A proposal for ideology names

[Jakman217]

I'm just saying, complaining about Civ and its use of terms is silly and pointless. You may not like the use of the term but it's not that bad in the game. Seriously, at best they are uncomfortable terms that do mechanical things, not something need to get up in a tizzy about. Also, Civ is a game that does little to nothing wrong, the only faces you see are those of the other leaders. There's no little Timmy you have to care for.

Meanwhile, in Stellaris they use none of these 'dirty' terms you're complaining about and do far more harm with far more impact. They don't say 'oh it's a third alternative' they say PURGE then they ask you what "flavor of genocide you want to play with: Forced migration, Forced Labor, Consumption or EXTERMINATION". While you do it they let you watch the population pictures disappear one by one on each planet. Seriously, complaining about Civ and its use of nasty terms is not worthwhile or meaningful because they don't even make your numbers go down. Civ may sanitize nasty terms but it does that for everything.

 

[pineappledan]

I think some sensitivity is in order, guys. This is getting pretty damn heated pretty damn fast and I'm not sure it's justified.

Hosannah is absolutely right. 'Lebensraum' from its inception was a policy of racial replacement, a whitewashed genocide. This is very much different from the 'great leap forward', or 'communism' because intent DOES matter. The body counts might have been bigger, but those deaths were caused by stupidity, mismanagement and corruption, not racial hatred. If someone tried to pass off the Jewish Pogroms as just "policy", I can imagine that would offend.

The first time I saw 'Lebensraum' in this mod, i actually laughed, because Holy Sh*t that is dark. But I'm not German, and I'm not Polish, so I recognize that these things don't affect me like they might other people and other countries, who might still be dealing with the atrocities that were committed to or by their ancestors. I'll admit that I don't have a dog in this fight, and honestly I think that Lebensraum as it exists in the game is, at least mechanically, pretty decent. If the policy is handled in a properly sombre and respectful manner in the civilopedia I think it might actually be a GOOD thing to keep it in the game. People who aren't familiar with the atrocities of WWII might come away having learned something.

I don't think facing, discussing, and incorporating the violence and hatred inherent to these ideological struggles is verboten. If anything I think whitewashing them is the worst option. But running at each other like this in a forum isn't productive

 

[Gazebo]

I think some sensitivity is in order, guys. This is getting pretty damn heated pretty damn fast and I'm not sure it's justified.

Hosannah is absolutely right. 'Lebensraum' from its inception was a policy of racial replacement, a whitewashed genocide. This is very much different from the 'great leap forward', or 'communism' because intent DOES matter. The body counts might have been bigger, but those deaths were caused by stupidity, mismanagement and corruption, not racial hatred. If someone tried to pass off the Jewish Pogroms as just "policy", I can imagine that would offend.

The first time I saw 'Lebensraum' in this mod, i actually laughed, because Holy Sh*t that is dark. But I'm not German, and I'm not Polish, so I recognize that these things don't affect me like they might other people and other countries, who might still be dealing with the atrocities that were committed to or by their ancestors. I'll admit that I don't have a dog in this fight, and honestly I think that Lebensraum as it exists in the game is, at least mechanically, pretty decent. If the policy is handled in a properly sombre and respectful manner in the civilopedia I think it might actually be a GOOD thing to keep it in the game. People who aren't familiar with the atrocities of WWII might come away having learned something.

I don't think facing, discussing, and incorporating the violence and hatred inherent to these ideological struggles is verboten. If anything I think whitewashing them is the worst option. But running at each other like this in a forum isn't productive

It is a slippery slope. Total War could be considered genocidal. Civilizing Mission as well. Admitting that Lebensraum was an autocratic/fascist tenet and including it in the game is not a tacit approval of the tenet, but rather an acknowledgement that it existed and was influential for that ideology’s world view. That’s all.

Heck, one could argue that Universal Healthcare is a political jab at modern America, or that the fact that the Capitalism tenet is 100% beneficial is a whitewashing of class conflict. Need I go on?

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I think some sensitivity is in order, guys. This is getting pretty damn heated pretty damn fast and I'm not sure it's justified.

