Let's Talk About the Civs that WON'T Make It In Despite Popularity

[ko3ak]

Riddle me this, how is Webster's not an authoritative source on the definition of a word? How is using this as a citation a "false appeal to authority"?


Based on your post, I can reasonably conclude that you apparently have the mental acuity of The End is Nigh. I see why you are motivated to attack my rebuttals, as your own arguments also lack any logical legitimacy and coherency. ko3ak pointing out a claim is spurious is topical if the argument completely lacks any legitimacy or logical coherency, like in the instance of your quoted rebuttal.

You lost me there. I'm not even sure that last sentence made sense. Then again, like everyone else in here, I'm just a fool compared to you.

I didn't say Webster's was a poor source. I said YOU were. Your use of language suggests that you believe us all to be fools and that you are the only true authority around. So, I guess you win. Since you have clearly provided ample reasons for us to defer to your superior authority on all matters regarding human civilization.

So, to recap. You win. Everyone else loses. Moving on...

 

[Thormodr]

No, you personally find the argument less effective. And you personally are willing to accept a false argument due to presentation. I personally could care less if you ignore facts and reason if it is not laid out in a way you would like it to be.

I never said that at all. I guess you decided that speaking for yourself wasn't enough and now you are speaking for other people too.

Just keep it polite and civil and there will be no problems. Then people will focus on the validity of your argument. Otherwise you are doing yourself a disservice.

 

[cardgame]

I never said that at all. I guess you decided that speaking for yourself wasn't enough and now you are speaking for other people too.

Just keep it polite and civil and there will be no problems. Then people will focus on the validity of your argument. Otherwise you are doing yourself a disservice.

You said exactly that Unless you have decided to speak for other people too?

 

[phungus420]

So, to recap. You win. Everyone else loses. Moving on...

For someone claiming the moral high ground about ad hominen, your post is remarkably hypocritical.

 

[phungus420]

You [Thormodr] personally find the argument less effective. And you personally are willing to accept a false argument due to presentation. I personally could care less if you ignore facts and reason if it is not laid out in a way you would like it to be.

I never said that at all....

To recap, my response was directly made to this quote, and is cited in the post you are responding to no less:

By insulting and belittling other posters you've effectively conceded the argument even if you are 100% correct.

So, actually you did effectively assert exactly that. Or do you really want to get in a semantic debate about whether you stating I am "in effect conceding", when I have done no such thing, implies that you personally reject the argument?

 

[ko3ak]

For someone claiming the moral high ground about ad hominen, your post is remarkably hypocritical.

Geez. I said you win. Yes. I am a hypocrite. I agree.

 

[Thormodr]

How to lose an argument online

1. Have an argument. Once you start an argument, not a discussion, you've already lost. Think about it: have you ever changed your mind because someone online started yelling at you? They might get you to shut up, but it's unlikely they've actually changed your opinion.
2. Forget the pitfalls of Godwin's law. Any time you mention Hitler or even Communist China or Bill O'Reilly, you've lost.
3. Use faulty analogies. If someone is trying to make a point about, say, health care, try to make an analogy to something conceptually unrelated, like the space shuttle program, and you've lost.
4. Question motives. The best way to get someone annoyed and then have them ignore you is to bypass any thoughtful discussion of facts and instead question what's in it for the person on the other end. Make assumptions about their motivations and lose their respect.
5. Act anonymously. What are the chances that heckled comments from the bleachers will have an impact?
6. Threaten to take action in another venue. Insist that this will come back to haunt the other person. Guarantee you will spread the word or stop purchasing.
7. Bring up the slippery slope. Actually, the slope isn't that slippery. People don't end up marrying dogs, becoming cannibals or harvesting organs because of changes in organization, technology or law.
8. Go to the edges. This is a variant of the slippery slope, in which you bring up extremes at either end of whatever spectrum is being discussed.

So, what works?

