The Civvies.

[hbdragon88]

I proposed a similar idea and it got shot down pretty quickly with the out-and-out dissisters and the "well, maybe" people and the "sure!" members. I'd like to look for the thread - it died in November or December, I think.

 

[Bifrost]

Such things are not appreciated on CFC. If you like someone, send him a PM, or a valentine . K*s***s threads are doomed.

 

[Unregister]

You have way too much time on your hands china.....

 

[china444]

I actually thought of it falling asleep... here was my original ver.
The thunderfall song(sung to the theme of Jingle Bells)
Thunder.fall
Thunder.fall
Thunder all the way,
O what fun it is to mod at modern CFCeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
(Thanks for the comment Unregister)
(ask me for any more versions, theyre not too hard to make up)

 

[Bamspeedy]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
Had an idea for the site this morning -- how about a not-so-serious, but still reverent awards ceremony for contributions to CivFanatics?

I was thinking in particular that it would be nice to give some kind of formal recognition to Bamspeedy for his (or her) many fascinating articles on Civ3 strategy...

The winners could get a special award icon added to their Avatar field.

Having an article included into the war academy, and having everyone notified about it on the home page of civfanatics is good enough of a recognition. Other people give good comments to me in the article itself or in other posts where I give a good response/information.

While I wouldn't have a problem with the kind of awards you are mentioning, I can see the problems with why some people would be against it. People would be foolish to think that in any kind of voting there won't be some kind of popularity involved influencing 'some' (but certainly not everyone's) votes if members are allowed to vote. If just the staff or Thunderfall is making the choice of who receives the award, that would put them in an uncomfortable situation they may not want to put themselves into if they are trying to decide between 2 very good candidates. And there may be some animosity between those that didn't get elected towards those that made the decisions.

There have been threads about these things before. One thread did involve a poll where they asked people to vote. This would be the worst, especially when you see people with 0 votes.

There was another thread which didn't ask people to vote, but just asked for nominations for the 'ultimate Civfanatic' in the Civ3 forum. I don't see why this would be a problem, since there was no vote, and no award. The thread started out OK, with some people voting for the obvious choice of Thunderfall. But then there were people that were suggesting post count should be the only factor (regardless of content of what they post), and then a debate came about as to what the true definition of a civfanatic is. That thread got shot down after 1 complaint from someone who doesn't even play Civ3 because he loses tanks to spearman. If he doesn't play Civ3, what was he doing in the Civ3 GD forum? Then he goes crying to the OT, because he read too much into what people were posting, and he was thinking (very wrongly) that people were saying off-topic posters were less human than other people because we don't think their OT posts should count towards being the 'ultimate' CIVFANATIC. Where he got the idea that post counts (either quantity or quality) defines how good of a person you are I have no idea. The thread wasn't about 'who is the best person', which very well may be someone from the OT forums. The guy apparently had a problem with all the nominations for people who play Civ3 (what would you expect in the Civ3 forums?) and couldn't just make his nomination (or not post at all in that thread since he wasn't actually 'contributing' to the thread) and move on.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
There was another thread which didn't ask people to vote, but just asked for nominations for the 'ultimate Civfanatic' in the Civ3 forum. I don't see why this would be a problem, since there was no vote, and no award. The thread started out OK, with some people voting for the obvious choice of Thunderfall. But then there were people that were suggesting post count should be the only factor (regardless of content of what they post), and then a debate came about as to what the true definition of a civfanatic is. That thread got shot down after 1 complaint from someone who doesn't even play Civ3 because he loses tanks to spearman. If he doesn't play Civ3, what was he doing in the Civ3 GD forum? Then he goes crying to the OT, because he read too much into what people were posting, and he was thinking (very wrongly) that people were saying off-topic posters were less human than other people because we don't think their OT posts should count towards being the 'ultimate' CIVFANATIC. Where he got the idea that post counts (either quantity or quality) defines how good of a person you are I have no idea. The thread wasn't about 'who is the best person', which very well may be someone from the OT forums. The guy apparently had a problem with all the nominations for people who play Civ3 (what would you expect in the Civ3 forums?) and couldn't just make his nomination (or not post at all in that thread since he wasn't actually 'contributing' to the thread) and move on.

I remember that thread vaguely... You are not talking about me, are you?

Anyway, basically we differ in the definition of Civfanatic. Some think civfanatics only meant people who play Civ (reasonable assumption). Some think civfanatics meant CFCers i.e. all and any kind of posters at CFC's forums (some of us find posting at CFC to be more addictive than Civ... ).

Anyway, it's ancient history now.