Predict Who Gets the New Traits!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Strangely enough, great leaders in history tend to have a rather nasty side.

But not all have succeeded in killing quite so many of their own people.

Are you honestly contending that Stalin did not oppress any of the liberal arts which did not quallify as his vision of 'social realism'?

Autotropx Sox

No. And nowhere in my post do I see any glimpse of pro-Stalin sentiment. The salient point is that 'cultural products' aren't just the ones we like, or the ones approved of by a despotic regime- they're also samizdat and the works of Akhmatova and Mandelstam.

Yes there were state-approved films and paintings and books. And also ones which were not approved of.

Also known as propaganda?

No, not necessarily. The early revolutionary period produced 'propaganda', for want of a better term, that was experimental and forward-looking in techniques and in imagery.

Propaganda in and of itself isn't necessarily 'bad art' as a viewing of 'Triumph of the Will' or 'Battleship Potemkin' will show.

Honestly, to say that Stalinist Russia was anything more than a brutal, toltalitarian regime ruled by a despot masquerading as a god is worthy of any piece of "art" produced in that time period in Russia.

Seems to me you've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the kalashnikov, old chum. I campaigned for Soviet Jews, so I'm under no illusion as to what the Stalinist regime or any of the ones that followed it were like.


Perhaps you think that when I describe Stalin as grimly paranoiac and possessed of a withered arm (thereby contradicting the state approved images of him) this is me being disingenuous ?

Hardly...


Let's hear it for Vladimir Tatlin...

[Autotropx Sox]

Propaganda in and of itself isn't necessarily 'bad art' as a viewing of 'Triumph of the Will' or 'Battleship Potemkin' will show.

Oh, and I suppose The Birth of a Nation (the first full-featured moving film, by the way) and Der Juden are also shinning examples of the early filming arts industry.

No. And nowhere in my post do I see any glimpse of pro-Stalin sentiment.

Simply by offering your "point" that the cultural achievements during Stalin's reign were worthwhile and important, you are implying that the man has made an important and lasting contribution we all can take pride in. The propaganda and "approved" artistic works during Stalin's autocratic rule over Russia are minimal in their value to general Russian cultural development not because we don't like them for being born of that era, but because they tend to mimic Stalin's own cold, dry, and dull personality.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
But not all have succeeded in killing quite so many of their own people.

If the USSR were without Stalin, it could have been overrun by the Nazis, leading to way more deaths. If China were without Mao, half of the country could still easily be colonised by foreign powers and the rest would be battled over by warlords. Again, leading to far more deaths.

Or alternatively, someone even worse could have risen and kill even more.

Nobody has a crystal ball to see how the world would look without them.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Autotropx Sox

Propaganda in and of itself isn't necessarily 'bad art' as a viewing of 'Triumph of the Will' or 'Battleship Potemkin' will show.

Oh, and I suppose The Birth of a Nation (the first full-featured moving film, by the way) and Der Juden are also shinning examples of the early filming arts industry.

Can I just point out that as regards film history, 'The Story of the Kelly Gang' (1906) is regarded as the world's first feature film ?

So then have you actually watched 'Battleship Potemkin', 'Foreign Correspondent' 'In Which We Serve' or 'Triumph Of The Will' ? All good examples of successful propaganda meeting art.

It's entirely possible to make propaganda which is also art and art of a high quality. The Roman Catholic Church has known this for centuries.

About time you caught up it seems to me, especially if you can't discriminate between the efficacy of D.W. Griffiths' film and his artistic and technical abilities and its (to you) objectionable content.

Again, it appears to me you decide to read my post in the way you like, rather than the way it was written.

I didn't say all Nazi or Soviet propaganda was effective, did I ? Nor did I say it was all 'high' art.

Simply by offering your "point" that the cultural achievements during Stalin's reign were worthwhile and important, you are implying that the man has made an important and lasting contribution we all can take pride in.

Oh what utter rubbish.

I've done nothing of the sort.

In fact, you're making that 'point' up. As my post is careful to assert, worthwhile art and film and literature can be produced despite the existence of a despotic regime or an autocrat- unless you think samizdat was state approved too ?

The propaganda and "approved" artistic works during Stalin's autocratic rule over Russia are minimal in their value to general Russian cultural development not because we don't like them for being born of that era, but because they tend to mimic Stalin's own cold, dry, and dull personality.

Which 'approved' artistic works did you have in mind ?

I notice you don't actually mention any specific ones, or any specific creators.

Maxim Gorky or Rachmaninov perhaps. Eisenstein maybe. Could you mean Dovzhenko or Shostakovich perhaps....? Mayakovsky ? Mandelstam ?

