Should Civfanatics just make one "Civ V Criticism Thread"?

[charon2112]

And on the topic of this thread, the OP is talking about a single thread for all criticisms. The position that you are describing and you think the OP is describing is already forum policy.

masterminded, I quoted you, and I quoted him. You said something that was completely inaccurate. You can't argue against quotes, I don't THINK anything about the OP's opinion, I actually quoted it.

I asked you to quote me where I contradict myself and you are unable to do that.

Look, this is more simple than you're making it. I have a position and an opinion that I have stated many times, you disagree with it. It's as simple as that.

You have accused me in your posts of "condoning censorship". This is not true. I do not condone censorship. Grouping duplicate threads together is not, in my opinion, censorship.

You have also maintained throughout these conversations that "censoring" (your term, not mine) these posts is not a good thing to do, ergo you are suggesting that you have some 'right' to not be censored. So, I was accurate in my comments in which I talked about what rights you do and do not have on a forum.

Your, by your own admission, deliberate use of incendiary language, is an exaggeration and elevates the discussion above just talking about forums on the internet, to something much more serious. I simply called you out on your language and quoted examples.

 

[masterminded]

masterminded, I quoted you, and I quoted him. You said something that was completely inaccurate. You can't argue against quotes, I don't THINK anything about the OP's opinion, I actually quoted it.

I asked you to quote me where I contradict myself and you are unable to do that.

Look, this is more simple than you're making it. I have a position and an opinion that I have stated many times, you disagree with it. It's as simple as that.

You have accused me in your posts of "condoning censorship". This is not true. I do not condone censorship. Grouping duplicate threads together is not, in my opinion, censorship.

You have also maintained throughout these conversations that "censoring" (your term, not mine) these posts is not a good thing to do, ergo you are suggesting that you have some 'right' to not be censored. So, I was accurate in my comments in which I talked about what rights you do and do not have on a forum.

Your, by your own admission, deliberate use of incendiary language, is an exaggeration and elevates the discussion above just talking about forums on the internet, to something much more serious. I simply called you out on your language and quoted examples.

I'm now convinced that you have no idea what this thread is about and lack certain reading comprehension skills. That's not meant as an insult. I just don't know how to interpret this post in any other light since you are now accusing me of things I never admitted to. You also don't understand the topic of the post or seem to understand that non-government entities can censorship and that this can be bad even when rights are not involved. I don't know how many times and in how many ways I need to describe that point. I think that this is a charitable interpretation because the only alternative is that you are deliberately misreading nearly every point I've made.

 

[C~G]

Do you charon think mods have right to censor someone here without someone breaking the rules or guidelines that have been given? Do you think such poster before getting censored had right to post what he posted?

Just asking because this discussion seems to be rather pointless especially even you cannot define what censorship is or what it actually means within this forum.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Is keeping the board readable and not wasting bandwidth not compelling enough?

Also, bit interested to see that that site I mentioned triggered the autocensor. Anyone know why?



A.) We disagree on whether merging threads is actually censorship.

B.) All criticism on here is technically censored, which was my point.



That's because I don't support the idea as you put it anyway, and I don't think most of the people on here do.

In the end we all think out posts are worth their own threads, it's down to the mods to decide whether or not they really are.

We should just have a "Stupid or Annoying Opinion" thread where all posts or even entire threads that annoy the mods should be sent. Why should complaints about Civ5 be singled out for action simply because they are what annoy you? Many other posts annoy me and I think they should get sent to the junk thread too. We'll let the moderators sort it out, they seem to do a good job.

Or we could be adults and realize that by supporting the stifling of one form of opinion, we make it much simpler to stifle other opinions by setting the precedent. It's easy to point the finger at others and demand action from the authorities. It's a lot harder to step away from such policies once the precedent has been set. Next time it could be you who is marginalized.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Get constructive and back to topic again, or i will close this thread.

Note: Don't respond to moderator actions in public, it's against the rules.

 

[charon2112]

Everything I stated was accurate and was supported by quotes. Since you refuse to listen to anything I say, and are resorting to insults, I don't think any further discussion on this topic with you would be very constructive.

