Is Civfanatics dying?

[Yared]

If the CFC-admins were to decide that this forum should branch out a little by focusing on some other games, outside of the Civ-franchise, the OT would really benefit from it.

While they'd almostkindasorta be "selling out", there are posters (such as myself) who no longer play Civ but still post in OT and whatnot and who probably wouldn't care about that. It'd get new blood in here.

With there already being a solid OT-veteran populace keeping the nature of the OT the same, I doubt OT would suddenly turn into something completely different with the trickling of the new posters.


I myself would really much like this. It doesn't necessarily have to happen rapidly, but rather slowly over time.

 

[Syterion]

This can almost directly be traced to my personal activity. I will start posting more and revitalizing the forum when I'm done researching correlations and causations. Maybe.

 

[Zarn]

I haven't noticed, but I'm rarely ever here.

 

[RedRalph]

I think the quality is pretty good at present. Yeah, I cannot for the life of me see why they wont just remerge a few of the subforums

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think the quality is pretty good at present. Yeah, I cannot for the life of me see why they wont just remerge a few of the subforums

If they remerge A&E I wouldnt be able to discuss Petty.

I think we need a few more topics on stuff not related to news. I started one about paywalls and just now one about neutrality in wars.

As well I think certain types of threads should be banned or somethin' cos they eventually disintegrate into the same sort of stuff. Like the abortion threads.

 

[JollyRoger]

Once a thread is conceived, I don't think you should be able to abort it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

But what if you think of a thread and decide not to use it?

 

[carmen510]

Once a thread is conceived, I don't think you should be able to abort it.

The thread is conceived in the head, and can be aborted whenever you think your proposed thread is a dumb idea. But once it has been posted, it has officially been born and any attempts to silence it is equated to thread-murder.

Anyways, I think Civfanatics is doing just fine. We always have downturns whenever there's nothing interesting to discuss, but it always comes back.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

But what if you ignore the thread because you're not interested in it? Will the moderators arrest infract you for neglect?!

 

[Abaddon]

This thread should have been aborted.

 

[Disgustipated]

It is possible that people are so busy playing the wonderful game of Civ5 they don't have time to post here.

Okay, hopefully no one died laughing from my joke.

 

[Kozmos]

The only things we miss is merging the A&E & Science forum. That way, the interesting sciency news get known.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I have noticed a slight decline, however to the OP and some other members...

I really hate when people talk about civ5 and seem to state as a fact that it is a bad game. Its been dying down but it is extremely annoying. If you don't like it is your opinion. You can't just say Civ5 was a failure as many people including myself like it. Even if your talking sales you don't have sales figures to back up your statement do you? Even with some older guys not liking it, it brought new members to the forum as well.

 

[Earthling]

Once a thread is conceived, I don't think you should be able to abort it.

I still don't even know the "real policy" on this but it's only frustrating and inconsistent and I agree in principle to what you've said. Sometimes you get an OP who declares they want to close down/split off a thread or whatever, and we get like two new threads in OT split off just for two or three people arguing with each other. This is especially bad when an OP of one thread doesn't even lay out many specifics or guidelines for discussion, but still the need to "split-off" extra threads emerges.

civ5 is a disappointment in the civ franchise though, there's little way around it and it probably does contribute to general forum wide activity. Though it is funny that the general boards now mostly universally recognize the problems, that everyone who had a clue, said in advance would be problems.

 

[Joecoolyo]

It is possible that people are so busy playing the wonderful game of Civ5 they don't have time to post here.

Okay, hopefully no one died laughing from my joke.

Hater gonna hate.

Civ5 was a great game, don't yall be dissin it

 

[Zarn]

I like how each new Civ is a huge disappointment... I just find the whole thing very circular.

 

[Disgustipated]

Civ5 isn't a bad game, but it isn't a good game either. I'm not a hater. I just say it how it is. I gave the game a chance, and I most likely will play more of it in the future. But for now, I have more fun games to play.

 

[Xanikk999]

I like how each new Civ is a huge disappointment... I just find the whole thing very circular.

Except that with all the previous civs it just took some getting used to and I liked the core mechanics.

Civ5 I loathe the core mechanics and I can't get used to it even after patches.

 

[BasketCase]

Ah, I presume you mean by this that the people who opposed an illegal war waged by a second rate frat-boy addict, with sidekicks, have no problem with endorsing a war supported by the UN.

You presume incorrectly, of course. When you presume, you make an ass out of--errr, a pres out of.....
Dammit. I'm gonna have to skip the one-liner.

Anyway, the correct presumption would be this: that the same people who turned a blind eye to the killing of civilians by Saddam and the current insurgency (I could point out Afghanistan as well, but you get the idea), are now taking a keen interest in stopping the killing of a smaller number of civilians by Qadaffi. The same people who complained that "civilians will definitely get killed if you send military force into Libya " are now stone-silent. There are also no complaints that using Western military force on a Muslim nation will create terrorists.

My two coppers: yes, some civilians might get killed by UN-approved airstrikes, and I say tough beans. And yes, using military force on a Muslim nation might piss off Muslims, and I definitely don't give a crap about that at all.

The approval of the UN has nothing to do with whether intervening in Libya is right or wrong; killing civilians is either acceptable or it's wrong, period. If action to prevent civilians from being killed is the right thing to do, then UN approval is irrelevant--and if the UN does not approve such action, it is the UN (and not the action to prevent the killing of civilians) that's wrong.

Edit: oh, and here's another one. Oil. Why are there no accusations that this is merely an oil war?
(again, my personal opinion is that I don't give a crap if it is, we should still be over there--point is, the people who were whining about Iraq being an oil war should also be whining now about being an oil war, and they're not)

 

[GamezRule]

Quality kinda bounces up and down.