" ;)

Unfortunately she doesn't work for herself so she doesn't have the latitude to do this all the time.

And this is the point about the lucky gentleman further up who has his own company and can decide to give his rude customers as good as he gets. International corporations have little patience for this, because their shareholders have little patience for this -- they want to see the money and simply don't care if your feelings are getting hurt.

But this is not what we were talking about. We were talking about company people being rude to customers for no good reason, not customers being rude to company people. And I still say that is a no-no, regardless of how large your shop is.

Perhaps this was the real reason the 20 Firaxis employees got canned. <shrug> ? :lol:

The point though is that all the rich bastards at the top are laughing while the serfs are yelling at other serfs. Those bonuses you heard about and the big money that was made didn't make it very far down the chain....

Too true... too true.

Serf on serf aggression will never solve our universal plight of serfdom at the hands of the bankers :p

Good call, mjs0. However, I gotta say that more often than not, I'm speaking to a veritable robot on the other end of the phone when I get ANY kind of "customer service" at a major corporate institution. The complete emotionless-ness is an inevitable byproduct of the work atmosphere.

I'm just saying, if you work cust. service for a major corp (bank especially), you GOTTA expect angry and upset people calling up.

Evil americans copied a non-written iroqui constitution? :confused:



My understanding is that the American colonists and Eurpeans admired the Iroquois constitution for being a pure/natural government. Their thinking was along the lines of the Iroquois were similar to our ancient ancestors and therefore their government was similar to the very first government ever created, therefore their government was more "pure" and "natural" because it filled a vital, natural need in the community.

Any copying was done in admiration.

My understanding is that the American colonists and Eurpeans admired the Iroquois constitution for being a pure/natural government. Their thinking was along the lines of the Iroquois were similar to our ancient ancestors and therefore their government was similar to the very first government ever created, therefore their government was more "pure" and "natural" because it filled a vital, natural need in the community.

Any copying was done in admiration.

I would believe the Iroquois were admired for making a Constitution. Its still a stretch though, to say something was copied.

If anyone wants to judge for themselves:
http://tuscaroras.com/pages/history/iroquois_constitution_1.html

I would believe the Iroquois were admired for making a Constitution. Its still a stretch though, to say something was copied.

If anyone wants to judge for themselves:
http://tuscaroras.com/pages/history/iroquois_constitution_1.html

I imagine words like "inspiration" and "admiration" are more suitable.

wikipedia entry suggest there's a good bit of debate about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Confederacy#Influence_on_the_United_State s

I imagine words like "inspiration" and "admiration" are more suitable.

wikipedia entry suggest there's a good bit of debate about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Confederacy#Influence_on_the_United_State s

I'd think it was more admiration than inspiration. Americans already had inspiration from writing by European philosophers, like Locke and Rousseau, who idealized the natural state of affairs between men. To people in America, the Iroquois constitution must have just been an example of what the philosophers were talking about. Although, Rousseau himself spoke of the noble savage, and was probably thinking of native cultures that Europeans had run into.

In no way does the text you are referring to even come close to saying this. I think you are very much misinterpreting the tongue-in-cheek humor.

The civilopedia has always has some character in its writing style, and Civ V is no exception. :)

I have one question to 2K :)
In Russia description is writen: "It has been invaded and overrun by Goths, Huns, Mongols, French and Germans, yet remained uniquely Russian."

Just wonder... Was Poland not mentioned intentionally?
To mention Goths or Huns?!
And not to mention Poland-Lithuania and "time of troubles"?

I bet it was intentional - because then again would be a noise around to add Polish Civ :crazyeye: Am I right?
hehe manipulation everywhere...

I know what ottomans are, I put my feet on them when I watch television. Didn't know they had an empire, though.

I have one question to 2K :)
In Russia description is writen: "It has been invaded and overrun by Goths, Huns, Mongols, French and Germans, yet remained uniquely Russian."

Just wonder... Was Poland not mentioned intentionally?
To mention Goths or Huns?!
And not to mention Poland-Lithuania and "time of troubles"?

I bet it was intentional - because then again would be a noise around to add Polish Civ :crazyeye: Am I right?
hehe manipulation everywhere...

Most people don't know that Poland conquered Moscow

Mentioning the Goths and the Huns as overunning anything but geographical "Russia" is pretty stupid, though.

