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

[Skwink]

Welcome to CFC! The only forum where we start fighting about Video Game Criticism, and end fighting about totalitarianism.

 

[charon2112]

I am not equating this with government censorship. I have stated such at least three or four times. That you repeat my position as such either means you aren't comprehending my posts, you don't understand the concept of censorship, or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

By your own words:

"That doesn't change the fact that this would lead to censorship. Words have meaning. That is the effect of the policy you endorse."

You are clearly talking about more than a threads on a computer game forum.

 

[masterminded]

By your own words:

"That doesn't change the fact that this would lead to censorship. Words have meaning. That is the effect of the policy you endorse."

You are clearly talking about more than a threads on a computer game forum.

So you haven't been reading my posts and you don't understand the concept of censorship. Non-government private entities can censor speech as well. This has been my point every time I address this criticism and I still don't understand why you don't get it.

Non-government private entities can still censor speech.

This has nothing to do with rights or the government. I have stated this so many times already, yet you will not acknowledge it.

Just because it's not the government censoring speech, doesn't make it alright. All it does is change the context. Sometimes such censorship is necessary, but should be done cautiously and only with a compelling reason. The entire point of this thread is to discuss that. I have made a number of arguments about the effects of one thread total for all criticism. No one has addressed that.

What I don't really understand is what you are advocating. You want new posts having to do with the same narrow subject as an old thread to be moved to that thread, but this is already happening. New threads are often shut down unless the old thread is many, many pages deep. Flaming/trolling/unsubstantial threads are shut down very soon after creation. So what are you advocating and why are you taking the side of those who want one thread in total for all critical posts? It seems like your position is completely incoherent.

 

[da6d]

I can't speak for Charon2112, but it would seem the concern that several have voiced, including myself, is when an otherwise productive conversation/post is hijacked by off-topic, generic complaints of the sort that are already well established and thoroughly argued. It would be preferable if those sorts of posts could be moved to a generic "rant pile" such that threads that have constructive praise OR constructive criticism could be allowed to develop and maybe provide more ideas for modders and lurking developers to improve the game.

As for censorship - I don't want to be a hypocrite and hijack this thread with a side issue, but let me do this in three sentences:

1) If censorship is wrong (as masterminded posits) it must be because there is some fundamental right to not be censored.

2) If people have a right to not be censored, it is reasonable to surmise that this is related to a general recognition of the freedom of the individual.

3) If individual freedom is paramount, then the forum moderators/site operators should be free to censor speech, since participation here is 100% voluntary and as such no substantial infringement of others' rights occurs as a result of said censorship.

 

[masterminded]

I'm not claiming that there is a fundamental right not to be censored. It does not logically follow that this is the only possibility. Censorship can be bad because it stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community. None of this has to do with fundamental rights.

 

[charon2112]

Censorship can be bad because it stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community.

This statement is where we part company. I do not believe that moving similar conversations into one thread "stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community". We have two differing opinions, it's as simple as that.

 

[Vordeo]

I can't speak for Charon2112, but it would seem the concern that several have voiced, including myself, is when an otherwise productive conversation/post is hijacked by off-topic, generic complaints of the sort that are already well established and thoroughly argued. It would be preferable if those sorts of posts could be moved to a generic "rant pile" such that threads that have constructive praise OR constructive criticism could be allowed to develop and maybe provide more ideas for modders and lurking developers to improve the game.

As for censorship - I don't want to be a hypocrite and hijack this thread with a side issue, but let me do this in three sentences:

1) If censorship is wrong (as masterminded posits) it must be because there is some fundamental right to not be censored.

2) If people have a right to not be censored, it is reasonable to surmise that this is related to a general recognition of the freedom of the individual.

3) If individual freedom is paramount, then the forum moderators/site operators should be free to censor speech, since participation here is 100% voluntary and as such no substantial infringement of others' rights occurs as a result of said censorship.

+1

Great post.

Also, re: this whole discussion, a limited amount of censorship is required on message boards. Mods warning people for insulting other posters, for instance, is censorship on a certain level, as in real life the law protects your right to express your opinion that someone is an idiot. It keeps things civil for everyone, makes the forums easier to read for the majority, and keeps discusison from getting bogged down into ridiculous flame wars.

Free speech is a brilliant ideal, one I completely agree with, but free speech on forums needs regulation. Unless you want CivFanatics to turn into that message board that protested Scientology (though the resulting anon protests at Firaxis offices would be hilarious.

 

[Gatsby]

"I do not believe that moving similar conversations into one thread "stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community".

You might actually have a point there, considering that such a thread would be at the top of the thread pile pretty much all the time as people continued to post complaints...