Well, who knows, because you aren't, as I said, being very specific.


As for linking Stalin's personality to the varied works produced, well... now you're straying into the realms of absurdity.

If the USSR were without Stalin, it could have been overrun by the Nazis, leading to way more deaths.

Urban Ranger


That must be the same Stalin who made a pact with the Nazis, carved up Poland, invaded the Baltic states, went to war with Finland, and used Buchenwald as a prison camp for political prisoners.

Oh, and who ignored specific intelligence warning of a Nazi invasion, which did in fact lead to large parts of European Russia being overrun and occupied.

And wasn't it the same Stalin whose policies led to the liquidation of the kulaks ?

But you'll undoubtedly tell me that without his impressive economic skills and massive intelligence the same numbers of Russians and Ukrainians would have starved to death anyway or been deported to Siberia.

Or not.

One death is a tragedy... millions just statistics, eh ?

[LordShiva]

molly bloom

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Autotropx Sox

Propaganda in and of itself isn't necessarily 'bad art' as a viewing of 'Triumph of the Will' or 'Battleship Potemkin' will show.

Oh, and I suppose The Birth of a Nation (the first full-featured moving film, by the way) and Der Juden are also shinning examples of the early filming arts industry.

I don't know about Der Juden, but I know that The Birth of a Nation is considered one of the most influential films of all time, is praised by many film critics who don't agree with it's politics, and introduced many directorial techniques that were never seen before. If you've ever seen a movie where it repeatedly cuts between someone in peril and the person who is rushing to their rescue, know that The Birth of a Nation did it first.

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by LordShiva
molly bloom

QFT

[dregor]

Just wanted to say Thedrin that I'm right there with you in how you look at leader traits. Traits should represent the course the nation took when said leader was running it, not his personality. They already have personalities.

People need to get off the idea that the charismatic trait doesn't necessarily equal personal charm.

[johnmcd]

Soviet Russia contributed a vast amount to world culture, particuarly in the visual arts.

I wonder if the people decrying social realism also despise Norman Rockwell?

[Nikolai]

Who's that?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by johnmcd
Soviet Russia contributed a vast amount to world culture, particuarly in the visual arts.

I wonder if the people decrying social realism also despise Norman Rockwell?

Some are more equal than others.

[Nubianmercenary]

:Think about it, you would expect the russians to not be charismatic. Yet are we talking about the "russians" themselves? or just simply "Stalin" himself.
:
:
:But anyways I love a good debate so here we go.
:
:
:To start off I first wish to state which side of the argument I am on. And I have concluded that I am on the side Will9. And that Stalin shouldn't get the charismatic TRAIT.

As for the Creative Trait, lets leave that for another time.


Here is my Counter-Argument to that of Thedrin (arguing with the first page only!!!, since other people have confused the argument with Mao and not Stalin on the second page).
.................................................. ........................................


First of all "Thedrin". You stated that "...happy faces in CivIV do not strictly mean the presence of happy people".
:
:
:This ALONE is wrong since according to the "Civilization IV game manual" on page 44 of the book itself, under the title that reads "THE CITY SCREEN" is a paragraph which decribes on how to locate the city screen, and what the city screen contains.
:
:
:
But beneath that is something much more "exclusive". A picture of the city screen itself displaying all its contents for that paticular city. And to the left of that picture it has the words - in-black-and-white : "Happiness Display" with a white line pointing to the HAPPY FACES.
:
:
:Therefore the use of Happy faces are actually to tell the player that they are actually HAPPY.
:
:
:Secondly, further on you continue to state that ".....happy faces can...reduce the risk of upheaval due to angry citizens....." "Brutal suppression does this".
:
:
:Are you thereby saying that by Brutally surpressing your citys' workers, they respond back by being happy??
:
:
:
Actually,"Brutally Suppressing" or in other words "not listening to thier needs" would give you the opposite result: ANGRY FACES.
:
:
:Your second argument states that "traits are defined by the bonuses that they grant - not by the names assigned to them". This again, while being true, is not ultimately why leaders have traits.
:
:
:
Leaders are always or nearly always associated with what they have achieved or tried to achieve through thier own TRAITS. Since all historical leaders past and present have names (point out one who didnt), it would suggest that the NAME of that LEADER corressponds with his or her TRAITS.

e.g-If you were to ask someone to describe Adolf Hitler in TWO WORDS the response would most likely be "POWER HUNGRY",hence the TRAIT: "Expansive".
:
:
And since this is true. That means that the people who gave Stalin the "Charismatic" TRAIT, were actually implying that Stalin himself was Charismatic, since they have given a TRAIT which DOESNT CORRESPOND to his NAME: Joseph Stalin - 6 million people died defending Stalingrad. Who was in charge?? Joseph Stalin.
:
:
:Therefore you are incorrect. A TRAIT does describe a LEADER or any person for that matter. And giving Stalin a Charismatic TRAIT, is wrong also.
:
:
:Well that about sums it up I guess. Thedrin you are a little of course with your Arguments, but none the less good effort and well done on stating your opinion, since we are all free to do so.