Earn a reputation. Have a conversation. Ask questions. Describe possible outcomes of a point of view. Make connections. Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Align objectives then describe a better outcome. Show up. Smile.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/how-to-lose-an-argument-online.html

 

[cardgame]

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/how-to-lose-an-argument-online.html

OK, but what if I said Hitler was black? And gay? Would you not think, if only to yourself, what an idiot I am? I doubt you'd give me the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Shiggs713]

there is not a single post on this page about "civs"

is this thread even necessary?

 

[cardgame]

is this thread even necessary?

Yes!

 

[Shiggs713]

nice one

 

[da dick]

anyways... has anyone screamed "TIBET" like a snobbish foreigner just to hurt the feelings of some chineses yet?

 

[Tusked]

anyways... has anyone screamed "TIBET" like a snobbish foreigner just to hurt the feelings of some chineses yet?

TIBET

...also PALESTINE

 

[phungus420]

Tibet, Palestine, and Kurdistan really should be in yeah. Any other oppressed peoples we can bring up where the offending nation still refuses to admit they did anything wrong? I know someone is going to bring up the Native Americans and the US, but the US has formally apologized for it, and doesn't get in a hissy fit every time someone brings up that genocide; anyway there has got to be more then those three, I just can't think of them right now.

 

[Tusked]

Hmm... we should be able to play as Hutus. And Tutsis.

 

[CoffeeMug]

Did anyone mentioned Korea? . Well i would like to see it in Civ 5.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

The fact that you can claim the United States is not in an advanced stage or system of social development, or having a people or nation only demonstrates you can't be taken seriously. It's impossible to argue with someone who points to the sky and claims it's neon pink, all you can do is gather the person is deluded. There really isn't any logical argument to contest, only thing in your post to see are lunatic ravings.

The US does not have a distinct civilization. You are again confusing civilization with nationhood. The US is a great country whose values, architecture, science, political system, architecture, everything is based on what we all call the WESTERN CIVILIZATION, that is Greco-Roman. Are you aware that even the english language is based on latin and greek? Even the Declaration of Independence which talks about equality, democracy, the right to life, liberty and property is just another example of the fact the US is a nation that has been fundamentally influenced by the thinking, the values and ideas of the Greco-Roman civilization. Your congressmen sit in a building whose architecture is based on that civilization. That is an indisputable fact.

The civilizations of the past have influenced today's modern nations and their achievements. The US is only part of the WESTERN CIVILIZATION. It is a distinct nation, not a distinct civilization. Ancient Greece and ancient Rome reached an advanced stage or system of social development, through which they influenced today's western countries and continue to influence the way in which the western civilization is evolving. The same is also true of the other civilizations (i.e. the Chinese) that have fundamentally influenced the way in which other nations (i.e. in Asia) have evolved.

The US never reached an advanced stage or system of social development simply because the people that moved to America from Europe had already reached that stage!!! They were already in an advanced stage of social development!!!!

Again, try to understand the difference between civilization and nation. They are not the same thing.

ko3ak I clearly demonstrate that the US is a civilization, by citing Wikipedia, thus utterly destroying The End Is Nigh's argument. Then I cite that Han is indeed an ethnicity, as The End Is Nigh claims they are not, thus, once again destroying his argument. There is nothing ad hominem about these facts.

Now because these arguments are so unreasonable and foolish, I question the mental abilities of the poster, as I find them relevant. In all likelihood the poster is either mentally ******ed, or has a personal interest in degrading the US, and these motives or causes of the spurious arguments being conjured by The End is Nigh are relevant, as they demonstrate that any further claims made by this poster should be viewed more critically then claims being made by one of sound mind.

Citing wikipedia? Are you serious? Citing wikipedia destroys my arguments? Are you aware that there isn't a single university in the world that would accept wikipedia as a credible reference.

Did you actually read my post? Can you read? What I wrote was that the Han were not a civilization. I never said anything about the Han not being an ethnic group.

And since you are using wikipedia as an authoritative source, where exactly does it classify the United States as a civilization? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization)

I have a personal interest in degrading the US? Are you out of your mind? Can you find a single post were I am trying to degrade the US? Again, can you read?