Hosannah is absolutely right. 'Lebensraum' from its inception was a policy of racial replacement, a whitewashed genocide. This is very much different from the 'great leap forward', or 'communism' because intent DOES matter. The body counts might have been bigger, but those deaths were caused by stupidity, mismanagement and corruption, not racial hatred. If someone tried to pass off the Jewish Pogroms as just "policy", I can imagine that would offend.

The first time I saw 'Lebensraum' in this mod, i actually laughed, because Holy Sh*t that is dark. But I'm not German, and I'm not Polish, so I recognize that these things don't affect me like they might other people and other countries, who might still be dealing with the atrocities that were committed to or by their ancestors. I'll admit that I don't have a dog in this fight, and honestly I think that Lebensraum as it exists in the game is, at least mechanically, pretty decent. If the policy is handled in a properly sombre and respectful manner in the civilopedia I think it might actually be a GOOD thing to keep it in the game. People who aren't familiar with the atrocities of WWII might come away having learned something.

I don't think facing, discussing, and incorporating the violence and hatred inherent to these ideological struggles is verboten. If anything I think whitewashing them is the worst option. But running at each other like this in a forum isn't productive

Who cares? I'm Polish and I pick Lebensraum every Autocracy game because it's a good policy. I can discern the fiction from reality, which many in the west can't. Not to mention, it's only a pretend-history sorta thing, so you can use the brain inside of your head to make imaginations of different lebensraum.I mean, the growth bonuses Order has make no sense after the holodomor and great Chinese famine. You could nitpick at every policy in every tree until the ideologies had none. "Capitalism is positive? Here are the statistics of how many young children died of starvation because they had no money, if a big guy was deciding instead it'd have went better, you're insensitive making capitalism positive". If one thing gets changed because of a non-reason such as this, more perpetually offended might follow and ask for yet more alterations, so the name's are all right.

 

[pineappledan]

complaining about Civ and its use of terms is silly and pointless.... There's no little Timmy you have to care for.

I can discern the fiction from reality, which many in the west can't. Not to mention, it's only a pretend-history sorta thing, so you can use the brain inside of your head to make imaginations of different lebensraum

Ugh... Someone doesn't like something in a game because that thing killed millions of real people. You might not see it that way, but that's a perfectly reasonable stance. Instead of just accepting that these topics are controversial, you'd rather insult me and say that it's my problem for not being able to discern what's real and what's 'just a game'?

Look, I agree that having Lebensraum in the game is fine if done respectfully. As Gazebo said, depicting atrocites is not the same as condoning them. However, I don't agree with this knee-jerk hostility. Let's try to be respectful?

 

[ashendashin]

I really hate this slippery slope crap... Someone doesn't like something in a game because that thing killed millions of real people. You might not see it that way, but that's a perfectly reasonable stance. Instead of just accepting that these topics are controversial, you'd rather insult me and say that it's his problem for not being able to discern what's real and what's 'just a game'.

Look, I agree that having Lebensraum in the game is fine, if done respectfully; I don't agree with this knee-jerk hostility. Grow up.

The game is chock full of things that killed millions of people...because that's just what happens in civilization. The game dances around how horrible these things were by only giving the player positive effects on every single thing you can enact. It's moreso that the stance isn't necessary for a game like this, and removing names or changing the games flavor for one of those many things would be nonsense.

And please, hostility showed up when a comment was picked out as useless, and now people are being told to grow up after making a perfectly reasonable point, if passive aggressive. Civ avoids the actual negative side because people start arguing like this about how these horrible things shouldn't be represented as they are. If we were to rename or adjust everything controversial, then we wouldn't have any history in civ at all, because there's just too much conflict in history to bother. Accepting the flavor of the game is more appropriate at this point.

 

[pineappledan]

I agree with you @ashendashin. I really do. If you read my responses you'll see that I've been in your camp this whole time. I'm just a bit irritated that people would rather be right than be understanding.

 

[Jakman217]

I'm sorry if I came off as hostile, but I responded to someone who didn't miss my point so much as willfully ignored my point then dismissed it as useless. I clarified myself explicitly so I could not be misunderstood.

 

[Hosannah]

I found Jakman's post useful. A friend of mine recently began playing Stellaris and enjoys talking with me about the game. His ability to do Bad Things in a game is far greater in Stellaris than in Civ. I think that was Jakman's point.

