Why do people take it personally?

[charon2112]

This sounds like marginalizing an opinion by ghettoizing it. And yes, I'm fully aware of the implications of that word. These suggestions are shameful.

You may be exaggerating a tad. I'm not talking about squashing anyone's opinion, but there's no reason we can't have a tidy forum. Most forums are actually run this way.

 

[brianshapiro]

You may be exaggerating a tad. I'm not talking about squashing anyone's opinion, but there's no reason we can't have a tidy forum. Most forums are actually run this way.

I don't see why people care if there are many civ5 hate threads, personally. People don't have to participate in them. They don't make it impossible to find other threads either.

 

[Wardancing]

You may be exaggerating a tad. I'm not talking about squashing anyone's opinion, but there's no reason we can't have a tidy forum. Most forums are actually run this way.

Shoving everything into one single thread is basically squashing peoples opinions IMO. I bought up something about steams offline mode, i was shoved into the 170+ page steam thread, my comment was lost in the pile.

I do agree that the forums (any) can always use cleaning up. Maybe when one subject gets its 10th topic, a new subgroup could be made? This could keep issues somewhat confined, but still not to the point of just throwing them all into one thread.

 

[charon2112]

I don't see why people care if there are many civ5 hate threads, personally. People don't have to participate in them. They don't make it impossible to find other threads either.

My post was about having one "I hate Civ V" thread, and one "I love Civ V" thread...I didn't single out hate threads.

 

[charon2112]

Shoving everything into one single thread is basically squashing peoples opinions IMO. I bought up something about steams offline mode, i was shoved into the 170+ page steam thread, my comment was lost in the pile.

Well, "lost in the pile" is where repeat threads (like or hate) belong if they don't bring up a very original idea.

 

[Wardancing]

My post was about having one thread for "I hate Civ V" thread, and one for "I love Civ V" thread...I didn't single out hate threads.

But there are people who have no good reason for either liking or hating it, and then theres people who have real reasoning. Why shove them all into single threads?

What youre saying will happen, Lost in the pile, is what happens when you shove all the hate and all the love into single threads.

 

[charon2112]

But there are people who have no good reason for either liking or hating it, and then theres people who have real reasoning. Why shove them all into single threads?

It's up to the mods to determine what is an original idea that's worthy of a dedicated thread, and what isn't...

 

[brianshapiro]

It's up to the mods to determine what is an original idea that's worthy of a dedicated thread, and what isn't...

Why bother to make that distinction and create controversy? I don't think theres a real problem that needs to be dealt with.

 

[masterminded]

You may be exaggerating a tad. I'm not talking about squashing anyone's opinion, but there's no reason we can't have a tidy forum. Most forums are actually run this way.

Marginalizing all opinions in regard to the quality of the game to one thread has the effect of squashing them, whether you choose to recognize this or not.

Please, spare me concerns over having a tidy forum. These practices are intended so that similar issued can be grouped together into one thread to prevent the same conversation from splintering all over a forum. This isn't a concern with one facet of the game or bugs. The arguments regarding the pitfalls of the game are from various perspectives and address nearly every design element in the game. They are too large and comprehensive to be relegated to one thread.

And I'm not exaggerating.

Edit: Let me expand upon this somewhat. Complaints about the same issue, problems with bugs, or short posts expressing satisfaction/dissatisfaction are usually relegated to one thread for the sake of a "tidy forum." With Civ V, there are a substantial number (whether it be a minority or not) of vocal members on this forum that do not like it. Many of their reasons are similar, but many are not similar at all. Aggregating them all into one thread will have the opposite effect of tidiness, as the issues in question are complex and numerous enough to warrant multiple threads. It will be impossible to discuss the AI's behavior during diplomacy, the reworking of food/strategic/luxury resources, and the absence of espionage all at once in a coherent manner. This is something that is difficult enough to do in one thread, as multiple conversations usually develop. Lumping everything into one thread will have the long-term effect of stifling conversation and marginalizing critics of the game. This is a subtler form of censorship. This is not an exaggeration. It is what you are endorsing, whether you wish to admit to it or not.

