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

[masterminded]

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.

Could you tell me who these great players are? I'm not criticizing you or trying to catch you, I'm just interested in their analysis. The only one I've read in depth is Sulla.

 

[Vordeo]

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.

*snip*

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

Er... given your location, I'm guessing English isn't your first language, so think there's been a misunderstanding here. My only point was that if people are happy with something they aren't as likely to go online and comment about it as people who aren't happy.

If I go to a McDonalds and get decent service and a good meal, I'm probably not going online to start a thread somewhere about how McDonalds is great. If, however, I get crap service and a horrible horrible meal, I'm far more likely to go online and start bashing McDonalds.

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

Assuming you're replying to me here and that the points are the bits in between quotes?

I wasn't referring to these boards, I'm making the point that all boards in general are censored by necessity.

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.

All criticism on forums is censored by necessity. Are you actually disputing that?

Now, for the reason I don't think thread merging = censorship, see the bookstore analogy. Moving discussion on one topic into a single thread both concentrate all discussion in one thread (leading to more ideas in the discussion) and a less cluttered board. Also, large threads (I'm talking 700+ pages) on other boards I frequent have worked quite well (though that does depend on board culture to an extent).

Again, that's thread merging in general. The proposal of the OP is a whole different story.

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 was actually referring in that bit to the idea of the OP, which I don't think was made clear enough.

So I actually agree with that idea, even though I think your arguments haven't exactly been convinving.

 

[Ighten]

I dont think the criticsm thread for Empire ever worked (though the amount of criticsm was deserved for that pile of junk), all it did was create a uncoherant mass of unrelated posts ..

The only way it can work is to have a criticsm section with individual topics..

TBH you will probably find all that will happen in a few months is that normality will restore itself anyway so just leave it as it is, its already quite obvious which posters threads you dont need to bother reading

 

[Palfouri]

I dont think the criticsm thread for Empire ever worked (though the amount of criticsm was deserved for that pile of junk), all it did was create a uncoherant mass of unrelated posts ..

We're not discussing "working". People who make these threads with the expectation of things getting fixed are hypocrites give that they're also the ones complaining about Firaxis abandoning the hardcore fanbase. It's either one or the other.

 

[vandyr]

This really needs to happen. Civfanatics is becoming a cesspool, and its unfortunate. The whiners even make their way into the subforums.

 

[r_rolo1]

We're not discussing "working". People who make these threads with the expectation of things getting fixed are hypocrites give that they're also the ones complaining about Firaxis abandoning the hardcore fanbase. It's either one or the other.

You are wrong in this, and i can put a counter-example in the table : me I never said Firaxis was abandoning their fan base (at worst i said that they refused to learn lessons from past games ) and I complain a lot about the game because I want the game fixed ( given that the previous experience with Firaxis bugfixing in civ taught me that their bugfix works mostly on complaints and if there are no complaints, things don't get fixed even if they need to be ).

Generalization is so cliché

 

[ohioastronomy]

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.

You then report the offending post or politely attempt a redirect. It actually works, you know.

Or you could start a thread asking the moderators to be more aggressive in weeding out unproductive arguments. There are several fanatic defenders of the game, appearing in this thread, who are consistently nasty and dismissive towards anyone unhappy with the current game. There are vocal and reflexive critics of the game too. Neither add much to any conversation; both need to be warned.

I actually like disenvoweling rather than removal of posts, by the way. You leave posts in, and people can sort of figure out what you said if they want to, but if you act like a jerk then your provcations can be easily skipped.

But, regardless, this particular tactic would wreck the forums. So if Sulla posts another detailed walkthrough illustrating problems in the game it gets dumped in a junk thread because a couple of people here can't bear to see criticism of their game. Why is that a good idea?

 

[SuperJay]

You know, just a thought:

We are responsible for this situation, every one of us. Are you a hater? A fanboy? Probably neither, right? You probably have pretty nuanced opinions of Civ5 and like certain aspects of it, and maybe aren't so crazy about other aspects of it. You're probably taking one side or another, but you're probably not blindly loving the game or blindly hating it, are you?

I know the knee-jerk reaction is "X crowd is WRONG and they need to STOP," but that's just not going to happen, realistically. The inflammatory comments from both sides just make it worse and worse, but it's easier to just point fingers and accuse everyone ELSE of being in the wrong than admit that most of us are part of the problem. Everyone has to give a little and meet halfway if we're going to have a more mature, constructive dialogue on this forum.

Thing is, very few people care enough and are humble or mature enough to really do that. Are you?

