No room for civility any more?

[Ming]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Thanks, but for the record, should these future attacks be posted here or on the Community forum?
jt

In the community forum... that's were everybody else posts them, and that is the officail place for moderator complaints.

But feel free to do it by PM, ICQ, or Email too... many people do that as well

[Velociryx]

Thank ya, Ming, for letting the thread stand pat here. I DID think for a good while where I ought to post it, but in light of the numerous flame-oriented posts I've seen on this forum of late, I finally decided to at least start it here, with the notion that it might be moved later on.

And Arrian...lol...you know me too well then, bud! Next round's on me, btw....

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Cheers to you Brother Vel,

Couldn't agree more. Point of the matter is this little site had enuff hospitality to get a chronic lurker like me to post. I lurked at various forums but found this one to be the most CIVil.

You are dead spot on in recalling the golden age of SMAC foruming. It seemed a mecca for civil informative behavior (partially due to the leadership of the posters and most time exemplified by you). I'ld say if we were discussing CIV3 it's yet another thing that CIV3 failed to incorporate from SMAC. (Jus kidding you die hard CIV3'ers ).

Peace out,

Og

[Velociryx]

Brother Og! Where you been hiding man?! 'tis good to see your name appear on this (and in truth, any!) thread!

And by the way, thank you for the kind words! I'd like to think that the majority of my posts are of a civil nature (tho I have been known to get ummm...shall we say, rattled a time or two over in OffTopic, and very occassionally here), but it's something I really strive to do, you know? Cos I like helping newcomers, and I like having a positive influence on the boards.

Having a poster of your calibre take note of that make it all worthwhile bud....again, thank you....

-=Vel=-

[Whoha]

1) Due to the lack of sufficently different units and unbalanced units, all the strats that work have been discovered.

and
2) I doubt everyone is playing with the default rules set, I sure am not. I myself have all infrastructure reducing corruption, Higher naval movement, doubled hitpoints,etc so strats that work with my particular rules set wont work for anyone else.

[TheDarkCavalier]

so booooooooooring.... man..... brother sister, who CARES! can't you take this ... ahem... say... interesting conversation somewhere else... 'cuz it's kinda a Civ III forum, not a ga.. heh.... I mean....

[Velociryx]

Whoa: Exactly my point! Because of the lack of replayability and linear construction of the core game, modders and even casual gamers have taken to creating their own rules sets in an attempt to add longevity to the game. This, however, makes any sort of formalized discussion of strategy impossible, cos you've got a fragmented rules base.

DarkCav: While I appreciate your opinion on the matter (and by my own admission, I was somewhat torn about where to put the thread initially), I'm kinna doubting anybody put a gun to your head and forced you to read the (in your words "boring") thread, true?

It HAS relevence in this forum, because this is the place where the problem resides (or at least, where it resides most freqently). Surely you've noticed the rather large number of flamefest threads? And do these threads, in your opinion, do anything to further meaningful discussion of the game? If so, then you're right....my thread is misplaced.

-=Vel=-

[TheDarkCavalier]

You can't really say that someone put a gun to my head, but hey, I read every thread in this forum and not MANY flamethreads, but just like 2 people, Zylka and Iron---something. And if a newbie doesn't read the manual (everyone should read the manual before playing a complicated game such as Civ III) why can't someone point out that the question is stupid, and guess what, most of the stupid questions get answered anyways, just with a remark about it... so... your thread IS misplaced.

[Velociryx]

DarkCav: Can we agree to disagree then? I'd say, in looking over the other responses posted here, that you are in the minority opinon. Not that it makes you wrong, just pointing it out. You are, of course, entitled to keep whatever opinions you like....

-=Vel=-

[TheDarkCavalier]

wow.. what a minority... just because all of your ....uh..... friends are posting on this forum, doesn't necessarily mean that no one agrees with me... right?

[Velociryx]

DC: Not gonna argue with you on it. Yes. I specifically said that based on the responses here, in this thread, you appear to be in the minority. If there are others who disagree, they have not posted here. See how the logic goes?

