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

[C~G]

Yes, I am ranting now.]

Very probably.

Also all rants should go here, then they can be added to the list: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384268

Nope.

That is for reporting them.

The General Discussions is about DISCUSSING them.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I was showing the above poster some hating topics.

The first one showing someone ranting of Edimburg as cultural city.... What part of it is a game-hating post??

I have not seen the others, but after the first i thought that you didn't even read them...

 

[charon2112]

So you consider any and all criticism to be "hating?" Better yet - which 10 threads? Can you list them?

The polls evened out, in my estimation. There were more than four polls, but only four that were polls regarding the quality or satisfaction with the game. One was "Best Civ version ever" and one was "Worst Civ version ever;" the other two were neither pro or con.

Like I said, I can provide details if you so desire.

Where did I say anything about "hating"?

 

[masterminded]

What problems? The whole idea was based off of E:TW's thread at the Total War Center which has absolutely no problems. The only reason o say no is because you want to make sure EVERYONE can read your original and unique complain instead of competing with people complaining about the same thing.

The problem is that it stifles conversation. The criticisms are too broad to be contained in one thread. This will reduce discussion and in effect be a subtle form of censorship.

The problem is also that the community will lose out on constructive criticism that could eventually improve the game. Even if the designers don't take heed, modders may do so.

Those are two off of the top of my head. That you cannot recognize that there are trade-offs when multiple people have expressed their concerns in this fashion, including a mod, strikes me as unbelievable. Are you refusing to acknowledge these as legitimate concerns? The way you have framed the issue certainly seems so. You describe it as an issue where posters want everyone to read their "complaints"* but not have to compete. Given the nature of forums, there is already competition. If these threads are popular, it means enough people care about them.

*I would suggest that you replace the word complaint with criticism. It's neutral whereas complaint has a negative connotation. It's the civil thing to do.

 

[charon2112]

Don't you think it's hilarious that people posting criticism, often constructive and using previous iterations of the game as comparizon are being labeled as haters&whiners and being whined about?

That's because for every one thread with constructive criticism, there's ten that just want to complain.

 

[Jester Fool]

But you have to understand that being on the Internet means you're going to encounter people that you don't agree with. If disagreement = "hating" to you, then you may want to reconsider participating in any Internet forums.

You make a very good point. I'll add to it. On some sites (politically oriented) there are posters who actually do hate people who hold differing viewpoints (since they explicitly say so in their posts). Pretty scary stuff.

 

[masterminded]

That's because for every one thread with constructive criticism, there's ten that just want to complain.

I think that is an exaggeration, especially since one cannot judge a thread by the first post. Even in threads where the OP says something very much off base, there is usually something constructive in them.

But so what? In my judgment, that even if those rations were correct, stifling speech is a bad trade-off for eliminating those bad threads, especially since the mods already shut down threads they deem completely non-constructive.

I'm going to ask this again: please consider the trade-offs when you propose a policy like this and justify the benefits against the costs.

 

[charon2112]

The problem is that it stifles conversation. The criticisms are too broad to be contained in one thread. This will reduce discussion and in effect be a subtle form of censorship.

No it doesn't, and no they aren't. There's no reason why people can't discuss their dislike (or like) of Civ V in one thread.

And Masterminded, once again, CFC mods can censor you...this is a privately owned forum. They can censor anything they want. This isn't government censorship.

 

[ohioastronomy]

There are also a lot of constructive things one could do other than flood positive threads about the game with NO YOU'RE WRONG THIS GAME SUCKS.

And I did this precisely when and how?

I see you trying to get people shut down for posting things that you don't like to see on a discussion forum. I think you're dead wrong, and that topics like this are the recourse of people who can't construct actual arguments for the value of this game.

If you see a comment that is not constructive you can say so. If you see an argument you believe to be incorrect you can correct it. You can lead by example, positive or negative.

Try positive.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

What problems? The whole idea was based off of E:TW's thread at the Total War Center which has absolutely no problems. The only reason o say no is because you want to make sure EVERYONE can read your original and unique complain instead of competing with people complaining about the same thing.

Excuse me i'm on Total War Center by ages, the thread that are you talking about is more a thread "please write here all the issue of the game an the criticism to make it better". It is adressed "A place for your constructive criticism of ETW."

Not a place for rants and haters...

On the general discussion forum there are a lot of complain right now...

like that dude:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=287549

So i'm sorry to tell you that, but Palfouri you are lying about that, it's way different.

 

[ohioastronomy]

No it doesn't, and no they aren't. There's no reason why people can't discuss their dislike (or like) of Civ V in one thread.

And Masterminded, once again, CFC mods can censor you...this is a privately owned forum. They can censor anything they want. This isn't government censorship.

It'll kill traffic on the forums and drive a lot of the most active long-term members away in disgust.

But, hey, some people can't stand to see criticism of a game on a gaming forum so it'll make them happy.

I think that's a really easy call. The question of whether the mods should police the forums more vigilantly is a different one and a more legitimate line of inquiry. According to the criteria here, apparently any post which is in any way critical of the game needs to be quarantined. That will make this place as useless as the official forums.

 

[SuperJay]

Please see my other post.

Also, the "I HATE Steam" part kinda told that to me.

Oh, okay. So you're simply looking for use of the word "hate" rather than evaluating a thread's content, behavior, and overall tone.

Where did I say anything about "hating"?