I'm half-tempted to try and start a thread / petition where people could pledge to engage more civilly (or not engage at all, when they can't). But I'm pretty sure it'd just get laughed at and ignored, because most people want someone ELSE to put the effort into resolving (or removing) the contention.

 

[charon2112]

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.

I didn't say critical, I said similar. Don't put words in my mouth. And I have ALWAYS had this opinion.

And simply saying that there are just soooo many complaints about Civ V that this wouldn't work is ridiculous.

I don't need to argue with you about censorship, I simply disagree with your opinion on the matter.

 

[charon2112]

But, regardless, this particular tactic would wreck the forums. So if Sulla posts another detailed walkthrough illustrating problems in the game it gets dumped in a junk thread because a couple of people here can't bear to see criticism of their game. Why is that a good idea?

My idea wouldn't affect a new walkthrough by Sulla in any way. My idea is simply to put new threads that don't offer a new idea or viewpoint into a one or more stickied threads where these ideas and opinions have already been expressed (at the mods discretion). A new walkthrough by Sulla would most definitely offer new ideas.

 

[SuperJay]

My idea is simply to put new threads that don't offer a new idea or viewpoint into a one or more stickied threads where these ideas and opinions have already been expressed...

But the mods already DO do that. Not put them in a new thread, but they lock repetitive threads already, and in some cases do merge similar threads together.

If you see repetitive threads, just report them. Try helping the mods do their job instead of just complaining that they're not doing it thoroughly enough for your liking.

 

[charon2112]

Sometimes they do. But I'd like to see a couple of stickied threads for all "I hate Civ V!" or "I love Civ V!" redundant threads to be merged into. And believe me, I DO report threads that are duplicates...

But the mods already DO do that. Not put them in a new thread, but they lock repetitive threads already, and in some cases do merge similar threads together.

If you see repetitive threads, just report them. Try helping the mods do their job instead of just complaining that they're not doing it thoroughly enough for your liking.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

But the mods already DO do that. Not put them in a new thread, but they lock repetitive threads already, and in some cases do merge similar threads together.

If you see repetitive threads, just report them. Try helping the mods do their job instead of just complaining that they're not doing it thoroughly enough for your liking.

Indeed is most usefull reporting useless threads, whining post with no evidence of valuable critics and so on than trash all the non-pro game stuff in a thread-bin....

 

[Palfouri]

So if Sulla posts another detailed walkthrough illustrating problems in the game it gets dumped in a junk thread because a couple of people here can't bear to see criticism of their game. Why is that a good idea?

Because there's a strategy forum he could dump it in if he really wanted to show people all the ways to break the game you're not forced to used and somehow use it to justify why the game is terrible despite the same thing existing in Civ IV.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Because there's a strategy forum he could dump it in if he really wanted to show people all the ways to break the game you're not forced to used and somehow use it to justify why the game is terrible despite the same thing existing in Civ IV.

You are starting some type of Jihad against every different opinion or criticism, usefull or not... Even the poor Sullla...

And to make your posts legible please use punctuation...

 

[charon2112]

You are starting some type of Jihad against every different opinion or criticism, usefull or not... Even the poor Sullla...

And to make your posts legible please use punctuation...

You are somehow equating wanting an organized forum with a holy war?

 

[vandyr]

I quit visiting this forum about a week after civ 5 came out just because of this nonsense, and upon returning now I see its still the same. The same people making the same complaint threads with the same responders piling into them to tout the 'horrific insult" to the civ community that Firaxis has supposedly dumped on us. I swear this place is starting to look like an MMO forum once the WoW fanboy invasion hits it. There's almost nothing whatsoever constructive to be found here anymore...even the sarcastic and snide remarks have made their way into posts in the strategy section when people ask questions or look for information.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

You are somehow equating wanting an organized forum with a holy war?

An organized forum is what Civfanatics was until now. He stated of some sort of ostracization even for strategic advices pointing out some defects of the product we are playing...

And you just need to wait a little that the more stubborn ones cool down, the mods make their work as always and such.... If you think is usefull report redundant threads, or whinig post, do it. You'll help the mods a lot...


If you don't like it, if you want wage this sort of holy separation war based on a simple critic (not a whining one), maybe you need to find a forum that fit better your necessities and expectations..

That's my thinking...

 

[The_J]

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

Sometimes they do. But I'd like to see a couple of stickied threads for all "I hate Civ V!" or "I love Civ V!" redundant threads to be merged into. And believe me, I DO report threads that are duplicates...

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.

 

[Palfouri]

An organized forum is what Civfanatics was until now. He stated of some sort of ostracization even for strategic advices pointing out some defects of the product we are playing...

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