C2C - Productive Controversial Discussions

R

rightfuture

Emperor
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
1,649
C2C - Controversial Discussions
(updated 7-30-12)

This thread is for open discussion (by everyone) of controversial subjects to be included in C2C.

This is for anything potentially Controversial:

Social ideas, rejected ideas, major disagreements, discussions moved from other threads (so that progress can continue smoothly), and things that are having significant trouble being worked out.

Feel free to discuss any sensitive or polarizing idea here, but please set high standards for tolerance and respecting each other's opinions, no matter what their background.
We want people to feel comfortable in talking freely. Let's keep emotions positive.
Likewise understand that people will probably not agree with you.
Please use logic, evidence, and civil debate to get your point across,
Be prepared that your ideas will get argued and disagreed with.
Don't take it personally. Despite what happens, your participation is valued and we want your ideas heard, so they can be challenged to become their best.

The purpose here is to work things out and come to eventual agreement if possible. It may take a very long time. You might provide the breakthrough.
The value is in finding agreeable solutions.
Remember that group decisions have to be made, so don't expect your ideas to be heard or included in C2C. They may be good reason to completely reject them or get to them later. Sometimes the best solution is not good enough, yet.

We don't want the end result of C2C to be generic, simplified, dumbed-down, unexciting, or so dominated by group opinion that it is paralyzed by striving for consensus and agreement. Likewise, we don't need individual tyranny, breakdowns and emotional fights, people feeling excluded, or the end result of someone wanting to leave C2C. We are here to find a way to make the best ideas live!

Let the ModTeam be able to continue working smoothly. They will reserve the right to move, end, or remove distracting, offensive, destructive, hateful, obscene, or unproductive content. Please make sure that you are careful.
We all want C2C to be great!

There is a place for everyone here.
Feel free to share your controversial ideas in a productive way! :)

1. Buildings Controversy - Overcoming 'There are Too Many Buildings' - or 'I have trouble managing building all those buildings'
(from http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11706562&postcount=246) Please do not bring it there! Discuss it here :)
2. Religion - Generic vs. Specific Religions
(from C2C - Religions discussions and ideas thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=443077) please don't bring controversial stuff there!
3. Sex in C2C discussion - Why is sexuality not allowed in the game, but violence is A-ok?
(from http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=467728) please don't bring controversial stuff there!
4. Too Much /Not Enough Stuff (remember that C2C is about adding more), the new stuff has to be balanced and worked out. It takes time and personal effort/choice.
Your input might improve it though. Some things will take time to get to. :)
5. When is stuff going to be built into C2C?
6. Gold balance (discussed in the balance thread. C2C Balance Thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=457375)
This is an ongoing adjustment per version as new stuff is added. Please join in that conversation over there.
7. Resource quantities (this keeps coming up over and over) - I think it needs it's own thread, and be made into an included game option.
8.
9.
10.

Please keep the controversial discussion and parts, here, in this thread, to be worked out.
If you want it solved make suggestions and keep the discussion going here.
 
Most of the controversial stuff is the new stuff from the Transhuman Era that has not been included in the game yet, the pedia is not even done, but a certain person finds the future not to his or her personal views. and labels it controversial. A mind set that is a minority right now.


EDIT: I disagree with what Laura said thou.

EDIT EDIT: yes, i mean you Ls612 ( no offence).
 
Ok, if we're going to have these discussions, we should keep an itemized list of the 'issues at hand' at the front of the thread, as well as note 'the issue in focus' for current discussion. We also need to determine what our goal is specifically. Is it to determine whether or not we should be including these elements in the mod or not and how to implement? Or is it just to wag our lips? We need a way to have a solid outcome as well. This would probably mean having our moderators help us to put up polls (I'd do this myself here but I don't have site authority to do so.) And the polls shouldn't just be yes/no either. They should allow us to reflect STRONG opinions as well. Thus:
  • Yes! I would only play the game if this were included!
  • Yes, I'd like to see this included.
  • Still not sure... Yes, but the implementation would need some improvement over what has been currently proposed.
  • Really don't care either way.
  • No, I think the mod would be better off without this.
  • No! If this becomes a part of the mod I would immediately look for entertainment elsewhere.

In fact, I'd like to see this approach to mod decision-making implemented more commonly on a lot of what we do. Perhaps not necessarily BEFORE implementation on some things, but certainly after playtesting has given a chance to form opinions.
 