Interesting, so you don't even want any valid criticism here, then?

Personally, I'm not any more fond of the the outrageous, exaggerated, hyberbolic threads than you guys are. Not only does it make for a more contentious forum, those posts undermine the valid criticisms that people do post, making it easier for the fervent supporters to scream "HATER!" at the first sign of any remotely negative opinion - much like Skwink Caesar does in this very thread.

But different opinions from different CFC members does belong here, and that includes perspectives that are critical of various aspects of the game. It falls under general discussion of Civ5. The mods have said that repeatedly in many threads.

So far, the evidence does not support these claims that everyone has to wade through dozens of "hate threads" to find real discussion. In a snapshot of the General forum, the "hate threads" make up less than 5% of the total number of threads.

 

[Skwink]

Very probably.
Nope.

That is for reporting them.

The General Discussions is about DISCUSSING them.

YES. Then it can be listed and everyone can know about it.

 

[masterminded]

No it doesn't, and no they aren't. There's no reason why people can't discuss their dislike (or like) of Civ V in one thread.

And Masterminded, once again, CFC mods can censor you...this is a privately owned forum. They can censor anything they want. This isn't government censorship.

Charon, a lot of people, including myself and a mod will disagree with you. That needs to be addressed. It's been repeated multiple times, but I have yet to see you or anyone else address it except by gainsay.

It's very simple. The criticisms of this game are very broad and many are very comprehensive. If you force them into one thread, there is no way constructive dialogue can ensue because there are too many topics for one thread to contain. The result is that there are fewer posts because the thread is unmanageable. This is censorship not by killing speech, but by constricting to the point of being meaningless.

I know this is a privately owned forum. When you made that point, I addressed it but you never responded to it. In fact, you have a habit of ignoring my responses as if I never made them. So I'll spell it out again for the second time on this thread and the third time for you: I recognize that this is a private forum and the mods can censor me. That doesn't mean that they should censor me. That is what this discussion is about. Censorship is censorship no matter the venue. I never once claimed this had anything to do with government censorship or rights. It doesn't. I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize my position as such despite my protestations.

This is still censorship. Legal? Yes. But should it occur? That is what we are discussing. In my view, unless there is a very compelling case to be made, censorship should be avoided. The eagerness with which others, including yourself, support it without any consideration for any possible ill effects, no matter how small, is really, really disturbing.

 

[Bill Bisco]

Unless you're going to have only one thread for praise, then no.

 

[Skwink]

Unless you're going to have only one thread for praise, then no.

Deal.

 

[charon2112]

It'll kill traffic on the forums and drive a lot of the most active long-term members away in disgust.

I'm sure the long term members are capable of having a discussion in one thread. Long term members should have enough respect of the forum to not clutter it with duplicate threads.

 

[charon2112]

No, you stated: "So you consider any and all criticism to be "hating?" ...

I never said that. Please try to be more accurate in your "quoting".

Oh, okay. So you're simply looking for use of the word "hate" rather than evaluating a thread's content, behavior, and overall tone.



Interesting, so you don't even want any valid criticism here, then?

Personally, I'm not any more fond of the the outrageous, exaggerated, hyberbolic threads than you guys are. Not only does it make for a more contentious forum, those posts undermine the valid criticisms that people do post, making it easier for the fervent supporters to scream "HATER!" at the first sign of any remotely negative opinion - much like Skwink Caesar does in this very thread.

But different opinions from different CFC members does belong here, and that includes perspectives that are critical of various aspects of the game. It falls under general discussion of Civ5. The mods have said that repeatedly in many threads.

So far, the evidence does not support these claims that everyone has to wade through dozens of "hate threads" to find real discussion. In a snapshot of the General forum, the "hate threads" make up less than 5% of the total number of threads.

 

[charon2112]

Charon, a lot of people, including myself and a mod will disagree with you. That needs to be addressed. It's been repeated multiple times, but I have yet to see you or anyone else address it except by gainsay.

It's very simple. *The criticisms of this game are very broad and many are very comprehensive. If you force them into one thread, there is no way constructive dialogue can ensue because there are too many topics for one thread to contain. The result is that there are fewer posts because the thread is unmanageable. This is censorship not by killing speech, but by constricting to the point of being meaningless.

I know this is a privately owned forum. When you made that point, I addressed it but you never responded to it. In fact, you have a habit of ignoring my responses as if I never made them. So I'll spell it out again for the second time on this thread and the third time for you: I recognize that this is a private forum and the mods can censor me. **That doesn't mean that they should censor me. That is what this discussion is about. Censorship is censorship no matter the venue. I never once claimed this had anything to do with government censorship or rights. It doesn't. I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize my position as such despite my protestations.

This is still censorship. Legal? Yes. But should it occur? That is what we are discussing. In my view, unless there is a very compelling case to be made, censorship should be avoided. The eagerness with which others, including yourself, support it without any consideration for any possible ill effects, no matter how small, is really, really disturbing.

*When having a central "dislike" and "like" thread came up before, what I said was, they should merge all duplicate threads into them, but allow legitimate, new topics to remain.

**Yes, they should. If you create a duplicate thread, that doesn't offer an original topic, then they should censor you. That's just good forum maintenance.

 

[lschnarch]

Ok, so in future there will be only one thread with the content of criticism and only one thread with acceptance.
That makes two threads.

And who will be the one to decide whether any third thread has to be merged into one of the two above?