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

[dexters]

On the subject of censorship, as I understand it, CFC or any forum where people actively 'sign up' are not democracies, nor do the rights of speech extend to it.

I'm not saying close every thread the mods disagree with, but forums are private gathering places and the admins ultimately have final say on how they want discussion to be handled.

Bringing speech, rights for free speech into the equation is not productive. It engenders the us vs. them attitude that is already well entrenched with some people for no particular reason.

I don't think we need 'ONE' (1) rant thread, and the forum has calmed down a lot in the past week, but there's a lot of redundant stuff, and the vast majority of complaints that are well covered, or maybe even borderline invalid because of user failure.

I'm fine with the things as they are. I think the real issue we had was an organized gang of complaining derailing threads more than there being lots of complaint threads, mostly covering the same topic.

I think the latter has more to do with human nature. If the game isn't working as intended, most people's 1st reaction is to log in and say X feature isn't working in MY game or X is 'broken', without fact checking or checking even if a thread on the same issue is already posted and on the front page.

That really is more a matter of education. And frankly, with the kind of volume we are seeing, I don't envy the mod's at the moment. I say just tolerate those repetitve posts for a while. they will die down eventually.

 

[SuperJay]

That really is more a matter of education. And frankly, with the kind of volume we are seeing, I don't envy the mod's at the moment. I say just tolerate those repetitve posts for a while. they will die down eventually.

Exactly. Better yet, help the mods do their (unpaid, completely volunteer) jobs by reporting the threads that are repetitive. Be reasonable about it; don't just report what you disagree with because you're upset.

Everyone has a choice: sit on the sidelines, flame other CFC members, and complain about he forum (thereby adding to the 'hating') or try and be part of the solution.

So far in this thread, I see a lot of complaining and not a lot of willingness to help. Try doing your part, rather than sitting on your hands and whining about how someone else isn't solving all your problems for you.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Again, defects which exist in Civ IV and every other Civ game. Does that means they're broken and unfixable?

No, as well speaking of them doesn't mean hating the game or bashing it for fun...
But to give ideas to modders, or even developers to fix them, and to have a technical discussion on the game... If you don't like this way of discussion, because you take personal offense by any critic, idea or such, maybe you need to create your own forum or find one that shares the same way of thinking you have (difficult but possible)...

When Civ IV was relased we have spoken a lot about the tech issues, and about ideas to make it better, so it happens for Civ V... It is not pure gold that we can't work, dude...

 

[Palfouri]

No, as well speaking of them doesn't mean hating the game or bashing it for fun...
But to give ideas to modders, or even developers to fix them, and to have a technical discussion on the game...

Except the point of Sulla's defect hunt is to show the game is UNfixable because there are exploits you hae the OPTION of using to win the game. Because clearly using exploits is a clear indication of how broken a game is.

 

[masterminded]

On the subject of censorship, as I understand it, CFC or any forum where people actively 'sign up' are not democracies, nor do the rights of speech extend to it.

I'm not saying close every thread the mods disagree with, but forums are private gathering places and the admins ultimately have final say on how they want discussion to be handled.

Bringing speech, rights for free speech into the equation is not productive. It engenders the us vs. them attitude that is already well entrenched with some people for no particular reason.

I don't think we need 'ONE' (1) rant thread, and the forum has calmed down a lot in the past week, but there's a lot of redundant stuff, and the vast majority of complaints that are well covered, or maybe even borderline invalid because of user failure.

I'm fine with the things as they are. I think the real issue we had was an organized gang of complaining derailing threads more than there being lots of complaint threads, mostly covering the same topic.

I think the latter has more to do with human nature. If the game isn't working as intended, most people's 1st reaction is to log in and say X feature isn't working in MY game or X is 'broken', without fact checking or checking even if a thread on the same issue is already posted and on the front page.

That really is more a matter of education. And frankly, with the kind of volume we are seeing, I don't envy the mod's at the moment. I say just tolerate those repetitve posts for a while. they will die down eventually.