 

[charon2112]

Actually, the idea is to have them stickied, so they'd always be at the top.

I do not believe that moving similar conversations into one thread "stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community"./

You might actually have a point there, considering that such a thread would be at the top of the thread pile pretty much all the time as people continued to post complaints...

 

[Vordeo]

This statement is where we part company. I do not believe that moving similar conversations into one thread "stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community". We have two differing opinions, it's as simple as that.

I don't believe it's even censorship, personally.

It's like bookstores classifying books by subject: it keeps thing organized, and will help people looking to read about something see everything relevant to the subject in one simple area. Not every book can be in the front of the store, after all.

Not that I'm advocating doing it here, for the record.

 

[Slowpoke]

Honestly, I think the best course of action, and I really mean this, is to make a civ 5 criticism FORUM. I don't want to wade through the whining junk, but at the same time I value its puirpose and want to whine myself about stuff too. But this is rediculous, we're reaching critical whineness in general forum. It makes perfect logical sense. If greater than 75% of a forum's topics are about one major family of topics, a forum split is the best course of action.

 

[aguds]

Many game forums have one sticky each for praise and rants.

Funny that you used Empire as an example, OP, I remember those threads got full and was started over like 10 times. Man, that was a game to complain about..

 

[kaltorak]

It would be easier to make it for the civ5 lovers, the thread would be much smaller.

 

[masterminded]

This statement is where we part company. I do not believe that moving similar conversations into one thread "stifles constructive dialogue, marginalizes people, and divides the community". We have two differing opinions, it's as simple as that.

Wait is your opinion? Now it seems like you do support moving all critical posts into one thread when you just stated that you don't want redundant threads. But mods already close duplicate threads when another is facilitating a conversation on the topic. Again, this all seems incoherent to me.

And you never explained why censorship does not do what I have argued it does. You merely just asserted it away. That's not very compelling.

 

[masterminded]

+1

Great post.

Also, re: this whole discussion, a limited amount of censorship is required on message boards. Mods warning people for insulting other posters, for instance, is censorship on a certain level, as in real life the law protects your right to express your opinion that someone is an idiot. It keeps things civil for everyone, makes the forums easier to read for the majority, and keeps discusison from getting bogged down into ridiculous flame wars.

Free speech is a brilliant ideal, one I completely agree with, but free speech on forums needs regulation. Unless you want CivFanatics to turn into (though the resulting anon protests at Firaxis offices would be hilarious.

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.

 

[Vordeo]

It would be easier to make it for the civ5 lovers, the thread would be much smaller.

Obviously, people who are happy with things don't complain as much.

 

[masterminded]

I still haven't seen anyone address the criticism that I have levied and a mod seems to sympathize with: the criticism of this game is so broad and varied that forcing all critical posts into one thread would render it unmanageable. There are just too many conversations that would simultaneously be occurring and it would quickly become incoherent. The result is that due to the limited space for such speech, it would become stifled. This is bad and outweighs the convenience of those who don't want to see multiple threads of criticism.

Please consider the trade-offs of such a policy. It marginalizes people who disagree with you. You can gainsay that point all you want, but I know that I would feel such to the point of no longer visiting this site and I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

I repeat: I haven't seen anyone address the criticism of this policy. One thread is unmanageable.

 

[Vordeo]

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.

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?

But that's not what is at issue, which is whether criticism of the game should be censored.

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

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

I still haven't seen anyone address the criticism that I have levied and a mod seems to sympathize with: the criticism of this game is so broad and varied that forcing all critical posts into one thread would render it unmanageable.

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.

 

[kaltorak]

Obviously, people who are happy with things don't complain as much.

Players that matter do. Over the past years reading this forums, there are some posters that get to you. Mostly great civ players. You learn to pay special attention to their posts, since they know so much about civ.

Since civ5 release, all of them who have pronounced themselves, weren't happy with civ5.

So yeah, there are players who like civ, but for me, the important civ community members don't.

Also, my civ fan friends don't like it, and the friends that never liked civ do. And imo those count much less.

 

[masterminded]

On your first point, the boards are readable as is. Superjay covered this.

On your second point, you still haven't addressed my argument; you've merely asserted otherwise and claim you disagree. Give us a compelling argument.

On your third point, this is more assertion. Please address the argument. Why will the thread avoid becoming unmanageable if all criticisms are pushed into one small outlet? How does this not stifle speech? You may disagree, but you proffer no reason why others should side with your position.

I don't think you can speak for "most" people on the board without actually finding out if their opinions coincide with yours. Even if you narrow down "most" to those just on this thread, I would suggest you look at the poll.

And of course it is up to the mods to decide. No one is disputing this, but the OP is asking for something and critics of that proposal are pushing back.