If that was his point, it was still completely besides the actual point I was making. My issue is not with what you can do in civilization or in any computer game that simulates war and everything that goes hand in hand with it. I'm sure you can do a planetary bombardment or whatever in Stellaris and probably worse things, but it's not about that. It's about using distinct terminology inaccurately and possibly even euphemistically.

Honestly, the first time I noticed the tenet, I thought it was quite smart. Like a lot of tenets that are based on actual events/people/theories this one managed to pick up a concept from history and turn it into a gameplay mechanism. Just after a while I thought that maybe using Lebensraum was not ideal. I'm sorry I need to draw this comparison again, but there is a reason why you won't find a Holocaust device in Stellaries or have the possibility to research some plan to reach the Endlösung victory condition in any given WW2 simulation. And if there was, you would hopefully find it with a lot of context and information telling you what it is you're doing.

I'm not sure if you're awhare of this, but there's always been a lot of controversy around the slavery mechanics in older civilization games. There, it was reduced to a single button giving you the ability to sacrifice population for a production boost and that was that. I'm not against the mechanic per se, I just think that if it's used in a game, it has to be used carefully and within context, explaining the terrible history behind slavery. The same goes for Lebensraum, if you really feel you have to use it, and comparable ideas I believe.

So, if you want to use the Lebensraum concept, use it correctly and with giving as much context as possible, because believe it or not, from all the tenets and all the things you can do in civ, it's by far the most despicable.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

If that was his point, it was still completely besides the actual point I was making. My issue is not with what you can do in civilization or in any computer game that simulates war and everything that goes hand in hand with it. I'm sure you can do a planetary bombardment or whatever in Stellaris and probably worse things, but it's not about that. It's about using distinct terminology inaccurately and possibly even euphemistically.

Honestly, the first time I noticed the tenet, I thought it was quite smart. Like a lot of tenets that are based on actual events/people/theories this one managed to pick up a concept from history and turn it into a gameplay mechanism. Just after a while I thought that maybe using Lebensraum was not ideal. I'm sorry I need to draw this comparison again, but there is a reason why you won't find a Holocaust device in Stellaries or have the possibility to research some plan to reach the Endlösung victory condition in any given WW2 simulation. And if there was, you would hopefully find it with a lot of context and information telling you what it is you're doing.

I'm not sure if you're awhare of this, but there's always been a lot of controversy around the slavery mechanics in older civilization games. There, it was reduced to a single button giving you the ability to sacrifice population for a production boost and that was that. I'm not against the mechanic per se, I just think that if it's used in a game, it has to be used carefully and within context, explaining the terrible history behind slavery. The same goes for Lebensraum, if you really feel you have to use it, and comparable ideas I believe.

So, if you want to use the Lebensraum concept, use it correctly and with giving as much context as possible, because believe it or not, from all the tenets and all the things you can do in civ, it's by far the most despicable.

Do you think people are toddlers incapable of their own research or opinion and the mod has to explain to them "giving as much context as possible" why it's wrong, and the message must be pummeled to them as if they lack the intelligence to make their own decisions? Oh, what a splendid idea. I hereby ask Gazebo to please have the mod force users to watch several hours of boring documentaries and bad movies turned into unskippable cutscenes with "killing is wrong" message whenever they try to raze a city. The context must be clear, explain how bad it is to them. Same should occur when you declare a war. In fact, even having a war declared on you should have the same happen, so even a person as foolish as I finally understands "war is bad for people and what this other civ did is wrong".
If you pillage something in an enemy territory, then you should force users to get unskippable cutscenes of several hours of "rape is wrong" documentaries, because pretty much every pillaged village coincides with that. Clearly Vox Populi players are too stupid and unenlightened to arrive at such a conclusion and they must have it be repeated to them at all time because a random guy on the internet says so.


And no, Lebensraum is nothing special. As soon as you do your first conquest in Civilisation, you pretty much realised it. You clearly thought you needed the land for your people, not for your enemies - so didn't you consider it your lebensraum, the area your people require to prosper? It might not be called so by name, but the action you did exactly fits the definition, so you're just as guilty of killing pixel-people as those who take Lebensraum. If you raze cities to build your own ones there a spot higher/to build with pioneer which I often do, that's like super-Lebensraum. I don't even know why you're playing civilization when this concept is present in almost all the games, just not called by name. Is an action fitting a definition completely okay as long as it's not called by name?

