[Serious Post] Controversy in Modding

[GrandPoobah]

I'm not in favor of censorship, but Otto von Bismarck makes SO much more sense as a German/Deutsch leader than Hitler.

Von Bismarck created the country out of a bunch of usually-aligned Deutsch states, uniting all but Oesterreich into a single country. He won three wars, beating Denmark, Oesterreich (they were a major power back then) and France.

Hitler lost the war and pretty much destroyed the country.

 

[Wodhann]

If a mod offends you as a whole, don't play it.

If you abhor a certain civilization, then play against it and kick its ass.

 

[ThorHammerz]

Oesterreich (they were a major power back then)

Oesterreich....
Ostrich....
Austria....

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

An additional point that hasn't been brought up yet is that Civilization games are not meant to be historically accurate: they use history as inspiration for their systems, nothing more. We kid ourselves when we say we're playing as Bismarck or Washington or Napoleon in Civilization. instead, we're playing a civilization that follows a custom ruleset inspired by those leaders. It's sort of similar to how weapons in military FPS's have the names of real weapons: the weapons you're playing in-game are simply inspired by those real weapons and aren't (in most cases) meant to be anything more.

The reason I bring this up is because even if a mod includes a leader/civ you find offensive, remember that what they are actually doing is using that leader/civ as inspiration for an "abstract", possibly even caricature, leader/civilization that they actually implement with their mod. If you choose not to play a leader/civ solely because you find them offensive, you are doing yourself a disservice: if the modder created something truly unique, you are worse off for not willing to experience their interesting creation solely because you find their inspiration offensive.
A prime example would be that UA mechanic brought up by JFD earlier in this thread: if it were attached to a civ that you found offensive, you would never be able to actually experience that UA mechanic. The more sensitive you are to this kind of stuff, the more of these types of experiences you might miss out on.
Or, let's say I'd make a UA inspired by 20th century dictators: workers can be sacrificed to instantly finish the improvement they are building or to add hammers to the current production of the city they are stationed in ("Forced Labor"). Granted, it's probably terrible, but there are a variety of neat things that this UA could cause, especially in the earlygame on Marathon Speed. Would you really want to miss out on messing around with this mechanic simply because I gave it to a civ/leader that served as its inspiration (pretty much all 20th century dictators would do)?

 

[DarkScythe]

An additional point that hasn't been brought up yet is that Civilization games are not meant to be historically accurate: they use history as inspiration for their systems, nothing more. We kid ourselves when we say we're playing as Bismarck or Washington or Napoleon in Civilization. instead, we're playing a civilization that follows a custom ruleset inspired by those leaders. It's sort of similar to how weapons in military FPS's have the names of real weapons: the weapons you're playing in-game are simply inspired by those real weapons and aren't (in most cases) meant to be anything more.

The reason I bring this up is because even if a mod includes a leader/civ you find offensive, remember that what they are actually doing is using that leader/civ as inspiration for an "abstract", possibly even caricature, leader/civilization that they actually implement with their mod. If you choose not to play a leader/civ solely because you find them offensive, you are doing yourself a disservice: if the modder created something truly unique, you are worse off for not willing to experience their interesting creation solely because you find their inspiration offensive.
A prime example would be that UA mechanic brought up by JFD earlier in this thread: if it were attached to a civ that you found offensive, you would never be able to actually experience that UA mechanic. The more sensitive you are to this kind of stuff, the more of these types of experiences you might miss out on.
Or, let's say I'd make a UA inspired by 20th century dictators: workers can be sacrificed to instantly finish the improvement they are building or to add hammers to the current production of the city they are stationed in ("Forced Labor"). Granted, it's probably terrible, but there are a variety of neat things that this UA could cause, especially in the earlygame on Marathon Speed. Would you really want to miss out on messing around with this mechanic simply because I gave it to a civ/leader that served as its inspiration (pretty much all 20th century dictators would do)?

I agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, it's nothing but an ideal, since players do seem to prejudge content based on their initial reaction to the source of any Civ's inspiration.

I've long considered "renaming" my thread to read "non-historic" Civ instead of "fictional" Civ, because of exactly your point -- even the "historical" Civs are not historically accurate -- only a representation of such, and different people would even have different ideas for the same Civ/Leader.