Finally, I will acknowledge that not all posters are constructive. There's plenty of flaming, trolling, etc. on both sides of this issue. However, those threads are shut down rather quickly or the posters are warned by the mods. That is a non-issue.

 

[Thormodr]

I think the discussion on these forums is fine. There's no need to try and herd all the people that are dissatisfied into one thread.

If people don't talk about other posters and actually stick to the issues then there shouldn't be any problems. You shouldn't care if someone else calls it Shafer 5, Civ Noob, Civ Simple or whatever.

Calls for locking threads and censoring people because they merely disagree with them reeks of desperation to be honest. Are people really that insecure?

Frankly, I don't see why the "passionate defenders of the game" are so upset. If you like the game then good for you. Go and play it. Why should you care what other people think? There is absolutely no need to take it personally. Just ignore the person and move on. That's what the ignore poster option is for.

 

[charon2112]

This is a subtler form of censorship...

You do need to understand that this is a privately owned forum, you have absolutely no freedom of speech here. But like I said, I want all opinions expressed, just in an organized way.

 

[Venereus]

it's been suggested to death. There should be one 'hate' thread, and one 'love' thread...

worst.idea.ever.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think the discussion on these forums is fine. There's no need to try and herd all the people that are dissatisfied into one thread.

This is correct. They should lock threads that serve no purpose other than venting and raging. Any thread, however critical, that actually has something to say is fine. Unless its the 45th thread on the same topic, of course.

If sheep-like praise was, for some reason, filling up the forum it should be dealt with as well. It is not, so this isn't an issue at this time.

If people don't talk about other posters and actually stick to the issues then there shouldn't be any problems. You shouldn't care if someone else calls it Shafer 5, Civ Noob, Civ Simple or whatever.

Calling it Civ Noob is an attack on other posters, and denying that this is the case is bunk. The implication is obvious and there is no reason to try and doubletalk your way out of it.

Calls for locking threads and censoring people because they merely disagree with them reeks of desperation to be honest. Are people really that insecure?

I actually liked Sulla's criticism of the game and it was pretty damning. The trick was that it actually explained itself and was interesting to read in its own right. Criticism like that is a major contribution to the forum.

Frankly, I don't see why the "passionate defenders of the game" are so upset. If you like the game then good for you. Go and play it. Why should you care what other people think? There is absolutely no need to take it personally. Just ignore the person and move on. That's what the ignore poster option is for.

Your signature is a personal attack. CivStupid and CivNoob are intended as personal attacks.

I can't speak for the passionate defenders of the game as I am not one of them.

 

[masterminded]

You do need to understand that this is a privately owned forum, you have absolutely no freedom of speech here. But like I said, I want all opinions expressed, just in an organized way.

You have a habit of restating my arguments/questions/claims/etc. as strawmen and then responding to them.

I never claimed that I have a right to freedom of speech on this forum, but that relegating all posts that criticize the game into one thread is a subtle form of censorship. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines censor as such: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>. Whether or not I have any rights on a private forum has nothing to do with this.

Furthermore, I made an argument describing how such marginalization would lead to censorship. You completely ignored it.

Finally, spare me the pedantic and belittling reply about what I need to understand. You often complain about the puerile behavior of those who criticize the game. Why then do you adopt such a stance?

 

[Thormodr]

This is correct. They should lock threads that serve no purpose other than venting and raging. Any thread, however critical, that actually has something to say is fine. Unless its the 45th thread on the same topic, of course.

If sheep-like praise was, for some reason, filling up the forum it should be dealt with as well. It is not, so this isn't an issue at this time.



Calling it Civ Noob is an attack on other posters, and denying that this is the case is bunk. The implication is obvious and there is no reason to try and doubletalk your way out of it.



I actually liked Sulla's criticism of the game and it was pretty damning. The trick was that it actually explained itself and was interesting to read in its own right. Criticism like that is a major contribution to the forum.



Your signature is a personal attack. CivStupid and CivNoob are intended as personal attacks.

