Are negative opinions of Civ6 allowed here?

[Lemon Merchant]

4. As you wish:
Bolded for emphasis.

I stand by what I said, bolded or not.

5. By tying perception of what you consider "stupidity" to an image of acting like teenagers, or children, you discriminate based on age. Teenagers are just as capable of insight as middle-aged people. That's not to say they're perfect, but then again, neither are any adult demographic I've had the pleasure of coming across. Wisdom is not anything that can be documented. It's lessons learned over time that are possibly linked to repeated-firings of singular neuron paths that enforce previously-learned lessons. Not all wisdom is good, you see. Wisdom is a judgement call; a mental reaction the same way reflexes are physical. The same goes for experience, and reasoning power, all of which are synonyms for pretty much the same thing. You're basing weight of opinion solely on seniority, i.e. you are weighting on age. You are therefore, quite obviously, discriminating against those who are younger.

You double down on this by assuming people you disagree with must be children, or teenagers of some description.

You're making a broad generalization here. I did not equate stupidity with age. Read that section of my post again. I was talking about two different concepts and you are blurring the two together. To make it simpler for you to understand, I'll break the two of the concepts apart...

1. Stupidity
- Is rampant in the human population (Anecdotal evidence may be found in news reports, the actions of governments and politicians, and can be possessed by those in authority)
- Is indiscriminate of age, gender, socio-economic status, or level of education
- Seems to thrive on social media and in internet forums

2. Maturity
- is a state of mind or being where the person expresses an outlook commensurate with his/her age or beyond, in the case of adolescents
- Is *generally* thought to be a hallmark of adulthood, in the colloquial sense
- Persons qualified as mature often possess a high degree of common sense and restraint, and often fit well within society as they adopt and observe societal norms easily

The stupidity and maturity I was referring to are two separate and unrelated concepts. An immature person is not necessarily stupid, but may act in what could be construed to be a stupid manner. That is the problem with the posts that I have been referring to. They were either crafted by someone incredibly stupid, or the person writing lacked maturity and the finer judgement that goes with it. In either case, you wind up with the schoolyard behaviour of "Oh yeah?!", "Yeah! You're a jerk-face!", etc.

I'm exaggerating to prove a point, but the situation I describe has been enacted over and over and over again on these forums. I don't even need to participate to get in on the fun. One only needs to read a little. Person X asks a question, person Y tells person X that he is stupid for asking the question. Person Z insists that they are both stupid, and person W expresses concern about why there is so much negativity, as it A) spoils the mood of the forum, or B) Negativity should not be allowed. The problem is that someone will have an opinion on the state of the game, it's marketing, playability, or play technique. What happens next is that often some one will agree, and someone will disagree. The thread then turns into a shouting match between all factions with the OP slinking away to lick his/her wounds. It's unfortunate, but the more you read, the more you see a pattern. It was even worse with Civ5. And that is not including the obvious trolls and flame-bait posts.

Just reading the pre-release postings from the Civ 6 forum, I was able to surmise the following:

1. Civ 6 was ordained by God and handed to Steam by angels themselves.
2. Civ 6 was completely infallible, as were it's designers.
3. Ed Beach is due to be canonized in the near future.
4. Anyone who disagreed with the above three points was the spawn of a jackal, a tool of Satan, and was surely going to Hell for their transgressions.

Now we know that all of this is complete nonsense, but it's the impression that you get from reading the threads. Usually, people in the fourth category didn't last long as they were shouted down by fanboys. It's a shame really, but if I say that I don't like Civ 6 because of 1 UPT, I'll be immediately jumped on. People have been told in the past to go back to the Civ 4 forum and stay there for advancing such a heretical thought. That isn't intolerance of negative thoughts?

Moderator Action: Please do not label others as "fanboys", it is considered trolling. leif

You haven't been moderated in the slightest. Other users disagreeing with your opinions is not your opinions being unwelcome. It simply means you do not exist in an echo chamber.

I probably have more infractions than you do.