Most people don't know that Poland conquered Moscow

With all the complaints about euro-centrism, there's much more bias in Western studies against Eastern european peoples than against peoples in Asia, Africa, the Americas. Its simply assumed that peoples in Eastern Europe, between Germany and Russia, were just dumb peasants who were afraid of vampires and aren't even worth mentioning.

With all the complaints about euro-centrism, there's much more bias in Western studies against Eastern european peoples than against peoples in Asia, Africa, the Americas. Its simply assumed that peoples in Eastern Europe, between Germany and Russia, were just dumb peasants who were afraid of vampires and aren't even worth mentioning.

It's true (that that's an image many hold for east europe), I made a map parodying this mindset awhile back. "The World (As Seen By 'Masses')". I need to remake it sometime...
Most of South America was Brazil, central American was "Mexico", east europe was just the start of Russia, Poland, and a very, very large, swollen "Transylvania/Romania" to represent "Generic 1400s Land Where Everyone's Superstitious And Hay Litters The Cobblestone Streets"
It's kinda like how the middle east is just one big ol' Saudi Arabia ruled by Iran's Ayatollah with the technology levels of Libya and the tolerance levels of Afghanistan, or everything in subsaharan Africa is just "Africa", a land covered in jungle, filled with native people, starving people, and militants.
I think we (not Americans, people in general) have a bad habit of seeing the world, culturally, as some sort of Disneyworld like theme park. There's Pagodaland, there's Mexicoland, Sovietland, etc.

I guess I'm not buying Civ V. It's bad enough that they heavily skewed historical facts in Civ IV, and designed the game around what seems like a stupid political agenda... For a game that's supposed to be this shining beacon of historical accuracy, every version of Civ keeps getting worse. I had fun playing these games for a long time, even ignoring the glaring inconsistencies, but I'm done. My entertainment dollars will be better spent elsewhere.

Most people don't know that Poland conquered Moscow

but everyone know for sure about Goths or Huns :lol:

Only ottoman i'd heard of before civ was the one in my living room.

I guess I'm not buying Civ V. It's bad enough that they heavily skewed historical facts in Civ IV, and designed the game around what seems like a stupid political agenda... For a game that's supposed to be this shining beacon of historical accuracy, every version of Civ keeps getting worse. I had fun playing these games for a long time, even ignoring the glaring inconsistencies, but I'm done. My entertainment dollars will be better spent elsewhere.

Is it really? I've never heard anyone claim that before.

I guess I'm not buying Civ V. It's bad enough that they heavily skewed historical facts in Civ IV, and designed the game around what seems like a stupid political agenda... For a game that's supposed to be this shining beacon of historical accuracy, every version of Civ keeps getting worse. I had fun playing these games for a long time, even ignoring the glaring inconsistencies, but I'm done. My entertainment dollars will be better spent elsewhere.

Just because I'm curious OM, Which glaring inconsistencies were you referring to?

Is it really? I've never heard anyone claim that before.

Yes, it was. Civ I would have been that beacon during it's times. And slowly the beacon has been dimming. It has now burnt out almost completely since they have decided to add odd political-motivated statements throughout the whole civilopedia (so it was stated, might be unknown). :mischief:

Most of my complaint is on the fact that they bothered to have the whole Ottoman entry filled with junk not about Ottoman.

I love how many Americans love dishing it out but cannot eat the dish themselves, and I am American. The quotation ""Many Americans know very little about the Ottoman Empire (it occupies the blind spot Americans have for pretty much everything between Greece and China)."" doesn't seem that false nor a special accusation either in historical context. Did many Europeans know a lot about Africa, as Europeans invaded into the mainland of Africa? Do many Americans know a lot about the Middle East, as Americans invade into the Middle East? However, the argument seems to be not about the truth of the accusation but the morality of the Civilization Programmers stating such an opinion in the product. Does anybody complain about how the historically-fictional movie Inglorious Basterds had Adolf Hitler shot down by bullets, even though that rendition is historically inaccurate? We obviously aren't angry about whether the controversial subject is factual then. Does anybody complain about how the gangster game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas endorsed marijuana somewhat, even though that perspective does not conform to the majority opinion? Mostly people who are doing so to get a plus one for their political image. Did anybody complain about how the action-shooter game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 included many quotes criticizing American patriotism?