I'm the one that has brought up the topic of censorship. Please read my posts on the subject. Every time I have brought up the topic, others have criticized me for injecting speech rights and government censorship into the equation. But at no point do I ever appeal appeal to rights. In fact, I typically agree that this is a privately owned forum and the mods can censor speech without incident. My point was that censorship in this case is bad because it has certain effects (e.g. marginalizes constructive opinion, etc.). This has nothing to do with rights. You may be under the impression that the topic is about rights because no matter how many times I clarify the subject, the same criticism is levied at me. At this point, it feels like an unfair smear attack.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Except the point of Sulla's defect hunt is to show the game is UNfixable because there are exploits you hae the OPTION of using to win the game. Because clearly using exploits is a clear indication of how broken a game is.

So the devs need to work hard to solve the problem, and as a multi player user with my friends, that's a key issue. If it means to modify the game to make it work, than that's the solution, and Sullla make a great effort to address the devs and the modders of these problems... If you like it becaue you don't use multi or because you don't like to play to highest levels as a challange, that's your choice, not of the whole community, if they made mistakes, they need to repair them... So simple, so clear...

 

[SuperJay]

...no matter how many times I clarify the subject, the same criticism is levied at me. At this point, it feels like an unfair smear attack.

Which, sadly, you should be used to by now as it seems to crop up in every thread where there is disagreement.

I admire the people here who can disagree constructively. It's not easy to be gracious and civil in those situations. Overall, I'm getting to the point where I find it's just best to ignore those responses rather than try to engage them at all. Why waste the time?

 

[charon2112]

I completely understand, I don't envy you your job. In no way would I ever try to tell you how to run your forum, I just want to throw ideas out there to help organize.

Moderator Action: Some posts here are already extremely borderline! Get civil again.



The problem with general opinions is, that it's difficult to see if they are really the same, that makes saying if a thread is redundant or not very difficult.

 

[charon2112]

The problem with some of your posts is you deliberately use incendiary language, such as "ghettoize, marginalize, censorship". Using terms like these is an exaggeration, and isn't very constructive. You complain that people read too seriously into your posts, "injecting speech rights and government censorship into the equation."...But it's impossible NOT to, when you use the terminology that you do, you are in fact inviting it.

I'm the one that has brought up the topic of censorship. Please read my posts on the subject. Every time I have brought up the topic, others have criticized me for injecting speech rights and government censorship into the equation. But at no point do I ever appeal appeal to rights. In fact, I typically agree that this is a privately owned forum and the mods can censor speech without incident. My point was that censorship in this case is bad because it has certain effects (e.g. marginalizes constructive opinion, etc.). This has nothing to do with rights. You may be under the impression that the topic is about rights because no matter how many times I clarify the subject, the same criticism is levied at me. At this point, it feels like an unfair smear attack.

 

[masterminded]

The problem with some of your posts is you deliberately use incendiary language, such as "ghettoize, marginalize, censorship". Using terms like these is an exaggeration, and isn't very constructive. You complain that people read too seriously into your posts, "injecting speech rights and government censorship into the equation."...But it's impossible NOT to, when you use the terminology that you do, you are in fact inviting it.

Charon, I'm not even sure what your overall position is because you constantly seem to contradict yourself by stating it as one thing and then siding with others when they have positions irreconcilable with your own. In your last response, you accused me of putting words in your mouth when I was asking a question and trying to get you to clarify your opinion. After all that, you accuse me of misusing language?

I stand by my use of those words. It is not an exaggeration. It has those effects. These words do NOT necessarily connote a relationship to government and rights. Words and phrases like "totalitarianism," "concentration camp," and "facism" do. I have criticized the use of these terms on this very thread as an exaggeration. Your very claim that it is impossible to see the words I've used in any other light is the exaggeration.

But if ALL critical posts were relegated to a SINGULAR thread, then the effect would be to marginalize and subtly censor the opinions of others. That is certainly how I would feel. You may not think so

I have two questions for you:

1) Why are you posting here so prolifically when your stated opinion is that threads of similar content should be grouped together? That is something completely different from your position, yet you seem to be posting as if you agree with the OP.