No one wants to live in an echo chamber. Disagreement is a fundamental element of discourse. It's when disagreement becomes an attack is when it becomes a problem. I've seen too many people attacked on these forums. That's why I said that negative comments are not allowed. A generalization that seems to hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Gub]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilization-5-and-dlc.366430/

If you don't mind reading an eight page thread, there are a number of examples in the thread. It's kind of restrained and not nearly as volatile as some of the other threads in the early Civ 5 forum, but it's all I could find on short notice.

I only skimmed through it. An eight page thread is a bit much even if I was invested in this. . From what I seen, the seven year old thread covers the topic of DLCs, which iirc was really heated and contentious topic at the time --although nowadays even mid-sized developers like paradox use this method, ck2 anyone-- but I couldn't make out the claimed bulling and browbeating for anyone who doesn't tow the party line..

So at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me suggest that this is another common case of discussion get offtrack on personal grounds, not for having an unpopular or opposite opinion. After all we all know how funny the internet can be, different backgrounds and all that jazz, can sometimes lead to people feeling disrespected while being oblivious that they are disrespectful to others by their own scale.

Anyway, back on topic, lets say that this 7 year old anecdotal evidence supports the idea that negative comments are not allowed here. It is the first one offered here, on the other hand this thread is full of negative comments, the forum brimming with negative comments and we has at least one active byebye thread at any giving time.. need I say more?!

I did not equate stupidity with age.

Maybe but your dismissive tone toward people you disagree with, can be interpreted as such. "Marketing boys and girls in their nice blue suits, and their quest for gold." - we all do it, but just thought to leave it here before we get all high and mighty.

 

[Gorbles]

I stand by what I said, bolded or not.

-----------------------------------
​

You're making a broad generalization here. I did not equate stupidity with age. Read that section of my post again. I was talking about two different concepts and you are blurring the two together. To make it simpler for you to understand, I'll break the two of the concepts apart...

1. Stupidity
- Is rampant in the human population (Anecdotal evidence may be found in news reports, the actions of governments and politicians, and can be possessed by those in authority)
- Is indiscriminate of age, gender, socio-economic status, or level of education
- Seems to thrive on social media and in internet forums

2. Maturity
- is a state of mind or being where the person expresses an outlook commensurate with his/her age or beyond, in the case of adolescents
- Is *generally* thought to be a hallmark of adulthood, in the colloquial sense
- Persons qualified as mature often possess a high degree of common sense and restraint, and often fit well within society as they adopt and observe societal norms easily

The stupidity and maturity I was referring to are two separate and unrelated concepts. An immature person is not necessarily stupid, but may act in what could be construed to be a stupid manner. That is the problem with the posts that I have been referring to. They were either crafted by someone incredibly stupid, or the person writing lacked maturity and the finer judgement that goes with it. In either case, you wind up with the schoolyard behaviour of "Oh yeah?!", "Yeah! You're a jerk-face!", etc.

I'm exaggerating to prove a point, but the situation I describe has been enacted over and over and over again on these forums. I don't even need to participate to get in on the fun. One only needs to read a little. Person X asks a question, person Y tells person X that he is stupid for asking the question. Person Z insists that they are both stupid, and person W expresses concern about why there is so much negativity, as it A) spoils the mood of the forum, or B) Negativity should not be allowed. The problem is that someone will have an opinion on the state of the game, it's marketing, playability, or play technique. What happens next is that often some one will agree, and someone will disagree. The thread then turns into a shouting match between all factions with the OP slinking away to lick his/her wounds. It's unfortunate, but the more you read, the more you see a pattern. It was even worse with Civ5. And that is not including the obvious trolls and flame-bait posts.

Just reading the pre-release postings from the Civ 6 forum, I was able to surmise the following:

1. Civ 6 was ordained by God and handed to Steam by angels themselves.
2. Civ 6 was completely infallible, as were it's designers.
3. Ed Beach is due to be canonized in the near future.
4. Anyone who disagreed with the above three points was the spawn of a jackal, a tool of Satan, and was surely going to Hell for their transgressions.