What does Laura have to say? Haven't heard anything from her...?
 
Sarah Starlight said:
Most of the controversial stuff is the new stuff from the Transhuman Era that has not been included in the game yet, the pedia is not even done, but a certain person finds the future not to his or her personal views. and labels it controversial. A mind set that is a minority right now.
.
Click to expand...

Some people are going to not want to play the future eras or prehistoric eras,
Eventually they may have an option.

As they are they will need a lot of balance and adjustment until they make most people happy.

I don't consider new stuff controversial; it has yet to be worked out.
If anybody truly complains about it though, it can be considered so.
Anything that generates an argument, more than just a good debate should be also moved here. Strong disagreements can be discussed here, but simple disagreements should be tried to be worked out first.

Sex, religion, politics, social controversies, taboo subjects. They are also quite controversial.
Futuristic religions may qualify, I'd like to see what people's ideas and where the debate carries them first.
 
Thunderbrd said:
Ok, if we're going to have these discussions, we should keep an itemized list of the 'issues at hand' at the front of the thread, as well as note 'the issue in focus' for current discussion. We also need to determine what our goal is specifically. Is it to determine whether or not we should be including these elements in the mod or not and how to implement? Or is it just to wag our lips? We need a way to have a solid outcome as well. This would probably mean having our moderators help us to put up polls (I'd do this myself here but I don't have site authority to do so.) And the polls shouldn't just be yes/no either. They should allow us to reflect STRONG opinions as well. Thus:
  • Yes! I would only play the game if this were included!
  • Yes, I'd like to see this included.
  • Still not sure... Yes, but the implementation would need some improvement over what has been currently proposed.
  • Really don't care either way.
  • No, I think the mod would be better off without this.
  • No! If this becomes a part of the mod I would immediately look for entertainment elsewhere.

In fact, I'd like to see this approach to mod decision-making implemented more commonly on a lot of what we do. Perhaps not necessarily BEFORE implementation on some things, but certainly after playtesting has given a chance to form opinions.
Click to expand...

You are person after my own mind.
I reserved the second post to list conversations and topics.
I have been doing so for most of the recent threads I have started.
I think every major thread should try to have a thread lead, and reserve the first few posts for listing ideas /summarizing in the thread. This way we can refer to those posts for updated lists of content. I plan on working with MrAzure and Hydromancerx to do so in the Transhuman thread.

You may note my Idea Inspiration and Organization thread,
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=464235
I am trying to use it as an experiment and example of how to properly list ideas from threads.
Eventually I hope it to become a masterlist of ideas integrated with the IdeaTracker.

This thread is meant to determine whether or not we should be including these elements in the mod ( or not) and how to implement? It is also a place to move heated discussions, and major disagreements so they can be worked out. It is also meant to focus major sticking points so they can be figured out. Pretty much anybody's idea of what is controversial is to be discussed here.

I like the idea of polls helping us to figure out what we should do with these controversial ideas.
In my
C2C - Integrating Mods - Incorporating / Exploring Ideas from other mods thread.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439576
and my
C2C -Idea Inspiration and Organization thread,
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=464235
I am trying to get people to list their most desired ideas in a list so they can be added up as votes for ideas to be better explored. This is by far just one of the many ideas for organizing that I plan on exploring. I hope it inspires people to come up with even more organization ideas.

Once we have a list of general and specific controversial ideas, we can have everybody just post what they want to see or not see. I will be glad to add them up and post the results in the 2nd post of this thread. It will take a bit long to get organized on weighted decisions. Like very much, like a little, neutral, dislike, dislike very much.
I like your philosophy on approaching this, maybe we could work out a better system together. Polls could help, but like you said, they would have to be worded effectively, so they could provide useful info.

This thread is for focusing and working out all types of controversial ideas and conversations, so both open and directed conversation could work well.
I planned on suggesting a focus of the week in several threads once I have them worked out. Pretty much anyone can suggest a topic for discussion.
How about we have a topic of the week here? once we have enough things to discuss.
Sexuality or Futuristic Religions could qualify this week.
What do you suggest?
 
I think we should make the current discussion about generating a list. I'd ask those in our community to openly bring up what topic matters THEY find controversial, untasteful, and poor for inclusion into the mod, or what is already included or has been suggested for inclusion that they find all or any of the above.