 

[Hosannah]

It is a slippery slope. Total War could be considered genocidal. Civilizing Mission as well. Admitting that Lebensraum was an autocratic/fascist tenet and including it in the game is not a tacit approval of the tenet, but rather an acknowledgement that it existed and was influential for that ideology’s world view. That’s all.

Heck, one could argue that Universal Healthcare is a political jab at modern America, or that the fact that the Capitalism tenet is 100% beneficial is a whitewashing of class conflict. Need I go on?

G

I'm sorry, but comparing the possible ambiguity of Universal Healthcare or Capitalism to a concept like Lebensraum is ridiculous. Why? Because there is no way that Lebensraum is ambiguous or could be interpretated as anything else but for what it is. And yes, I realize that it's a slippery slope, every once in a while I'm definitely sick of all the political correctness myself, don't get me wrong, and I see how nobody feels like going through civilization and makeing sure that not a single thing could ever hurt the sensibilities of each and everyone who might ever play this game, but sometimes it makes sense to reconsider. And yes, you're right, Total War "could" be considered genocidal but it could also just mean to concentrate all efforts on the war.

Ok, let me try another angle. I'm quite surprised how on the one hand, there are endless discussions about the historic fidelity of certain units in the game, which period they belong to, which science you need, which resources etc. and people can go on and on about it. You G even call yourself a professional historian at heart. How do you reconcile this with the actual game mechanism and bonus? If you want to use Lebensraum, make sure it's historically correctly implemented. Loss of enemy population, possible food gain etc.

 

[Txurce]

I'm sorry, but comparing the possible ambiguity of Universal Healthcare or Capitalism to a concept like Lebensraum is ridiculous. Why? Because there is no way that Lebensraum is ambiguous or could be interpretated as anything else but for what it is. And yes, I realize that it's a slippery slope, every once in a while I'm definitely sick of all the political correctness myself, don't get me wrong, and I see how nobody feels like going through civilization and makeing sure that not a single thing could ever hurt the sensibilities of each and everyone who might ever play this game, but sometimes it makes sense to reconsider. And yes, you're right, Total War "could" be considered genocidal but it could also just mean to concentrate all efforts on the war.

Ok, let me try another angle. I'm quite surprised how on the one hand, there are endless discussions about the historic fidelity of certain units in the game, which period they belong to, which science you need, which resources etc. and people can go on and on about it. You G even call yourself a professional historian at heart. How do you reconcile this with the actual game mechanism and bonus? If you want to use Lebensraum, make sure it's historically correctly implemented. Loss of enemy population, possible food gain etc.

What happened to "I'm just gonna stop"?

 

[tu_79]

Because there was an underrepresentation of female leaders, for obvious reasons, now we have Boudica, Teresa and Dido. There sure were more representative leaders of those nations, but Firaxis wanted to be politically correct.

We don't have the proper names of modern ideologies for some concerns of putting ideas into young players.

Now you want to remove anything remotely close to fascism (even though fascism is rising again in Europe and America, disguised). Is this frivolizing, using such ideas for game concepts? Maybe. I don't think this is such a big deal. Slavery is a common mechanic in many strategy games and I don't think players would accept slavery in real life. There is no praise for lebensraum anywhere, only historical acknowledge.

 

[Hosannah]

What happened to "I'm just gonna stop"?

You got me there But then things started to get a bit of momentum so I thought I'd stick around.

 

[Hosannah]

Do you think people are toddlers incapable of their own research or opinion and the mod has to explain to them "giving as much context as possible" why it's wrong, and the message must be pummeled to them as if they lack the intelligence to make their own decisions? Oh, what a splendid idea. I hereby ask Gazebo to please have the mod force users to watch several hours of boring documentaries and bad movies turned into unskippable cutscenes with "killing is wrong" message whenever they try to raze a city. The context must be clear, explain how bad it is to them. Same should occur when you declare a war. In fact, even having a war declared on you should have the same happen, so even a person as foolish as I finally understands "war is bad for people and what this other civ did is wrong".
If you pillage something in an enemy territory, then you should force users to get unskippable cutscenes of several hours of "rape is wrong" documentaries, because pretty much every pillaged village coincides with that. Clearly Vox Populi players are too stupid and unenlightened to arrive at such a conclusion and they must have it be repeated to them at all time because a random guy on the internet says so.