Now we know that all of this is complete nonsense, but it's the impression that you get from reading the threads. Usually, people in the fourth category didn't last long as they were shouted down by fanboys. It's a shame really, but if I say that I don't like Civ 6 because of 1 UPT, I'll be immediately jumped on. People have been told in the past to go back to the Civ 4 forum and stay there for advancing such a heretical thought. That isn't intolerance of negative thoughts?

-----------------------------------​

I probably have more infractions than you do.

No one wants to live in an echo chamber. Disagreement is a fundamental element of discourse. It's when disagreement becomes an attack is when it becomes a problem. I've seen too many people attacked on these forums. That's why I said that negative comments are not allowed. A generalization that seems to hold up under scrutiny.

1. Well, good for you. We all do, I think.

2. I believe the cause of the confusion is where you first made generalisations about the age of posters you disagreed with, and then went on to illustrate that you discriminate based on stupidity alone, but not age. The problem is, if the argument could be made that you also (intentionally or otherwise) discriminate based on age (regardless of psychological theory support of development of teenagers; you classed people you disagree with as that age demographic. You do not know if they are. Ergo, slur), then you most definitely link the two in conversation.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to admit I was reading too much into your parallel topics there. I just think the way you presented it allowed for the reading into.

I've seen many more critical pre-release threads about Civilisation 6 than you have. What does this mean, then, for Civilisation 6, and how CFC relates to it? I'm hoping to continue discussion of this, to avoid further in-thread moderation.

3. I wasn't compared the amount of infractions, but given that moderators on this forum strive to make their actions transparent, it's obvious that people have been free to be critical about the product in this thread alone, nevermind all the others in this subforum. People get attacked both ways - you yourself (I think, sorry if I'm confusing you with Lewi11) that vitriol extends both ways - relating to my question about perception of negative Civ 6 threads above, what does this mean for your statement of "negative comments are not allowed"?

I mean, I have reams of arguments from my own posting history alone that showcases defense of Firaxis is likely to get you attacked

 

[kamex]

After wait in great anticipation for patch 2, I'm really upset that basic day 1 bugs still aren't fixed. See: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...t-addressing-some-the-most-basic-bugs.607732/

The 'last built' bug is still there, AI still can't use aircraft. "Promise not to convert my cities" never worked, and has now vanished entirely.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Maybe but your dismissive tone toward people you disagree with, can be interpreted as such. "Marketing boys and girls in their nice blue suits, and their quest for gold." - we all do it, but just thought to leave it here before we get all high and mighty.

It's not so much dismissive, but intolerant. I have a low tolerance for abusive people.

2. I believe the cause of the confusion is where you first made generalisations about the age of posters you disagreed with, ...

My feelings are not because I disagree with the posters as much as I object to their behaviour. As I mentioned above, I have a low tolerance for abuse and abusive people.

My original point, which I probably put forward badly, is that there seems to be a low tolerance among the populace in CFC for nearly any negative opinion regarding first Civ 5, and then Civ 6. I can only speak anecdotally, based on my own experience, but it's my impression that any sort of criticism is met with a strong (in some cases, nearly rabid) anti-poster bias. These threads begin innocuously enough, but often soon devolve into name calling and harsh rhetoric, requiring a moderator to step in. That is what leads me to my assertion that negative comments are not allowed here. A negative comment often causes a knee-jerk reaction in other posters which intimidates the OP of the comment into leaving the thread, or causes him/her to fight back, increasing the negativity and bringing others into the fray.

There will always be disagreements on the forums, and that is fine, but some of the fisticuffs that took place in the pre-release (and even post-release) Civ 5 forum were nearly legendary. It seemed as though you could barely ask a question without being attacked. It was new ground for those of us from the Civ 4 forums. We had rid ourselves of all of that BS years ago. The CIv 6 forums weren't as bad this time, but the moderation is heavier than it used to be.

