Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
For those who missed it, Zouave was banned for his contribution to a thread entitled (roughly, this is from memory) "Civ 4 ideas". Zouave's idea was to keep Civ4 out of the hands of Firaxis. His main supporting point was that people had had plenty of good ideas for Civ3 and most of them (he alleged) were ignored.
This was deemed "off topic" by a moderator and Zouave got another month-long ban.
Sorry, but it IS on-topic. The objective of the thread was clearly to define how Civ could be improved in its next incarnation. Who produces that next incarnation is clearly vital -- even if there is no obvious way for us to influence the ownership of the Civ title. Furthermore, Zouave's post questions the usefulness of the thread, in effect saying, "don't get too excited, your ideas may be good but they will probably be ignored." Should someone start a new thread to question the meaningfulness of the existing thread? No, they should feel free to make such points, without fear of being banned.
"But it's part of a pattern." Or as some clever philosopher once said, "A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I know, but consider. A viewpoint that says, roughly, "this game falls far short of its potential in many respects," is highly relevant to many threads. That's just the way it is. To say that Zouave can't add this viewpoint to all these threads, effectively says that some viewpoints must be silenced (since there is no logical way to pick which subset of threads he is allowed to write in). We aren't all gonzo for civ
or at least not for Civ3.
Cheerleaders for Civ3 often add comments to the effect that this or that rocks. To many threads. (I don't find this offensive, and often agree, despite being on the whole more of a Civ3 naysayer.) Yet somehow, I don't expect to see any of them being banned for a month.
I'm not hinting that Zouave was banned because his viewpoint is opposed to that of the CivFanatics powers that be. I'm not hinting, I'm saying it outright. He never would have been banned if his fanaticism had been of a more "acceptable" variety.
This was deemed "off topic" by a moderator and Zouave got another month-long ban.
Sorry, but it IS on-topic. The objective of the thread was clearly to define how Civ could be improved in its next incarnation. Who produces that next incarnation is clearly vital -- even if there is no obvious way for us to influence the ownership of the Civ title. Furthermore, Zouave's post questions the usefulness of the thread, in effect saying, "don't get too excited, your ideas may be good but they will probably be ignored." Should someone start a new thread to question the meaningfulness of the existing thread? No, they should feel free to make such points, without fear of being banned.
"But it's part of a pattern." Or as some clever philosopher once said, "A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I know, but consider. A viewpoint that says, roughly, "this game falls far short of its potential in many respects," is highly relevant to many threads. That's just the way it is. To say that Zouave can't add this viewpoint to all these threads, effectively says that some viewpoints must be silenced (since there is no logical way to pick which subset of threads he is allowed to write in). We aren't all gonzo for civ
or at least not for Civ3.Cheerleaders for Civ3 often add comments to the effect that this or that rocks. To many threads. (I don't find this offensive, and often agree, despite being on the whole more of a Civ3 naysayer.) Yet somehow, I don't expect to see any of them being banned for a month.
I'm not hinting that Zouave was banned because his viewpoint is opposed to that of the CivFanatics powers that be. I'm not hinting, I'm saying it outright. He never would have been banned if his fanaticism had been of a more "acceptable" variety.
You petty mortal think you could ban moi!? HA! 