People are voicing their opinions about the game. It's only when it's negative that you don't like it. When you participate on forums, you have to understand that there are people that are going to disagree with you. Accept it and move along.

*Yawn* Shafer 5 was designed with noobs in mind. That's the target audience. However, if you play it, it doesn't magically make you a noob. Weak inference and argument.

Sullla's critique of the game was indeed excellent. (By the way, in case you didn't notice, he spells it with 3 l's. ) I am quite enjoying the succession game he is in right now. The players are really good at reducing the game to its simplest elements. So, I am still deriving some satisfaction from Shafer 5 in my own little way.

I am not sure where you got CivStupid from. I have never used that term.

Finally, if you don't like what I post, put me on ignore. It's not that hard a concept. Then you won't be traumatized by my signature anymore.

 

[AlpsStranger]

People are voicing their opinions about the game. It's only when it's negative that you don't like it. When you participate on forums, you have to understand that there are people that are going to disagree with you. Accept it and move along.

That's not true. I don't have any use for moronic fawning threads. They are not as common so they aren't worth discussing. I accept that they may disagree with me. I don't accept them turning any thread that isn't nailed down into a vent for bashing Civ5.

*Yawn* Shafer 5 was designed with noobs in mind. That's the target audience. However, if you play it, it doesn't magically make you a noob. Weak inference and argument.

I still maintain that the 'noob' talk is not simply directed at the game but people who play it. I never claimed that you literally thought that playing Civ5 magically made you a noob, but I feel like you are saying that only a noob would play Civ5.

Sullla's critique of the game was indeed excellent. (By the way, in case you didn't notice, he spells it with 3 l's. ) I am quite enjoying the succession game he is in right now. The players are really good at reducing the game to its simplest elements. So, I am still deriving some satisfaction from Shafer 5 in my own little way.

He spells it with 3 l's on this forum for some reason. Perhaps someone else already had the name? In the review itself and on his site he spells it in the usual way. I refer to him as Sulla because he appears to do so himself.

Ok so even on his site he uses both spellings. I have no idea what is going on I have seen him use Sulla as often as Sullla and prefer the actual spelling.

I am not sure where you got CivStupid from but I have never used that term.

I'm not sure if it was you to be honest. I know I have seen it.

Finally, if you don't like what I post, put me on ignore. It's not that hard a concept. Then you won't be traumatized by my signature anymore.

I really don't ignore people. I am interested in what is going on, and I value the opinions of people that don't like the game. I won't pretend I don't find your signature extremely irritating, but I can learn to live with it.

Thormodr, I don't want to come across as simply trying to suppress people's opinions. I really don't feel that is what I am doing. I simply don't like the idea of a 'forum riot' however upset people are.

 

[Jediron]

I have only one thing to say to the OP:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

thank you

 

[Venereus]

I don't want to come across as simply trying to suppress people's opinions. I really don't feel that is what I am doing. I simply don't like the idea of a 'forum riot' however upset people are.

It's not your job to keep "forum riots" from happening, it's the moderators' job, and that's only if it happens, and after it has started. As long as that's the case, your attempts to fight what's a non-issue for others only makes you come across as trying to suppress people's opinions.

 

[Vordeo]

This sounds like marginalizing an opinion by ghettoizing it. And yes, I'm fully aware of the implications of that word. These suggestions are shameful.

Like Charon said, most threads are actually run that way. If I'd started another thread about the free Mongol DLC, the mods would've merged it into the existing thread. It avoids cluttering up the board, and cuts down on both bandwidth and redundant discussion. I see no reason why the multitudes of moaning threads shouldn't be subject to the same rules.

And frankly, I don't appreciate the Nazi insinuation. It's overreaction to the highest degree, and pretty insulting.

I don't see why people care if there are many civ5 hate threads, personally. People don't have to participate in them. They don't make it impossible to find other threads either.

The hate threads are stupid (IMO), and having too many of them is redundant and pointless, but I don't particularly mind them (though I would prefer many of them merged).