As for speculating on the age of the posters involved, well, when you act like a bunch of schoolchildren in a playground, squabbling among themselves, what else do you surmise?

In that assessment I remain unrepentant.

 

[RealAntithesis]

The Multi vs 1UPT debate will probably continue since Pandora's box had well and truly been opened. Further discussion on how to deal with the problems presented by both methods is beneficial, even if the debates do tend to run full circle.

I just hope the sdk is released to allow a proper integrated multi-UPT mod for those that value it (like me).

 

[leif erikson]

My original point, which I probably put forward badly, is that there seems to be a low tolerance among the populace in CFC for nearly any negative opinion regarding first Civ 5, and then Civ 6. I can only speak anecdotally, based on my own experience, but it's my impression that any sort of criticism is met with a strong (in some cases, nearly rabid) anti-poster bias. These threads begin innocuously enough, but often soon devolve into name calling and harsh rhetoric, requiring a moderator to step in. That is what leads me to my assertion that negative comments are not allowed here. A negative comment often causes a knee-jerk reaction in other posters which intimidates the OP of the comment into leaving the thread, or causes him/her to fight back, increasing the negativity and bringing others into the fray.

Can understand why you see this in this light as someone who has dissented. From my perch I see it a bit differently.

Some of those that dissented decided to post their dissent in a multitude of threads, even ones that were not about the subject of their dissent. Those on the other side quickly became tired of this behavior and started to react to it. That reaction could be called an intolerance to negative opinions, but the negative opinions were so overwhelming that it was very difficult to have a discussion about an aspect of the game without a dissenter showing up and hijacking the thread. It is one of the reasons we set up a thread for the negative stuff, to allow some positive discussions for those that wished that. This still colors the discussions here and some posters still react towards dissenters because they have heard it so many times, not saying that it is right for them to do this, but I hope it offers some insight into the behavior.

Both sides need to be more respectful towards the other.

 

[Jabulani]

To the OP

Yes they are, unless you brake the forum rules.

Therefore, join us all and unleash your personal opinion against the inexistent AI, do that in a polite way of course. Thx

 

[c4c6]

Some of those that dissented decided to post their dissent in a multitude of threads, even ones that were not about the subject of their dissent. Those on the other side quickly became tired of this behavior and started to react to it. That reaction could be called an intolerance to negative opinions, but the negative opinions were so overwhelming that it was very difficult to have a discussion about an aspect of the game without a dissenter showing up and hijacking the thread.

I think, it is quite obvious, that a systematic destructive approach is very efficient. If every thread, which tries to discuss e.g. how the problems could be solved, is burdened by many quite short (1 liner) "personal opinions against the inexistent AI written {formally} in a polite way" with small content (and absolute nothing, what hasn't been published already thousands of times) just for the purpose to strangle positive discussions ("I have no fun with the game and my goal is to nullify the fun of those who still haven't joined us.") ... well, personally for me it is simple: I'm out.

To guarantee, that all "negative opinions of Civ6 allowed here" to a necessary amount, a statement in the opening post / header(!) could declare "__positive", "__neutral" or "__negative" key in order to (better) separate discutants. The threshold for off_topic posts in the 'wrong group' (i.e. positive in __negative or negative in __positive) to be considered trolling could be lower.

 

[Europa Victrix]

There are only two ways Civ6 will go: The Civ5 route, meaning it'll be somewhat good in a dozen or so patches released over the next years or it'll go the BE route and just end up dead.
This is the case for any game, really. There have been A LOT of triple-A duds these recent years and they all vanished into obscurity within 6 months.

People swore up and down that Evolve would survive. It didn't.
People are still swearing up and down that Elite: Dangerous will survive (All 5 of those people!).

Those are just two examples from the top of my head. Civ Fanatics discussing the faults of the game doesn't matter one way or another, it's all up to Firaxis whether or not to support the game over the coming months or just let it die - They already got the initial sales money anyway.