I'm now convinced that you have no idea what this thread is about and lack certain reading comprehension skills. That's not meant as an insult. I just don't know how to interpret this post in any other light since you are now accusing me of things I never admitted to. You also don't understand the topic of the post or seem to understand that non-government entities can censorship and that this can be bad even when rights are not involved. I don't know how many times and in how many ways I need to describe that point. I think that this is a charitable interpretation because the only alternative is that you are deliberately misreading nearly every point I've made.

"censor" is masterminded's term, not mine. I disagree that grouping threads is "censorship", so why would you ask ME to define it? When mods merge threads, it's not (in my opinion) "censoring"...you can ask masterminded what he means by censorship if you'd like.

Do you charon think mods have right to censor someone here without someone breaking the rules or guidelines that have been given? Do you think such poster before getting censored had right to post what he posted?

Just asking because this discussion seems to be rather pointless especially even you cannot define what censorship is or what it actually means within this forum.

 

[masterminded]

Again, no one is disputing that threads should be grouped. This is already board policy. We are disputing whether all posts that are critical should be put into a singular thread. Everyone seems to understand this but you. I am neither opposed to having threads grouped by narrow topic nor have I ever been. That's another misrepresentation and at least the third one today.

Back to the topic at hand, I would add that this would create even more work for the mods and would thus be difficult to implement. They would have to move or close down every critical thread or post. This is a much higher work load than merely dealing with incivility by warning users, closing threads, etc. It would require a lot more effort.

 

[charon2112]

Again, no one is disputing that threads should be grouped. This is already board policy. We are disputing whether all posts that are critical should be put into a singular thread.

So it's okay to group similar threads together but not when they're critical of Civ V? This is exactly what you just said. I disagree, I don't think any type of comment should be exempt from forum rules.

 

[masterminded]

That's not what I'm saying. The only thing I'm against is what the OP is proposing: putting ALL of the critical posts into ONE thread.

If someone makes a thread about bad diplo AI and then someone else makes another thread about that and they are both active, there is no problem closing the second one down or moving it. I don't know how many times I have to clarify this. That is already forum policy and no one is disputing this policy.

 

[charon2112]

That's not what I'm saying. The only thing I'm against is what the OP is proposing: putting ALL of the critical posts into ONE thread.

If someone makes a thread about bad diplo AI and then someone else makes another thread about that and they are both active, there is no problem closing the second one down or moving it. I don't know how many times I have to clarify this. That is already forum policy and no one is disputing this policy.

You're being a bit contradictory, on one hand, you say you agree with merging duplicate posts and state that it's already forum practice (which it doesn't appear to be looking at the thread pages), then on another hand, you state that you don't want critical posts merged together. The OP simply wants these repeated threads that offer no new viewpoint to be merged.

 

[joyous_gard]

Let's lock this thread.

Moderator Action: Posts that aren't on topic are considered spam. If you have an opinion such as the one posted here, please PM a mod or use the report post button, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[da6d]

My position has never been for completely unregulated speech. I merely cautioned that constraining speech without a compelling reason is a bad. The things you mentioned such as insulting and flaming are compelling. But that's not what is at issue, which is whether criticism of the game should be censored.

The compelling reason here is that otherwise productive threads become hijacked/unreadable due to repetitive and unhelpful shouting, whether by complainers or fans...generally by the former.

I also believe you are confusing the effects of a policy with its value. The fact that limited/no censorship may result in greater creativity and may avoid marginalizing certain individuals/groups is not a reason to implement it. Policies require fundamental foundations to support them, as it is generally untenable to propose that the "ends justify the means"; but I digress.

The point here is that you proposed that censorship may stifle creativity, etc. Some of us are proposing that limited censorship in the form of specific threads/forums/whatever for generic rants and O/T posts would reduce clutter while allowing constructive criticism and constructive praise to remain in discrete posts outside the dumping ground, in this way actually promoting creativity and productive discussion.

Whatever the actual intent of the OP and the poll, I do reserve the right to propose a related idea in this thread without advocating the exact same position as the OP.