And no, Lebensraum is nothing special. As soon as you do your first conquest in Civilisation, you pretty much realised it. You clearly thought you needed the land for your people, not for your enemies - so didn't you consider it your lebensraum, the area your people require to prosper? It might not be called so by name, but the action you did exactly fits the definition, so you're just as guilty of killing pixel-people as those who take Lebensraum. If you raze cities to build your own ones there a spot higher/to build with pioneer which I often do, that's like super-Lebensraum. I don't even know why you're playing civilization when this concept is present in almost all the games, just not called by name. Is an action fitting a definition completely okay as long as it's not called by name?

As usual, you're the calm voice admist the storm, full of reason and devoid of exaggeration. Don't be afraid, nobody wants to take away your precious game or your right to freedom of speech. By the way, your definition of Lebensraum shows that you still don't get the concept and my issues with using that term.

 

[RAuer2]

@Hosannah I understand that the term offends you. I do not intend to disregard that and I hope that my earlier response did not come across as rude. Text can be easy to misread without the context of body language and voice tone that helps us all with in-person communications. Anyway, I hope that this response is taken as more constructive than my last one.

I think this part is important (emphasis is mine):

And no, Lebensraum is nothing special. As soon as you do your first conquest in Civilisation, you pretty much realised it. You clearly thought you needed the land for your people, not for your enemies - so didn't you consider it your lebensraum, the area your people require to prosper? It might not be called so by name, but the action you did exactly fits the definition, so you're just as guilty of killing pixel-people as those who take Lebensraum. If you raze cities to build your own ones there a spot higher/to build with pioneer which I often do, that's like super-Lebensraum. I don't even know why you're playing civilization when this concept is present in almost all the games, just not called by name. Is an action fitting a definition completely okay as long as it's not called by name?

In my own words: every time a player displaces an AI city and claims the territory for themselves, that player is committing atrocities. With pixels. We can call those atrocities by whatever names we like. This is called "playing the game." If playing the game is wrong, then I don't know how this conversation goes any further.

About this (emphasis is mine):

I'm not sure if you're awhare of this, but there's always been a lot of controversy around the slavery mechanics in older civilization games. There, it was reduced to a single button giving you the ability to sacrifice population for a production boost and that was that. I'm not against the mechanic per se, I just think that if it's used in a game, it has to be used carefully and within context, explaining the terrible history behind slavery. The same goes for Lebensraum, if you really feel you have to use it, and comparable ideas I believe.

I actually am aware of the slavery thing with prior versions of Civ. I played those versions of Civ (I guess I'm old now ). Using the slavery game mechanic did not convince me that slavery was not evil. Actually, using the slavery game mechanic did not convince me of anything at all about slavery in the real world or slavery as a concept. I already knew slavery was wrong. The game did not need to serve as an ethical guideline for the player. It was a game, not a documentary.

Asking that a game include the real-world historical context for slavery is pretty much asking for the game to include one or more essays or video documentaries analyzing the topic. And this would need to be done for other concepts that other posters have mentioned, such as the Great Leap Forward and the effects of capitalism. Is this what you are suggesting?

 

[pineappledan]

Let's focus this on something more actionable. This is the current in-game effect of Lebensraum:

Receive Culture and Golden Age Points when your borders expand. Citadel tile-acquisition radius doubled.

Mechanically I think the policy effect is fine, even great. I think it's fitting, except you could switch culture for food or some other yield if you were picky. whatever.

This is the current civilopedia entry for Lebensraum:

'Lebensraum (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was an ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people. Developed under the German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany.'

The civilopedia entry is pretty barebones. People are saying giving proper context would take too much effort, but just a couple sentences is all that's needed I think. If a small blurb about exactly where that aggressive expansion was directed and what the human cost was I think that would be more satisfactory.

How about this?

'Lebensraum (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was an ideology proposing aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people into Central and Eastern Europe. Indigenous peoples of these lands were to be replaced by German colonists, either through deportation, destruction or enslavement. Developed under the German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany.'

Would that ruffle many feathers? Does that come down too hard? Too soft?