 

[c4c6]

Civ Fanatics discussing the faults of the game doesn't matter one way or another, it's all up to Firaxis [...]

You forget the modding power. Methinks, the CQUI is already a real big step forward for the UI and the AI surely will get several Better...AI, AI++ ... of course that needs a lot more time, whatever will be the name of the unified solution (on top of the final_patched 2nd expansion).

 

[God of Kings]

People swore up and down that Evolve would survive. It didn't.
People are still swearing up and down that Elite: Dangerous will survive (All 5 of those people!).

The developer of the latter very much moved on to Planet Coaster, which has nearly universal rave reviews (for now).

In fact, I am more interested in Planet Coaster than Civ VI. Frontier released a major content patch for Planet Coaster as well (it's free for all Planet Coaster players). The same cannot be said much for Civ VI (aside from a few map scripts and UI additions).

Planet Coaster consistently has more active players than Civ VI, according to Steam.

 

[liv]

I think civ vi is being played by around 26 000 right now and planet coaster by around 6 000 or was I not looking at the right stats?

 

[Gorbles]

Civilisation 6 is currently sitting at 42,000, with Planet Coaster at a (very respectable) 10,000.

Looks like a bit of wishful thinking there

 

[c4c6]

Civ6 = 4 x PlanetCoaster + 2,000

 

[God of Kings]

I was looking at outdated stats.

10,000 is still a large number for Planet Coaster.

 

[kamex]

Planet Coaster is a great game, it was released after Civ VI, had a free content update before the overpriced Civ VI dlc, and overall has less bugs. Even better, if you go onto their official forums, the devs even answer your questions about bugs or missing features, Firaxis on the other hand slaps you in the face with a cold fish.

 

[God of Kings]

Planet Coaster is a great game, it was released after Civ VI, had a free content update before the overpriced Civ VI dlc, and overall has less bugs. Even better, if you go onto their official forums, the devs even answer your questions about bugs or missing features, Firaxis on the other hand slaps you in the face with a cold fish.

The free content update for Planet Coaster is very generous: two new flat rides (one of which was even voted in by the community), new tracked-ride train designs (both of the roller coaster variety and of the family tracked ride variety) (and pre-made track designs), seven new shops, a new terrain set, and a chock-load of new scenery pieces such as gingerbread house (and other confectioneries), festive, and snowmen. Oh, and numerous bug fixes and UI improvements were added in as well. Civ VI on the other hand only has a few new map scripts and some UI improvements that are free; much of the new content is paid (and aren't even worth the price).

Frontier > Firaxis

 

[kamex]

I get the impression Frontier actually care about their community of players, where as Firaxis saw Civ VI as an opportunity to empty the pockets of long term civ players with a broken base game and laughably overpriced dlc.

 

[Gorbles]

The free content update for Planet Coaster is very generous: two new flat rides (one of which was even voted in by the community), new tracked-ride train designs (both of the roller coaster variety and of the family tracked ride variety) (and pre-made track designs), seven new shops, a new terrain set, and a chock-load of new scenery pieces such as gingerbread house (and other confectioneries), festive, and snowmen. Oh, and numerous bug fixes and UI improvements were added in as well. Civ VI on the other hand only has a few new map scripts and some UI improvements that are free; much of the new content is paid (and aren't even worth the price).

Frontier > Firaxis

Why do you talk about bug fixes and UI improvements for Frontier, but completely ignore bugs fixed by Firaxis?

You dress up the content Frontier provides (I can do the opposite if you'd like - "whup de do it's just a few rides anyone could knock that out in half an hour"; paraphrased from what people say about Civilisation 6's DLC), while dressing down the content Civ 6 provides ("it's just a few new map scripts").

Your bias is clear as day, and it affects your posts. I fully respect the work that goes into Planet Coaster, but work done by a lot of developers deserves respecting, and not just because a game aligns with your agenda in this thread (to criticise Civilisation 6. Opinions that are allowed and haven't been moderated).