I've always had a tough time following textualized voting proceedures. (aka everyone just states in a post their vote(s)) To do this right, someone needs to push for the authority to poll and if we already have that someone (which I'm not sure who that would be atm) then we need to get them on board with projects and threads like this that require polls, if only to help us set them up and demolish them when necessary.
 
Thunderbrd said:
I think we should make the current discussion about generating a list. I'd ask those in our community to openly bring up what topic matters THEY find controversial, untasteful, and poor for inclusion into the mod, or what is already included or has been suggested for inclusion that they find all or any of the above.

I've always had a tough time following textualized voting proceedures. (aka everyone just states in a post their vote(s)) To do this right, someone needs to push for the authority to poll and if we already have that someone (which I'm not sure who that would be atm) then we need to get them on board with projects and threads like this that require polls, if only to help us set them up and demolish them when necessary.
Click to expand...

@Thunderbrd
For me voting is just mentioning that the issue needs revisiting. It just helps to prioritize them. I think that this thread would be the best place to discuss and list those frustrating, repeated, and emotional issues. That way they keep getting worked out when people feel like discussing them, and not coming back up, over and over again. Eventually I hope someone discovers solutions.
 
Bumped for Building Controversy. I will add it to the list in the first part of this thread (updated).
Please discuss the controversial parts and find a solution here.

starting with
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11706562&postcount=246

RidetheSpiral23 said:
I'm glad someone is else giving some feedback about the number of buildings because I always feel like people will get mad when I say so. I still think some buildings need to be cut out or combined. It's just not fun. My fiancee won't even play C2C with me because she gets so bored. She says she will play vanilla but who wants to do that?

Can we maybe get a serious constructive thread going for cutting back on and readjusting buildings to be more unique?
Click to expand...

How about this one? I made it a week or two ago. :)

(I updated the first post today to include current controversies, please feel free to discuss them here.)
 
Good show ol' chap! :D Hopefully this goes a long ways towards resolving Joe's complaints. We could probably offer even further by making the Revivalist Church as a building and infuse it with a positive effect. ;)
 
I personally like the idea of philosophy civics, such as subjectivism, family, social norms, virtue, religion, natural law, utility, care and concern, skepticism, and eclecticism...like what Armada to ascension is implementing, but more in-depth.
 
For a starting point:
<PrereqTech>TECH_CHRISTIANITY</PrereqTech>
<FreePromotion>NONE</FreePromotion>
<iGreatPeopleRateModifier>1</iGreatPeopleRateModifier>
<iWarWearinessModifier>-10</iWarWearinessModifier>
<iHealth>1</iHealth>
<iHappiness>1</iHappiness>
<CommerceModifiers>
<iCommerce>0</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>5</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>10</iCommerce>
</CommerceModifiers>
<PrereqAndCivics>
<PrereqCivic>
<CivicOption>CIVIC_FREE_RELIGION</CivicOption>
<bPrereqCivic>1</bPrereqCivic>
</PrereqCivic>
</PrereqAndCivics>
<Flavors>
<Flavor>
<FlavorType>FLAVOR_RELIGION</FlavorType>
<iFlavor>10</iFlavor>
</Flavor>
</Flavors>
<PropertySource>
<PropertySourceType>PROPERTYSOURCE_CONSTANT</PropertySourceType>
<PropertyType>PROPERTY_CRIME</PropertyType>
<iAmountPerTurn>-5</iAmountPerTurn>
</PropertySource>

JosEPh
 
@JosEPh_II

1. Heh, you don't have to post the code, you can just list the stats you want.

2. Perhaps we should just leave the science at 0 to avoid controversy over religion being pro or anti science.

3. I was also thinking that it could also be enabled with State Church and Secular as well as Free Church.

4. What tech should it be enabled at?

5. How much should it cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CainStar
C2C gives error at launch, but normal Civ4 doesn't work either.
Replies
3
Views
319
JL1312
J
S
[MOD] Just a list of what I think C2C going stand-alone MAY pay at least some attention to.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Osk21
Osk21
Ghostly Wolfmoon
C2C SVN Download, seeking help setting up in Linux, please
Replies
10
Views
1K
cobbaut
cobbaut
D
Animated leaderheads?
Replies
4
Views
984
DecoyPS2
D
D
Another scientific victory
Replies
4
Views
729
damerell
D
Back
Top Bottom