No, even though the gamer would be playing from the perspectives of US soldiers, who are the epitome of American patriotism. From what the situation seems, we the Civilization gamers seem to hold the Civilization Franchise to an international standard, and we expect all the Civilization Programmers to be completely neutral on the history of nations and nations' relations with one another. However, by the nature of the game, we do not notice that the game takes positions biased nevertheless. (Now, I believe that the optimal thing would be to make it so that the nature of the game wouldn't have to be biased, but what I believe and what is are not the same thing.) The Civilization Programmers won't include Adolf Hitler, but they include Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. The Civilization Programmers have a predominantly European cast of civilizations and absolutely no African civilizations in Civilization, and yet we are angry because of a little comment that probably doesn't even have anything to do with anti-Americanism but a simple evaluation of the western versus the eastern world? Honestly, it seems that this outrage of sorts seems to be most similar to the situation with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

The American fanbase of the games seem to be absolutely fumed, because the American fanbase just cannot take anything that could possibly damage the nation's image, even if the quotation could have been taken out of context, even if America is praised substantially in its own profile in the Civilization Encyclopedia, and even if the Civilization Programmers include a lot of things that could be construed as negative for other nations as well.

I love how many Americans love dishing it out but cannot eat the dish themselves, and I am American. The quotation ""Many Americans know very little about the Ottoman Empire (it occupies the blind spot Americans have for pretty much everything between Greece and China)."" doesn't seem that false nor a special accusation either in historical context.
In these times of politically correctness, if a similar statement was done with a Muslim or African or south/central american country/ethnic-group the hell would break loose with accusations of racism, discrimination, and whatever else.
In terms of equality to the (hypocritical and silly) political correctness times we live, USA people have all the right to complain as any other group.

I just want it to be known that I read this whole thread and the only thing I have to say is- as others have written- why was the US mentioned in a blurb about the ottomans?

Well that and I think I figured out pretty quickly who goes for cultural wins and who goes for domination wins in game by their posts in this thread. :p

I don't understand how under the United States of America it says we nearly self destructed in the 19th century. I think they are overplaying the civil war. Even if the North had lost, the United States would still exist today (with less states obviously).

That would be an interesting debate D, as I am not so sure of your hypothesis. Especially with Mexico capable of coming up from the south and trying to take full control over the SW regions. Hmnn, that would be an interesting scenario to try though. BTW, I agree with you about the beer. Nice tag line.

Cant wait to see in the american civ's "tounge in cheek" entry

"Many Muslims know very little about the American fashion industry (it occupies the blind spot Muslims have for pretty much everything Above the ankles)."

Cant wait to see in the american civ's "tounge in cheek" entry

"Many Muslims know very little about the American fashion industry (it occupies the blind spot Muslims have for pretty much everything Above the ankles)."

:lol::lol::lol: :mischief:

I don't understand how under the United States of America it says we nearly self destructed in the 19th century. I think they are overplaying the civil war. Even if the North had lost, the United States would still exist today (with less states obviously).
What if no-one of the two sides ever won a complete victory?
De-facto no more USA as we know them today but two separate states... maybe even one of the two disintegrating a-la SSSR.

I think it could be arguably considered a fair statement that USA nearly self-destructed in the 19th century.

I'd have to agree, as there is a lot of variables in that particular time frame. Too bad I'm not a modder, because I think that would be one hell of a scenario. Let's see, you have the North/South, Mexico, Euro Powers to send aid based off their interests, maybe Canada during the hockey off season, and the Native Americans from the west. Lol, any modders wanna give that one a whirl?

What if no-one of the two sides ever won a complete victory?
De-facto no more USA as we know them today but two separate states... maybe even one of the two disintegrating a-la SSSR.

I think it could be arguably considered a fair statement that USA nearly self-destructed in the 19th century.

Most likely what would have happened, imo anyway, is that the South would eventually have abolished slavery, and the southern and northern states would have found some way to reconcile

Most likely what would have happened, imo anyway, is that the South would eventually have abolished slavery, and the southern and northern states would have found some way to reconcile

This. The South was pretty doomed, since cotton was being replaced in foreign markets, leaving their economy (which was almost entirely cotton based, which was their main reason for even having slaves) in shambles.

This. The South was pretty doomed, since cotton was being replaced in foreign markets, leaving their economy (which was almost entirely cotton based, which was their main reason for even having slaves) in shambles.