So as not to take the thread off the current topic, mail me if you'd like to continue...how's that?

WebMaster@velociryx.every1.net


Cheers

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Well, TDC, let me tell you something you don't know...

No hardcore gamer reads the manual. First of all, part of the major joy in playing a new game is the joy of discovery and why do I want to spoil that by reading the manual.

Secondly, most games these days are shoved out of the door before they are finished, they change constantly and the manual can't keep up. Therefore, the manual will always contain bad information. Avoid it like the plague son.

Finally, I don't disagree with you because I am Vel's friend, I disagree with you because you are wrong.

jt

[Capt Dizle]

Umm, uh, oops, that wasn't civil of me, darn it.

Sigh.

[Velociryx]

I dunno JT, that was pretty civil....There was no name calling, no flaming....civil....



-=Vel=-

[Tarquelne]

The posters are also more polarized. There are many people who were very, very disappointed with Civ3 (Some for good reasons, some for not so good reasons.) Disappointment doesn't not make for healthy, productive discussion.

I'm not trying to pick on Vel, but, for example:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Whoa: Exactly my point! Because of the lack of replayability and linear construction of the core game

That statement - esp. without any "I think" or "It seems to be" or "In my experience - doesn't leave a lot of room for civil _and_ interesting discussion. There IS some room, yes... but that's the sort of statement that you produce at the end of a discussion, or the beginning of a soon-to-be-uncivil argument. Differing opinions are the heart of debate, but "Civ3 is terrible" and "Civ3 is great.", to pick an example completely at random, might be _too_ different. I've seen lots of statements from many people who are rock-steady in their conviction that Civ3 is a _seriously_ flawed game, or worse. And not just the sorts of people who "trash" any game (Istavan, anyone?), but people who loved earlier Civ games, were ready to love Civ3, but were disappointed. And, again - but I think this is an important point - disappointement does _not_ lend itself to good conversation. Those disappointed people, who'd otherwise bring a lot of enthusiasm to the board, aren't. A few of them, possibly, could even be said to be sucking the enthusiasm from the board..... that makes lots of conceptual-space for all sorts of bad things, such as newbie bashing.

OTOH, as has been pointed out, there's the number of posters. After a point more posters rarely, if ever, improve a forum. It's pretty easy for the cranks to dominate discussion. I've been newsgrouping/webforuming for just about as long as it's been possible, and I just want to say: I wish most of you would go away.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by TheDarkCavalier
why can't someone point out that the question is stupid, and guess what, most of the stupid questions get answered anyways, just with a remark
about it... so... your thread IS misplaced.

What good does it do? Pointing out where to get a specific peice of info is good... pointing out that something is, indeed, in the manual, or the 'pedia, or the readme is good.... but why should you "point out that the question is stupid."?

If you're an insecure jerk then calling attention to the ignorance of others will give you an ego-boost, sure.... but I wouldn't call that "good."

As I mentioned in the previous post, I've been online a long time, and my _experience_ (not just a princple a more-or-less arbitrarily followed) is: Just ignore stupid questions. Or even answer them, pointing out where the info can be found, if you don't have anything better to do at the moment. But generally - trust me - just ignore them.

[Velociryx]

Hiya Tarque! And I'm glad you popped in here!

Your argument is a good one, but to it, I would say this:

The topic of games is almost an entirely subjective thing. That is to say, EVERYTHING we post here is automatically prefaced with an invisible "in my opinion" riding right out front, because that's really all these threads are...matters of opinion.

Now it's true, I could begin every sentence in every post with "in my opinion" to drive that point home, but is it really necessary? I would think that it goes without saying that the words in my post are what they are....my opinions.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Tarq,

Hey you make some good points. Well, in my opinion they were good points. I mean, based on my experience, those might be good points. Uh, they seem to be. Good. Kinda.

I hope I am being sufficiently civil here. I wouldn't want to be thought of as someone who is sucking the enthusiasm from the board..... or sucking anything else for that matter. I think. It seems to me. Maybe.

jt.....

(did that guy just tell me to go away?)

