More Civ, Less Fanatic

I appreciate it... do I call you The_J or just J?

Just please be aware that there are people that are coming in here for the sole purpose of trying to incite. This is not unique to this thread, however, which is the reason for this thread to begin with.

Again, I thank you.

Jharii said:

Just please be aware that there are people that are coming in here for the sole purpose of trying to incite.

Click to expand...

Definitely - and I think they're providing us with a great opportunity to ignore their posts and show by example how to avoid engaging those who just want to inflame discussions and cause more division. If nobody responds at all and we just continue the civil, constructive discussion, they're rendered completely powerless.

This is the second thread I saw closed when the conversation was at an almost 'civil' level. I think it is somewhat ironic, and also influences my opinion on the matter, that a thread calling for self censorship, actually gets censored.

I hereby cast my vote for a thicker hide and a thinner brother.

SuperJay said:

Definitely - and I think they're providing us with a great opportunity to ignore their posts and show by example how to avoid engaging those who just want to inflame discussions and cause more division. If nobody responds at all and we just continue the civil, constructive discussion, they're rendered completely powerless.

Click to expand...

LOL. You know... I've heard about that theory in the past. I've never seen it employed. And now I see that it does work!!

I think I may have just had a life lesson! It's been a few years since that happened.

Now I feel like a person in an after-school special. "If I can just help one person, it will have been well worth it."

I'm not going to post in this thread after this one, but I just wanted to add a thought that I'd had before the thread was closed:

In response to 'dexters':
No, it might not be equal on both sides. But in the interest of less conflict, sometimes moving on is more important than assigning blame. Past a certain point, you have to decide that talking about other stuff is more important than making sure the right people get the right amount of blame.

It's not always fun, but it's the mature thing to do. As my father pointed out; if you're driving at an intersection, and a car is speeding through the turn, you might be right, and you might have right of way, but if they hit you, you still have a car accident. So is it more important to be right, or to be happy?

Also:

ShuShu62 said:

This is the second thread I saw closed when the conversation was at an almost 'civil' level. I think it is somewhat ironic, and also influences my opinion on the matter, that a thread calling for self censorship, actually gets censored.

I hereby cast my vote for a thicker hide and a thinner brother.

Click to expand...

I have noticed this too, as some of the most informative and most civil, and intellectual discussions I've seen on this forum yet have been in threads that were closed [REDACTED]. [REDACTED].

Out of respect for the moderators and the rules, I won't mention the specific examples. But I am trying to speak with moderators, because some of this has gotten to be quite silly, [REDACTED].

But I'm one of those people who believes in the spirit of the law rather than the letter, at least when it comes to casual and social environments. I feel that good fun, interesting discussion, appropriate justice and camaraderie are more important than strictly interpreting the letter of the law as it appears on the page with no consideration for circumstances.

So it might just be a difference in philosophy that can't really be resolved.

Edit: And there's also the issue that some moderators do not have English as their first language, and that can lead to problems where some nuances of the English language, or some euphemisms, might be interpreted as an insult or as trolling.

@SuperJay: I tried to remove parts that could be considered in violation. I apologize.

Licinia - while I agree with what you're saying, that 2nd half of your post might be considered "discussing moderator actions in public" even though you didn't point out specifics. It'd be a crying shame to get this thread closed again because of a technical foul.

I think if there was more Civilization and less Revolution then we wouldn't have a problem now would we?

Thor buddy, please. I know you mean it in good humor, but this kind of remark is effectively flame-bait for people who DO like the game. Please, for the sake of the rest of us who are trying to have a constructive discussion, don't cause this thread to get closed permanently.

(I'm sorry, I know I'm being paranoid in my previous two responses, but The_J made it pretty clear that we were already on thin ice before.)

SuperJay said:

Thor buddy, please. I know you mean it in good humor, but this kind of remark is effectively flame-bait for people who DO like the game. Please, for the sake of the rest of us who are trying to have a constructive discussion, don't cause this thread to get closed permanently.

(I'm sorry, I know I'm being paranoid in my previous two responses, but The_J made it pretty clear that we were already on thin ice before.)

Click to expand...

Thor is the smart one. He just puts his biased and opinionated flame into his signature, that way its in every thread that he visits.

Moderator Action: Please don't troll other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

vandyr said:

Thor is the smart one. He just puts his biased and opinionated flame into his signature, that way its in every thread that he visits.

Click to expand...

It's not a flame.
Waiting responsibility from specific group of people isn't flame.

I don't get mad if someone says: "Every real civ fans duty is love Civ V".

I just laugh to that kind of notion.

Oh, it's now even less since it's "any civ fan". It's his believe it should be so. Nothing else.

vandyr said:

into his signature...

Click to expand...

Yeah, but MY signature mentions underpants. The evidence is clear: I win.

Thormodr said:

I think if there was more Civilization and less Revolution then we wouldn't have a problem now would we?

Click to expand...

While I disagree with most of your posts, I was beginning to miss you Strolling around the boards.