Unfortunately, I have received comments in the past along the lines of disgust at having created a Civ based around a female character, without any further look at the game mechanics I've worked so hard to make unique.

For these people, I have a feeling that if I made a clone of my Civ with the name of some historical leader of an Economic Civilization (unfortunately, I'm horrible with history so I don't know which would be a good fit) and swapped the leader scene to be an image of such a (male) leader, they might at least try it out, only to wonder why they start with Wolves.

I still don't quite understand why this would even be an issue worth discussing, though. People are people, and as such, will prejudge works despite that popular idiom "Don't judge a book by its cover." I don't see any way around that. Just move on and forget about them.

 

[GPuzzle]

Personally, I'd rather play as the cute goddess.

 

[JFD]

I still don't quite understand why this would even be an issue worth discussing, though. People are people, and as such, will prejudge works despite that popular idiom "Don't judge a book by its cover." I don't see any way around that. Just move on and forget about them.

Controversy*:

• 80% boredom/intoxication
• 15% social crusading
• 5% indignation/arrogance

Spoiler :

*Research conducted by the Institute of Arbitrary Number Generation, Rome, JFD (and Janboruta's) Civilisations.

 

[bouncymischa]

I still don't quite understand why this would even be an issue worth discussing, though.

I think it's come up because it's not just a phenomenon limited to publishing submissions to Steam or reddit, but there's been a few instances here in the civfanatics forums where people have felt particularly emotional about whether a certain civ (or a civ lead by a certain leader) should be made or not. For the most part, the civfanatics forums have been an open-minded and supportive community, however.

 

[Natan35]

Controversy*:

• 80% boredom/intoxication
• 15% social crusading
• 5% indignation/arrogance

Spoiler :

*Research conducted by the Institute of Arbitrary Number Generation, Rome, JFD (and Janboruta's) Civilisations.

100% natan support.

Also, there aren't that many controversial mods.

 

[LeeS]

I think it's come up because it's not just a phenomenon limited to publishing submissions to Steam or reddit, but there's been a few instances here in the civfanatics forums where people have felt particularly emotional about whether a certain civ (or a civ lead by a certain leader) should be made or not. For the most part, the civfanatics forums have been an open-minded and supportive community, however.

The community members have a lot to do with that, but I think it has stayed that way more because of the often-unsung efforts of your local friendly forum moderator from allowing this sort of thing turning the forum into a festering flame-war troll-bait den of iniquity (as so many of my favorite and now defunct special-interest forums turned into), while at the same time not being so heavy-handed that no is willing to say anything about anything to anyone ever. Not an easy tightrope to walk, nor I think a job I'd ever want to take on.

 

[Firebug]

100% natan support.

Also, there aren't that many controversial mods.

Natan supports JFDs opinion?
its debunked them, sorry JFD

XD

Its interesting to read this thread, at least its here rather then anywhere else too.

 

[ldvhl]

Controversy*:

• 80% boredom/intoxication
• 15% social crusading
• 5% indignation/arrogance

Whoah, really? Maybe it's time to shut this thread down?

 

[COF]

He has a point, a very good one. I would just switch the percentages, arrogance is the 80%.

 

[Firebug]

He has a point, a very good one. I would just switch the percentages, arrogance is the 80%.

Not all controversy is arrogance, and by calling everyone offended by controversy arrogant you're offending people who are genuinely hurt by certain situations.

The main argument against controversy, i find, is freedom of speech. Which is nonsense.
"You drew Mohammad". and everyone replies "That's fine! its freedom of speech, i don't care what Muslims think because we're free to draw Mohammad."
"I made a mod of Jihadi John" and everyone goes "It's freedom of speech, we can make what we like, we don't care what the people who have suffered from his actions think"

Freedom must work both ways. Freedom as a whole is difficult to define. Surely it's freedom for the people offended to say they're offended without having to be on the receiving end of Liberal's telling them to stop trying to get rid of freedom.
People flock in the streets waving flags and singing songs about freedom while the people who are offended are left "complaining" because someone drew someone holy to their religion, their beliefs and what they view as their freedom.