 

[masterminded]

The compelling reason here is that otherwise productive threads become hijacked/unreadable due to repetitive and unhelpful shouting, whether by complainers or fans...generally by the former.

I also believe you are confusing the effects of a policy with its value. The fact that limited/no censorship may result in greater creativity and may avoid marginalizing certain individuals/groups is not a reason to implement it. Policies require fundamental foundations to support them, as it is generally untenable to propose that the "ends justify the means"; but I digress.

The point here is that you proposed that censorship may stifle creativity, etc. Some of us are proposing that limited censorship in the form of specific threads/forums/whatever for generic rants and O/T posts would reduce clutter while allowing constructive criticism and constructive praise to remain in discrete posts outside the dumping ground, in this way actually promoting creativity and productive discussion.

Whatever the actual intent of the OP and the poll, I do reserve the right to propose a related idea in this thread without advocating the exact same position as the OP.

Everything that I have said is in the context of what the OP proposed: putting it all in one thread. Having a separate forum or several threads for specific issues does not fall into the problems I described. If you clarified that your position was different from the OP, then I apologize that I missed it. We weren't arguing about the same thing. If you did not clarify that your position was different, please do so in the future to save us from this procession of teasing it all out.

 

[masterminded]

You're being a bit contradictory, on one hand, you say you agree with merging duplicate posts and state that it's already forum practice (which it doesn't appear to be looking at the thread pages), then on another hand, you state that you don't want critical posts merged together. The OP simply wants these repeated threads that offer no new viewpoint to be merged.

I don't want all critical posts merged into one thread. That is the context of this conversation, which the OP started. There is no contradiction. I'm not quite sure why you think we are arguing about anything else. This is the at least the fifth or sixth time I've posted this.

 

[Skwink]

Let's lock this thread.

And what would be the reason?

 

[Surgeon]

At this point this forum is a bad place to discuss the game because any actual discussion about the game are drowned out by 98249824 different threads whining about the same thing. While I suppose it will bother the people who feel their original and unique complaints need to be heard in a separate thread, I think one thread for all these angry comments, similar to TWC's "Empire: Total War Criticism thread" and harsh punishments for people who violate the rule (i.e try to be special snowflakes) would do a lot to help improve the Civ V forum.

Where is the fun in having a forum filled with useful information ? / sarcasm.

 

[Skwink]

HEY DUDES!!!

How about, instead of a single thread, we open a new Sub-Forum. That way everyone can have their own rant-complaint topic.

 

[Fistalis]

HEY DUDES!!!

How about, instead of a single thread, we open a new Sub-Forum. That way everyone can have their own rant-complaint topic.

Sure as long we make a new sub forum for Civ V praise. Then we can keep general forums for only neutral comments

 

[Skwink]

Sure as long we make a new sub forum for Civ V praise. Then we can keep general forums for only neutral comments

Alright, lets do this.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I pretty much agree with this. I'm surprised it's lasted this long (people who genuinely aren't playing a game generally don't continue posting about it for long), but it's just... irritating.

I respect that people don't like the game. I'm aware that it has problems. But plenty of people generally like the game, and right now it's difficult even to carry on a conversation without it getting trolled by people who hate the game and have no interest in a constructive conversation about the game as it exists, or define a constructive conversation as one in which you talk about how to radically change the game from what's there.

I'd much prefer a split where the haters get split off from everyone else, not because their viewpoint is invalid but because the dead horse has been beaten and I just want to talk Civ V strategy or random stuff about the game without having the thread fill up with hate posts.

That's it. I enjoy Civ V; the trick is not to play it as if it's Civ IV. Of course there are issues with it, but, as many posters have pointed out, the same was true of Civ II, Civ III and not least Civ IV. But apparently there is a group of sectarians who think that Civ IV is holy and who just can't endure the fact that a great number of people actually enjoy Civ V. So instead of going back to the Civ IV forums and discussing their favourite game there they keep posting whine threads here. By now, one of their chief complaints is that "Civ V lovers" insist on posting about how much they like the game.