C~G said:

It's not a flame.
Waiting responsibility from specific group of people isn't flame.

I don't get mad if someone says: "Every real civ fans duty is love Civ V".

I just laugh to that kind of notion.

Oh, it's now even less since it's "any civ fan". It's his believe it should be so. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

It certainly is, but I like your idea. I think i'll stick that in my sig. Cause, honestly, a real civ fan wouldn't cry so much about any civ game.

ShuShu62 said:

While I disagree with most of your posts, I was beginning to miss you Strolling around the boards.

Click to expand...

I've been participating in a thread about Korea, China and Mongolia in the World History Forum mostly.

I have great respect for most members on these forums. We are all lovers of Civ so we do share that common bond. Whether we like the current game or not shouldn't cause us to fight. We also shouldn't take it to heart when people profess their like or dislike for the game. People do need to have thicker skin on both sides.

I blame Firaxis and 2K Games for creating this divide. I think they can do much, much better. For all the financial and emotional commitment we have given to this series, we all deserve better.

Thormodr said:

I blame Firaxis and 2K Games for creating this divide. I think they can do much, much better. For all the financial and emotional commitment we have given to this series, we all deserve better.

Click to expand...

I'ld blame you if I weren't so afraid of being chastised.

Actually, we both agree on Firaxis being the cause, we just disagree on whether they should be praised or castigated for it.

That said, vociferous folks such as yourself are clearly an audience Firaxis does not want to lose, and good will come of yours and other's emotional postings, even if some on both sides do not find the discourse pleasant.

klokwerk said:

It's not perfect by any mean, but a lot better than vanilla Civ 4.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that line is just so much BS IMO. Vanilla Civ was an amazing game-one I played every moment I could for a good 6 months or more. Even after 6 months had passed, I was still playing Civ4 a LOT-just not every waking moment outside of work .

By contrast, I've had Civ5 for a whole month now, & I played for a whole *weekend* before I simply got bored with it. Oh, sure its got a lot of neat new features-which gives it a great deal of *potential*-but the AI is dumb, the diplomacy is almost non-existent, City-States are too simplistic & Gamey & the entire experience has become much too predictable, much too fast! I might try it out again now that the game has been patched, but to compare Civ5 favorably to Civ4 displays a certain amount of long-term memory loss!

Aussie.

Thormodr said:

I have great respect for most members on these forums. We are all lovers of Civ so we do share that common bond. Whether we like the current game or not shouldn't cause us to fight. We also shouldn't take it to heart when people profess their like or dislike for the game. People do need to have thicker skin on both sides.

Click to expand...

Of course I can't really disagree, but that forum signature crawls up my butt and dies every time I see it

You're correct. I just wish there was less insulting and bashing of actual users going on. I've not been blameless in this, but I'd at least like to claim that most of what I've done has been with the aim of trying to get people to snap out of the kneejerk and counter-kneejerk cycles.

dexters said:

As a long time Civver who has seen the franchise evolve massively, I do think a lot of whines are unfair.

Civ5 'dumbed down'? Maybe, but that was their mission with Civ4 also, abstracting many elements in Civ3 to make it less 'hardcore', and that brought in a lot of new fans who are now ironcially whining about the 'new' fans thinking civ5 is perfect

It's interesting to note the number of accounts activated in 2005, that are actively very pro Civ4 and anti Civ5. Hardly a coincidence

Click to expand...

In what way was Civ4 Dumbed Down? Civ4 expanded on the best elements of Civ3-Golden Ages, Culture & Semi-Unique Civilizations-& also gave us more choices regarding government choices, citizen specialization, religion & diplomacy. They also removed bad things like corruption & replaced it with a much better mechanic-City Maintenance. I'm not saying Civ4 is perfect (I wouldn't mod the game if I thought that), but I still say they got off to a better start than Civ5 has!

Aussie.

Aussie_Lurker said:

Sorry, but that line is just so much BS IMO.

Click to expand...

It's a line that I happen to agree with. I thoroughly enjoy Civ5 much more than I did when Civ4 was released.

But really, this is not what this thread is about... I just thought I would add that in there since the line I quoted is exactly the reason why this thread was started, even if you added an "IMO."

"I actually preferred vanilla Civ4 a lot more than Civ5." Not nearly as hostile, wouldn't you agree?

Jharii said:

It's a line that I happen to agree with. I thoroughly enjoy Civ5 much more than I did when Civ4 was released.

But really, this is not what this thread is about... I just thought I would add that in there since the line I quoted is exactly the reason why this thread was started, even if you added an "IMO."

Click to expand...

Civ4 rekindled a love for the franchise that I hadn't felt since Civ2 first came out-not to mention kindling a new-found love for Multi-player & modding. Civ5 seems too reminiscent of Civ3 for my tastes-great potential but extremely sloppy implementation. Now Civ3 had a reasonable excuse IMHO (their lead designer abandoned them, mid-development, to pursue the development of Rise of Nations), but Civ5 doesn't have that excuse.

Aussie.