 

[GPuzzle]

Not all controversy is arrogance, and by calling everyone offended by controversy arrogant you're offending people who are genuinely hurt by certain situations.

The main argument against controversy, i find, is freedom of speech. Which is nonsense.
"You drew Mohammad". and everyone replies "That's fine! its freedom of speech, i don't care what Muslims think because we're free to draw Mohammad."
"I made a mod of Jihadi John" and everyone goes "It's freedom of speech, we can make what we like, we don't care what the people who have suffered from his actions think"

Freedom must work both ways. Freedom as a whole is difficult to define. Surely it's freedom for the people offended to say they're offended without having to be on the receiving end of Liberal's telling them to stop trying to get rid of freedom.
People flock in the streets waving flags and singing songs about freedom while the people who are offended are left "complaining" because someone drew someone holy to their religion, their beliefs and what they view as their freedom.

AFAIK people weren't shooting others dead for several mock representations of Jesus in Charlie Hebdo. I'm Christian, and I was offended. But allowing them to exist is necessary, because censuring things is subjective. If we can ban something on the grounds of it being offensive to someone, then the government can ban anything because someone will be offended.

And that's the first step to George Orwell's 1984.

No, thank you.

 

[ldvhl]

AFAIK people weren't shooting others dead for several mock representations of Jesus in Charlie Hebdo. I'm Christian, and I was offended. But allowing them to exist is necessary, because censuring things is subjective. If we can ban something on the grounds of it being offensive to someone, then the government can ban anything because someone will be offended.

And that's the first step to George Orwell's 1984.

No, thank you.

But there's also still room for criticism, which is just as much free speech and still as valid. And just because something you love is being criticized, doesn't mean you nor the thing you like are bad. All it means is the thing in question might have some problematic elements.

 

[GPuzzle]

But there's also still room for criticism, which is just as much free speech and still as valid. And just because something you love is being criticized, doesn't mean you nor the thing you like are bad. All it means is the thing in question might have some problematic elements.

Exactly, and criticism doesn't usually involving shooting up one another.

In the end, criticism exists due to free speech. If you can criticize what you want, including free speech, it is because free speech. I cannot stop anyone from going around and making distasteful things that while distateful aren't harmless, just because I am offended, but I am allowed to criticize and point out why it's wrong.

In the end, we're only allowed to that due to free speech.

Funnily enough, I've noticed that the people who go "free speech is bad, people can get offended" are those who have had free speech throughout their lives, and are using it at that moment to criticize free speech.

Ironic, to say the least.

 

[Firebug]

AFAIK people weren't shooting others dead for several mock representations of Jesus in Charlie Hebdo. I'm Christian, and I was offended. But allowing them to exist is necessary, because censuring things is subjective. If we can ban something on the grounds of it being offensive to someone, then the government can ban anything because someone will be offended.

And that's the first step to George Orwell's 1984.

No, thank you.

Now listen, not at any point, AT ANY POINT, did i agree with the way the muslim extremists handled the Charlie Hebdo situation. When i read it in the news, i found it stupid and a waste of life and talent.
I'm also not saying the world should become a fascist regime like in George Orwell's 1984. I'm simply saying that if freedom of speech truly is a thing, people can SPEAK out against what they find offensive without repercussions the same way people speak against things. I'm not saying free speech is bad, i'm saying it needs to work both ways.

 

[JFD]

Funnily enough, I've noticed that the people who go "free speech is bad, people can get offended" are those who have had free speech throughout their lives, and are using it at that moment to criticize free speech.

That sounds like a false equivalence to me... Free speech is not the right to criticise, it is the right to communicate one's opinion. One could censor the degradation of religious figures without censoring the right to criticise that censorship. One could censor a mod without censoring the right to condemn that censorship.

 

[Firebug]

That sounds like a false equivalence to me... Free speech is not the right to criticise, it is the right to communicate one's opinion. One could censor the degradation of religious figures without censoring the right to criticise that censorship. One could censor a mod without censoring the right to condemn that censorship.

That's similar to what i meant when i said that freedom of speech must work both ways to be truly freedom.