2) You accuse me of a use of language that is incendiary and not constructive. Isn't it also not very constructive to continually characterize my position as one way after I have repeatedly stated my position to the contrary and pleaded with you to do otherwise? Let's assume that I was wrong for the sake of argument. My use of such inflammatory language would have been unintentional. But you intentionally ignored my clarifications. You didn't address them, despite my efforts. This is by far the worse infraction.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

to be honest, masterminded has a point. If the discussion is so quiet, as i have not used offensive (or "flammable") language, and so a lot of others, those statements of yours are quite puzzling about your real position on the matter, Charon...

 

[sodrlame]

I think putting all negative comments in one place is definitely not the way to go. As someone who feels the game is good but could certainly use some improvement, I can appreciate the "haters" since without them the game would likely stay in it's current form indefinitely. I will say that it would be nice if they kept their comments in threads pertaining to "hating" or even in threads pertaining to "loving" and stay out of the general discussion threads that have nothing to do with love or hate of the game. It seems every thread regardless of the nature of the discussion has at least one "troll" expressing his disbelief that people are still playing this game. Just my two cents.

 

[charon2112]

I have never contradicted myself, I have always maintained the same position. Please quote me specifically where I state a different opinion.

My opinion is, once again is: "I believe that on an internet forum, and in the interest of keeping it organized, multiple threads that repeat the same idea, should be grouped into one thread."

This is my position now, has been my position through this entire conversation, and will remain my opinion going forward. I have never wavered on it. Please don't try to confuse the issue by throwing out inaccurate statements.

As for your questions masterminded:

1) Why are you posting here so prolifically when your stated opinion is that threads of similar content should be grouped together? That is something completely different from your position, yet you seem to be posting as if you agree with the OP.

This thread is not either a pro-civ V thread, nor an anti-civ V thread, it presents a new question (at least as far as I can tell) so should be allowed to exist on this forum. Is it your opinion that I, for some reason, should not post here? Why not? This question doesn't make much sense. It seems like YOU are trying to marginalize opinions now.

2) You accuse me of a use of language that is incendiary and not constructive. Isn't it also not very constructive to continually characterize my position as one way after I have repeatedly stated my position to the contrary and pleaded with you to do otherwise? Let's assume that I was wrong for the sake of argument. My use of such inflammatory language would have been unintentional. But you intentionally ignored my clarifications. You didn't address them, despite my efforts. This is by far the worse infraction.

You stated your position yourself, I never characterized you, I simply quoted you and your words spoke for themselves. I stand by my assessment of your terminology. You stated yourself when you first used the word "ghetto-ize", that you "understood the implications of the term" (not in this thread). So it seems you knew from the beginning that your choice of terms was incendiary.

And JLoZeppeli, if you're confused by my use of the word incendiary, here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/+incendiary, it's adjective, use number 3.

Charon, I'm not even sure what your overall position is because you constantly seem to contradict yourself by stating it as one thing and then siding with others when they have positions irreconcilable with your own. In your last response, you accused me of putting words in your mouth when I was asking a question and trying to get you to clarify your opinion. After all that, you accuse me of misusing language?

I stand by my use of those words. It is not an exaggeration. It has those effects. These words do NOT necessarily connote a relationship to government and rights. Words and phrases like "totalitarianism," "concentration camp," and "facism" do. I have criticized the use of these terms on this very thread as an exaggeration. Your very claim that it is impossible to see the words I've used in any other light is the exaggeration.

But if ALL critical posts were relegated to a SINGULAR thread, then the effect would be to marginalize and subtly censor the opinions of others. That is certainly how I would feel. You may not think so

I have two questions for you:

1) Why are you posting here so prolifically when your stated opinion is that threads of similar content should be grouped together? That is something completely different from your position, yet you seem to be posting as if you agree with the OP.

2) You accuse me of a use of language that is incendiary and not constructive. Isn't it also not very constructive to continually characterize my position as one way after I have repeatedly stated my position to the contrary and pleaded with you to do otherwise? Let's assume that I was wrong for the sake of argument. My use of such inflammatory language would have been unintentional. But you intentionally ignored my clarifications. You didn't address them, despite my efforts. This is by far the worse infraction.

to be honest, masterminded has a point. If the discussion is so quiet, as i have not used offensive (or "flammable") language, and so a lot of others, those statements of yours are quite puzzling about your real position on the matter, Charon...