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

Your opinions are your opinions and my opinions are facts. At least thats what my wife always said.

jt

[Chronus]

That statement - esp. without any "I think" or "It seems to be" or "In my experience - doesn't leave a lot of room for civil _and_ interesting discussion.

I have to agree with T's line of thinking here (assuming I understand it correctly).

Vel - I respect and appreciate the way you conduct yourself on this forum. However, using such words as "Because of the lack of replayability and linear construction of the core game . . . " can sometimes (even unintentionally) create hostility. Why? Because it can easily appear that you are asserting your opinion as a universal fact. I don't think that's the way you meant it, judging by your other posts, but it can come across that way.

I'm pretty certain that many people who post that way are simply expressing their own opinion and mean nothing more than that. Unfortunately, there are enough people who believe that their opinion is the absolute, doctrinal truth and that anyone who disagree with them is wrong . . . a rather silly notion, in my opinion, since liking or hating the game is purely subject to individual tastes. Deciphering and/or misreading a person's tone in this regard is what sometimes brings on the conflicts.

I do hope my point is well taken, Vel. It is not surprising to see why you are well respected on this board.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Now it's true, I could begin every sentence in every post with "in my opinion" to drive that point home, but is it really necessary? I would think that it goes without saying that the words in my post are what they are....my opinions.
-=Vel=-

Every sentence? Necessary? No. However, many people don't make a point of only posting opinions. I for example, often like to distinguish fact from conjecture, implicit assumption from "matter or taste", and simple-opinion from argued-conclusion. (And - btw - I think this is more important to do in text-only online discussions that it is face-to-face. Here we can't here voice tone, see body language, and generally aren't familiar with someone else's speech pattern.)


Oo, oo! Pet peeve here - Some don't make any effort to distinguish between an argument (a statement to be supported) and "b*tching." I've read the equivlent of "Leave me alone, I was just blowing off steam." quite a bit.

Still others seem to make _no_ distinction between those things. (Or - annoyingly - refuse to acknowledge those distinctions in _your_ statements.)

(Someone online once even told me that making such distinctions, and using qualifiers, is a sign of "weakness" - both intellectual and spiritual.)

[Shrug] It's just nice to sometimes be explicit about one's level of certainty.

[Capt Dizle]

Absolutely no way you can say that its a matter of taste. There are great games, good games, and mediocre games. And bad games.

Thats like saying that good beer is a matter of taste. Of course it is. The best beer is the one with the best taste. Thats the one that people buy.

And that is the whole point, Civ3 was supposed to be a great beer, but it does not taste great, and while it is less filling, I am gagging on the taste of it and thank you sir while gagging I will not add a polite IMHO.

[Velociryx]

::nodding::

'k....then allow me to rephrase that....points well taken and digested:

In my opinion...there's a reason for the fact that we're looking at Civ3, a game with a fracturing rules base (by fracturing, I mean we have LOTS of modders, and even a good many casual gamers going into the editor and making mods to bic files). Under conditions where a game has a vast native replayability and non-linear construction, you generally (again, in my experience) do not see such a fractured rules base, which leads me to the conclusion that Civ3 must then have limited viability in one and possibly both (linear game play and/or non-replayability), and one of the side effects OF that fracturing is that any meaningful discussion of detailed strategy becomes impossible, since we have large numbers of modified bic files floating about and little standardization.

Points well taken indeed, both of you....and thank ya....

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Fact: Soren increased the penalty for whipping and drafting to prevent human players from exploiting it. This was released without testing!

The result was that he managed to cripple his beloved AI, which now self-destructs in communist induced starvation. This may be realistic, hehe, but the result is that lots of people are out here playing (beta testing) are feeling pretty fed up when they invest all that time and find the AI is DOA at the middle of the industrial age.

Now, that is fact and not opinion. The law of unintended consequences caught up to Soren. That is a fact. It is a sad state of affairs. Fact.

So, why shouldn't I state it as fact.

[Tarquelne]

And because I can:
[] is how the statement is presented. _Presented_ - facts may still be debatable (or just wrong), opinions may still be silly (or just stupid.)