My main problem is how just about every discussion on this board goes back to people complaining about the flaws of CiV that have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

Marginalizing all opinions in regard to the quality of the game to one thread has the effect of squashing them, whether you choose to recognize this or not.

Your opinion. Others may disagree, and frankly your opinion isn't necessarily more correct than others, whether you choose to recognize that fact or not.

Edit: Let me expand upon this somewhat. Complaints about the same issue, problems with bugs, or short posts expressing satisfaction/dissatisfaction are usually relegated to one thread for the sake of a "tidy forum." With Civ V, there are a substantial number (whether it be a minority or not) of vocal members on this forum that do not like it. Many of their reasons are similar, but many are not similar at all. Aggregating them all into one thread will have the opposite effect of tidiness, as the issues in question are complex and numerous enough to warrant multiple threads.

That's your opinion. In the end, whether or not these warrant separate threads is the decision of the mods.

I think the discussion on these forums is fine. There's no need to try and herd all the people that are dissatisfied into one thread.

No one's calling for that (or at least I'm not).

However, I do advocate moving all threads complaining about, say, city state balance into one thread. Because we don't really need dozens of threads that essentially go "I was playing the game and the AI did something stupid boo Firaxis you've ruined my life!" The definitions of what exactly are redundant threads will be up to the mods, of course.

If people don't talk about other posters and actually stick to the issues then there shouldn't be any problems. You shouldn't care if someone else calls it Shafer 5, Civ Noob, Civ Simple or whatever.

That's my main problem: people often don't, and threads get derailed into discussions like these.

Calls for locking threads and censoring people because they merely disagree with them reeks of desperation to be honest. Are people really that insecure?

No, they 'reek' of wanting to actually read discussion that doesn't centre around moaning.

Lastly, since somehow the discussion has turned to your calling the game Schafer V and your sig, I don't see any problems with it. I don't agree with it, but it's your signature. It is, however, pretty provocative.

It's not your job to keep "forum riots" from happening, it's the moderators' job, and that's only if it happens, and after it has started. As long as that's the case, your attempts to fight what's a non-issue for others only makes you come across as trying to suppress people's opinions.

From this thread, it looks like you're the one trying to suppress his opinion, actually.

 

[Thormodr]

That's not true. I don't have any use for moronic fawning threads. They are not as common so they aren't worth discussing. I accept that they may disagree with me. I don't accept them turning any thread that isn't nailed down into a vent for bashing Civ5.



I still maintain that the 'noob' talk is not simply directed at the game but people who play it. I never claimed that you literally thought that playing Civ5 magically made you a noob, but I feel like you are saying that only a noob would play Civ5.



He spells it with 3 l's on this forum for some reason. Perhaps someone else already had the name? In the review itself and on his site he spells it in the usual way. I refer to him as Sulla because he appears to do so himself.

Ok so even on his site he uses both spellings. I have no idea what is going on I have seen him use Sulla as often as Sullla and prefer the actual spelling.



I'm not sure if it was you to be honest. I know I have seen it.



I really don't ignore people. I am interested in what is going on, and I value the opinions of people that don't like the game. I won't pretend I don't find your signature extremely irritating, but I can learn to live with it.

Thormodr, I don't want to come across as simply trying to suppress people's opinions. I really don't feel that is what I am doing. I simply don't like the idea of a 'forum riot' however upset people are.

I respect your more reasoned tone.

Basically, I think the game is crap. An insult to long term fans of this game. People that have been very loyal and have spent a lot of money over the years on this series. So, I won't back down from calling a spade a spade and I won't feel bad doing it.

If people like the game, then more power to them. I tried to love it. I truly did my best trying all kinds of unorthodox ways of playing and they all came up flat. So, I've learned to accept that this game in all likelihood will never be for me. C'est la vie. I'll wait for Civ VI.

Anyway, I hope that if enough people take a strong stance on wanting a quality Civ game and these people tell Firaxis and 2K Games that we find their latest game completely unacceptable then we can really engender positive change. It is naive to think that playing nice with them will ever yield anything. I admire the idealism but in the business world, money trumps all.