My argument is that the US, Britain, France, Germany are all great countries whose past, present and future have been influenced, are influenced and will continue to be influenced by those ancient civilizations. They are countries that are interconnected and connected to thinking, writing and achievements of past civilizations. No sane person would argue that France or America are great civilizations. These are great nations.

My argument is that if you can have these countries included, then why not Canada? And my question is rhetorical. R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C-A-L.

 

[Wodan]

Although Canada would be fun to play as. Building igloos instead of cottages and Mounties instead of cavalry. Maybe a +1 from beaver fur.

And a -2 to Dip relations from whoever founds PETA.

Maybe they could have a canoe instead of a work boat or something. They could even harvest maple syrup from forest tiles. They would also have some sort of diplomatic advantage due to increased politeness, however, to counter that, they are not capable of declaring war.

See, they provide for some interesting gameplay mechanics.

Such as, +2 unhappiness due to the chance of internal strife and +10 to the chance of revolt as the Quebecois continually talk about secession?

Probably in an expansion pack. The Civilization series has sold well in South Korea and would sell even better if Korea was included.

Let's look at my list again:

To be a viable civ, a candidate must have at least one of the following characteristics, and the more it has, the better qualified it is:

1. Representative of a cultural group (this speaks to the point that a country is not the same as a cultural group... it doesn't make sense to include a "North American empire"... everyone agrees that's stupid... but including the Iroquois, Sioux, etc. could be warranted on this basis)
2. Representative of a geographic region (an area which is under-represented should give added weight to candidates from there... e.g., Inca to represent South America which doesn't otherwise have any representatives)
3. Representative from a Time period (ditto, but for time periods in history)
4. Specific historical impact
5. Interest in the customer base (pure mercenary marketing... e.g., it may be worth-while to include Australia as a civ, simply because if it is a Civ then that will increase sales in Australia by X amount; Thormodr says S. Korea fits this category as well)
6. Unique gameplay value (some civs bring a mechanic with them which may be interesting in its own regard, such as Vikings with early amphibious units)

And that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm probably missing a B list civ or 2, possibly even an A list one. Also some posters may think something on my A - list should be moved to the "must list" or vice versa, and etc, but generally speaking this order is how I would present a list to Firaxis if asked, as I could see any civ on that list being used, and I can't imagine removing any civ from the must category, and find it difficult to not include civs on the A list.

Good list. I won't nitpick it; I'm sure plenty of others will do so.

As for your last point, let's keep in mind though that Firaxis may intentionally hold back some "A listers" in order for them to be headlined in an Expansion.

 

[Wodan]

The US does not have a distinct civilization. You are again confusing civilization with nationhood.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I also think that you are confusing the definition of "civilization" as applied to the real world with "civilization" as applied to Civ the game. That's as silly as using the word "Empire". Clearly, going from the one to the other is a huge leap.

And, when one poster is talking about the one, and we apply his/her comments to the other, then that's not playing fair.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I also think that you are confusing the definition of "civilization" as applied to the real world with "civilization" as applied to Civ the game. That's as silly as using the word "Empire". Clearly, going from the one to the other is a huge leap.

And, when one poster is talking about the one, and we apply his/her comments to the other, then that's not playing fair.

At last. A person I can have a good conversation with. I could't agree more with you. In my original post I wrote:

"What I am trying to say is that if Canada cannot be included, then England should also not be included. But then, who would play the game? So the argument goes. Canada? Why not? Then again, where does it stop?"

This was in resposonse to other people's comments about what makes a civilization and which should be included in the game. Anyone can see that in fact I am posing a rhetorical question about the inclusion of Canada, and I think I make it quite clear that the game should not follow the definition of civilization as applied in the real world because as I myself ask "who would play the game?" and if Canada was included then "where does it stop?". It was the fellow civfan who misunderstood what I was trying to say and launched an attack on me.