Every sentence? Necessary? No. [Rhetoric] However, many people don't make a point of only posting opinions. [Fact] I for example, often like to distinguish fact from conjecture, implicit assumption from "matter or taste", and simple-opinion from argued-conclusion. [Fact] (And - btw - I think this is more important to do in text-only online discussions that it is face-to-face. Here we can't here voice tone, see body language, and generally aren't familiar with someone else's speech pattern.) [Opinion]


Oo, oo! Pet peeve here[Comment] - Some don't make any effort to distinguish between an argument (a statement to be supported) and "b*tching."[Fact - but controversial, no?] I've read the equivlent of "Leave me alone, I was just blowing off steam." quite a bit. [Fact - but obscure.]

Still others seem to make _no_ distinction between those things. (Or - annoyingly - refuse to acknowledge those distinctions in _your_ statements.)[Fact... but note the "seem" - not a strong claim.]

(Someone online once even told me that making such distinctions, and using qualifiers, is a sign of "weakness" - both intellectual and spiritual.)[Fact]

[Shrug] It's just nice to sometimes be explicit about one's level of certainty.[Conclusion (not that I want to claim that the post as a whole is a sound "argument"), but conclusion nontheless - "shrug" and "it's just nice" serve to indicate how strong the statement's imperitive thrust is. (Not strong.)]

[Capt Dizle]

Poor Vel, he goes to so much trouble to start these high minded and noble threads and here I sound off and he is only getting 3 stars.

[Velociryx]

No worries, JT....I've been fortunate to have started a number of threads that wound up with five star ratings....maybe not more than anybody on the board, but pretty darn close....that's a fact...

-=Vel=-

[Tarquelne]

And since I did it to mine, I feel I can do it to his:

"Absolutely no way you can say that its a matter of taste. [Fact - though I'd really like to see it presented as a _conclusion_ - Since I don't agree, naturally I'd like to see some reason to accept the fact.] There are great games, good games, and mediocre games. And bad games. [Fact]"

My reply: Do you _really_ want to say that my calling a given game "bad" and you calling the same game "good" _can't_ be a matter of taste? That's what I think your first sentence implies.

"Thats like saying that good beer is a matter of taste. [A Pun, or Rhetoric - equivication of the word "taste". The word may refer to flavor (as in beer), or it may refer to individual preference.)] Of course it is. [Rhetoric?] The best beer is the one with the best taste. [Fact] Thats the one that people buy. [Fact]"

My reply: But note that everyone doesn't buy the same beer, eh? Now, having a low opinion of humanity, I'll be the first to say that a number of people _do_ buy a beer that doesn't taste the best only because they are ignorant of thier options, or simply lazy. However, I really do find it hard to believe that one beer out there is the beer with _objectively_ the _best_ taste. That everyone tasting it will think its the best.

"And that is the whole point, Civ3 was supposed to be a great beer, but it does not taste great, and while it is less filling, I am gagging on the taste of it and thank you sir while gagging I will not add a polite IMHO.[Conclusion (and rhetoric)]"

Note, of course, the explcit rejection of "IMO." here. An easy way, of course, to know that the statement isn't merely opinion, but is instead something else.

(Note, also, the "disappointment" factor that I mentioned eariler. I don't want to state that jimmytick is having a negative effect on the discussion here... I just wanted to point out the disappointment-thingy.)

My response: I uphold your "right" to think - objectively speaking - that Civ3 is a bad game. However, since what you are putting forth is not an indivdual's inalienble "opinion" or personal perference, I must assert my right to say: I think you're totally wrong, in almost everything you wrote.

[And note the "I think" there - Opinion. If I were to exclude jt's judgement of the game I'd remove the "I think"]

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Now, that is fact and not opinion. The law of unintended consequences caught up to Soren. That is a fact. It is a sad state of affairs. Fact.

So, why shouldn't I state it as fact.

I don't know, why not?

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
(did that guy just tell me to go away?)

Since it's civil to answer questions:

Yes - I just told you to go away. I told _all_ of you to go away. I know that few, if any, will actaully heed my request.

But I'd count it as a personal favor if you did.