The majority of white southerners didn't own slaves either and didn't have any investment in the institution. At any indication that the slaves were taking jobs away from free white men there would have been a political issue.

The fact that Southerners felt that the North was trying to control them is what led poorer whites to defend it

Yay above poster gets bonus points!

I hate to imagine the first and second world wars had the South been able to secede successfully.

Well, I live in the UK, and I have never heard of the ottoman empire until Age of Empires and Civ began including them.

Most likely what would have happened, imo anyway, is that the South would eventually have abolished slavery, and the southern and northern states would have found some way to reconcile

I really do think they would have grown more apart as the years went on. But in no way was the future of the U.S. in doubt. Worst case there is a cease fire and peace treaty. The CSA would have went on with their 11 states.

The U.S. would have went on as usual. Nevada (my state) was already made a state during the civil war. I'd imagine the other western states would have eventually have gained statehood as well. So you'd end up with 39 U.S. states and 11 CSA ones.

The real interesting question (I won't get into too much here as it's not the thread topic and more for the history forum) is how would future wars have ended up for the U.S. Like the Spanish-American war, WW1, and WW2. I'd imagine the south would have allied with the north for WW2 and possibly WW1. I'm not sure about the spanish-american war (that may not have happened at all)

I really do think they would have grown more apart as the years went on. But in no way was the future of the U.S. in doubt. Worst case there is a cease fire and peace treaty. The CSA would have went on with their 11 states.

The U.S. would have went on as usual. Nevada (my state) was already made a state during the civil war. I'd imagine the other western states would have eventually have gained statehood as well. So you'd end up with 39 U.S. states and 11 CSA ones.

The real interesting question (I won't get into too much here as it's not the thread topic and more for the history forum) is how would future wars have ended up for the U.S. Like the Spanish-American war, WW1, and WW2. I'd imagine the south would have allied with the north for WW2 and possibly WW1. I'm not sure about the spanish-american war (that may not have happened at all)

There was more to the Civil War than just slavery. It was about an argument that began when the United States of America was starting its modern government: state's rights vs. big government, and tarrifs. The north was on the big government side, and was the federal republic America is today. The south was on the state's rights side, and you already know it was a confederacy.

The other reason for the Civil war was to make an example to future states. If the United States allowed succession, would it exist for very long? No, it would not. Every time a state got angry, it would leave, weakening the existing nation. Eventually America would crumble altogether, and chaos would ensue.

There was more to the Civil War than just slavery. It was about an argument that began when the United States of America was starting its modern government: state's rights vs. big government, and tarrifs. The north was on the big government side, and was the federal republic America is today. The south was on the state's rights side, and you already know it was a confederacy.

The other reason for the Civil war was to make an example to future states. If the United States allowed succession, would it exist for very long? No, it would not. Every time a state got angry, it would leave, weakening the existing nation. Eventually America would crumble altogether, and chaos would ensue.

More precisely, slavery was part of a larger issue. The North and the South felt like they were in an economic war with each other (slaves in cotton plantations vs. northern factory workers), and the South believed that the North was using the federal government as a tool against them, with things like tariffs. That's why the South came down on the side of states rights.

The second thing you talk about is why Lincoln didn't want to recognize the legitimacy of the secessions.

Its important to note though that the Civil War really started over the US not being willing to transfer its federal property -- forts -- to the Southern government. Lincoln's administration in private was discussing on a long term plan that would do that, but the South saw the immediate refusal to transfer the property as illegitimate, and that's why Fort Sumter was fired on.

In terms of immediate causes, the reason for the Civil War was not slavery, or states rights, or tariffs, it was conflict over the ownership of these forts.

Would anyone be able to recommend a good book on the American civil war? I must admit it's not something I know much about but reading the posts above it sounds like quite an interesting topic.

Would anyone be able to recommend a good book on the American civil war? I must admit it's not something I know much about but reading the posts above it sounds like quite an interesting topic.

Start with a simple source like Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it will do a pretty good job to catch you up on the basics. If you're still interested after than then snag a book on the topic.

Would anyone be able to recommend a good book on the American civil war? I must admit it's not something I know much about but reading the posts above it sounds like quite an interesting topic.

The Ken Burns documentary "Civil War" is a must-watch. Still easily the second best documentary I've ever seen (first being Cosmos, because Carl Sagan.)