 

[masterminded]

I have never contradicted myself, I have always maintained the same position. Please quote me specifically where I state a different opinion.

My opinion is, once again is: "I believe that on an internet forum, and in the interest of keeping it organized, multiple threads that repeat the same idea, should be grouped into one thread."

This is my position now, has been my position through this entire conversation, and will remain my opinion going forward. I have never wavered on it. Please don't try to confuse the issue by throwing out inaccurate statements.

Charon, no one is disputing this position. What you are advocating is already official forum policy. This thread has nothing to do with that. The contradiction is that you identify with the position above when we ask about it, but you jumped into the conversation at numerous points and criticized us for disagreeing with OP's proposal. When you side with this position rhetorically, it looks like that is your position.

And you didn't address anything I wrote about language and the distortion of my opinion.

 

[joyous_gard]

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

Nice.

 

[Elliot]

Just wait a month or 2 and most of the people who don't like the game will leave.

 

[charon2112]

This thread has nothing to do with that. The contradiction is that you identify with the position above when we ask about it, but you jumped into the conversation at numerous points and criticized us for disagreeing with OP's proposal.

There is no contradiction here. I agree with the OP in that there should be a stickied thread for general "dislike" posts, I also believe that "like" posts should have a stickied thread. I have NEVER wavered from this position or posted anything that contradicted it. Again, is these posts exist, quote me.

 

[masterminded]

There is no contradiction here. I agree with the OP in that there should be a stickied thread for general "dislike" posts, I also believe that "like" posts should have a stickied thread. I have NEVER wavered from this position or posted anything that contradicted it. Again, is these posts exist, quote me.

The OP is advocating for all posts critical of Civ V in and capacity and about any issue be relegated to one single thread. This means that bad reviews of the game go to one thread. Criticisms of the 1upt go to that same thread. Dissatisfaction with the diplomacy AI? That same thread. Dislike of steam gets lumped into that same thread.

This is different than a thread for each of these topics to avoid parallel discussions over the same policy. This is not disputed and is already forum policy.

Btw, this is the second time you have ignored my point when I called you out for mischaracterizing my position. You don't have anything to say about that?

 

[charon2112]

I didn't mis-characterize you, your posts and choice of language characterize you without help. I simply quoted you.

Now, the OP did NOT say, what you just wrote. What he said was:

"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..."

He wants to group duplicate threads together, not threads about all different topics as you would have people believe. It seems you are mis-characterizing him.

The OP is advocating for all posts critical of Civ V in and capacity and about any issue be relegated to one single thread. This means that bad reviews of the game go to one thread. Criticisms of the 1upt go to that same thread. Dissatisfaction with the diplomacy AI? That same thread. Dislike of steam gets lumped into that same thread.

This is different than a thread for each of these topics to avoid parallel discussions over the same policy. This is not disputed and is already forum policy.

Btw, this is the second time you have ignored my point when I called you out for mischaracterizing my position. You don't have anything to say about that?

 

[masterminded]

I didn't mis-characterize you, your posts and choice of language characterize you without help. I simply quoted you.

Now, the OP did NOT say, what you just wrote. What he said was:

"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..."

He wants to group duplicate threads together, not threads about all different topics as you would have people believe. It seems you are mis-characterizing him.

I qualified my position many times. You ignored it each time and continued to characterize it as such. When someone describes their position as one way and you think their language doesn't match that position, the response is to criticize the use of language and describe that person's views as they state them. The response is not to completely ignore their clarifications and their pleadings and only talk about language after others have noticed your behavior.

Charon, I don't know how many times I have to say it. My position has nothing to do with the government or rights. If you think my choice of words is inflammatory, then that's another issue. But ignoring my repeated clarifications is rude and uncivil.

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. Look at the OP's posts throughout this thread. He is advocating the equivalent of the Total War forums rules, which had ONE thread for ALL critical claims.