Maybe people think that this opens a floodgate of more in-depth re-evaluation of civilopedia entries for controversial real-life policies. I don't think that's really the case, I think there's maybe one or two policies which are racy enough to have just a little more context added (great leap forward for instance). Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to the civilopedia being beefed up either; that wouldn't be a BAD thing.

For instance, this is the current civilopedia entry for cultural revolution. It gives a brief clue at the end suggesting the cultural revolution didn't turn out so hot, and actually set China back:

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a social movement conducted from 1966 through 1976 in the People's Republic of China. Begun by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party, the Cultural Revolution sought to re-educate the common people by removing or repressing capitalist, traditional and religious elements, through arrests and violence if necessary. The cultural struggle spread through all levels of society, students, the military, the party and urban workers, delaying China's reemergence in world affairs for decades.

 

[Hosannah]

@Hosannah I understand that the term offends you. I do not intend to disregard that and I hope that my earlier response did not come across as rude. Text can be easy to misread without the context of body language and voice tone that helps us all with in-person communications. Anyway, I hope that this response is taken as more constructive than my last one.

I think this part is important (emphasis is mine):

In my own words: every time a player displaces an AI city and claims the territory for themselves, that player is committing atrocities. With pixels. We can call those atrocities by whatever names we like. This is called "playing the game." If playing the game is wrong, then I don't know how this conversation goes any further.

About this (emphasis is mine):

I actually am aware of the slavery thing with prior versions of Civ. I played those versions of Civ (I guess I'm old now ). Using the slavery game mechanic did not convince me that slavery was not evil. Actually, using the slavery game mechanic did not convince me of anything at all about slavery in the real world or slavery as a concept. I already knew slavery was wrong. The game did not need to serve as an ethical guideline for the player. It was a game, not a documentary.

Asking that a game include the real-world historical context for slavery is pretty much asking for the game to include one or more essays or video documentaries analyzing the topic. And this would need to be done for other concepts that other posters have mentioned, such as the Great Leap Forward and the effects of capitalism. Is this what you are suggesting?

@RAuer2 It actually does not offend me. Not the slightest. It does not hurt my sensibilities in any way. But thanks for asking and acknowledging the possibility. And no worries, your earlier response was totally fine.

I do not dispute the fact, that most if not all actions in civ are certainly abstractions behind which you will find all kinds of atrocities. My point being is simply that the Lebensraum concept, and let me break it down again, certain "races" have no right to live and should be exterminated so that the superior race can take their place, goes far beyond a simple territorial expansion. Not even North Korea or any other fascist regime follows that idiology. Yes, people are killed and massacred and what not, but there is nothing that compares to what the Lebensraum concept entails.

I just feel the use of the name is very gimmicky in this case. So if people feel they really need to use it, flash it out somehow or at least make the tenet resemble the real world rammifications. The enemy's population should be decreased significantly. I'm quite sure that alone would make people wonder what's behind this interesting sounding tenet.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Let's focus this on something more actionable. This is the current in-game effect of Lebensraum:

Mechanically I think the policy effect is fine, even great. I think it's fitting, except you could switch culture for food or some other yield if you were picky. whatever.

This is the current civilopedia entry for Lebensraum:

The civilopedia entry is pretty barebones. People are saying giving proper context would take too much effort, but just a couple sentences is all that's needed I think. If a small blurb about exactly where that aggressive expansion was directed and what the human cost was I think that would be more satisfactory.

How about this?


Would that ruffle many feathers? Does that come down too hard? Too soft?

Maybe people think that this opens a floodgate of more in-depth re-evaluation of civilopedia entries for controversial real-life policies. I don't think that's really the case, I think there's maybe one or two policies which are racy enough to have just a little more context added. Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to the civilopedia being beefed up either; that wouldn't be a BAD thing.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such an endeavor, but it's pretty far out of the scope of Vox Populi as it's gone so far. So far the focus has been on gameplay improvements. While the historical contexts in Civilopedia can certainly be improved, it's be a whole new time-consuming project, and open up lots of cans of worms that would distract from the main goal of gameplay improvement. I think any such project, if it would be taken, should be done separately from Vox Populi.

 

[pineappledan]

Someone with as poor a grasp of modding as me should at least be able to edit a few lines of the PolicyText.sql and send that to G for approval. Maybe all it would take is come proofreading and rubber-stamping for the gatekeepers