.................................................. ........................................


Any replies would be most welcomed.


P.S = The Thesaurus difinition for "Charismatic" is "Cute or Attractive".



That is my Counter-Argument to that of Thedrin (arguing with the first page only!!, since other people have confused the argument with Mao and not Stalin on the second page).



NubianMercenary

[Will9]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
:Think about it, you would expect the russians to not be charismatic. Yet are we talking about the "russians" themselves? or just simply "Stalin" himself.
:
:
:But anyways I love a good debate so here we go.
:
:
:To start off I first wish to state which side of the argument I am on. And I have concluded that I am on the side Will9. And that Stalin shouldn't get the charismatic TRAIT.

Finally someone on my side. At one point it was like this between me and Thedrin.

As for the rest of your post, that would have taken up to much space if I quoted, .

[Thedrin]

Alright.

For a start, I believe Stalin got Aggressive and Industrious so this is entirely academic. I'm not too surprised that he didn't get Charismatic since describing a cold, paranoid, mass murderer man as charismatic would be quite controversial and it would not be in Firaxis's interests to do this. But I do claim that the charismatic trait as defined by Firaxis is a suitable trait.

Nubidian Mercenaries' sixth to ninth paragraph:
First of all ...
... are actually HAPPY

The happiness display on the picture you refer to shows 22 and 14 . The arguement you use would imply that the 14 represent happy people also since it says happiness display. The white line in my manual actually goes closer to the faces so this arguement might even imply that faces are happier than faces.

My claim is that the number of faces and faces are just a representation of the overall city mood.

In the previous versions of civ that I have played (CivIII and CivIIToT) I would have agreed with you since these games displayed content faces also and gave the ability to reduce unhappiness as well as increase happiness.

The treatment of happiness in CivIV has been simplified. The way to reduce unhappiness in a city is to get happy faces. In other words, reducing unhappiness as it occured in earlier versions of civ has been removed from the game*.

Brutal suppression would be a prime example of a way to reduce unhappiness - scaring the population into obedience. Since reducing unhappiness is no longer in the game the practice of suppressing a population through fear can only be simulated by increasing the number of happy faces.

Tenth and Eleventh paragraphs

I have made it clear before this post that I believe that happy faces do not directly represent happy people - something which you actually quoted in your post.

Twelfth paragraph:
Actually,"Brutally Suppressing" or in other words "not listening to thier needs" would give you the opposite result: ANGRY FACES.

We have radically different definitions of brutal suppression. I gave a rough definiton a few paragraphs up - "scaring a population into obedience". As it happens, I agree that your definition - "not listening to their needs" would lead to increased anger or at least no reduction in anger.

Thirteenth through to sixteenth paragraphs:
Leaders are always ...
... is wrong also.

I'm not sure but I'll assume that you're refering to a leaders personality and leadership.

Each leader in the game has been given a specific personality and a set of tactics that they usually employ. If a power hungry leader (say, Genghis) exists in the game he has been programmed with a personality which leads him to attempt to win the game through warfare. Similarly Gandhi - a famous pacifist - does not go to war often in the game as a result of the personality he has been given. The traits he has been given do not in any way reflect the way the AI uses Gandhi.

I offer as proof: If you play a game using the Random Personalities option, Gandhi can become a bloody warmonger while Alexander can become a complete pacifist. But their traits remain unchanged. The in-game leader traits in no way reflect the tactics and personality of an in-game leader.

Also, while I have absolutely no problem with Genghis being given a trait called expansive, I do think that the in-game trait labelled expansive should not be given to him since it does not directly lend itself to simulating the prominent aspects of the progression of Mongolian power under Genghis's rule.

This is the criteria by which I think that traits should be handed out - a means of simulating the prominent aspects of the progression of a power of the civilization under the leaders rule. I am willing to hear other ways of handing out traits but I reject the redundant idea of giving the leaders traits based on their personalities since
a) the leaders have already been given personalities,
b) the leaders act independently of their traits.



That's about it. To sum up: I disagree.

If you want to respond again that's fair enough. But I would ask that should you choose to respond to the last arguement I made (responding to your thirteenth to sixteenth paragraphs) that - and you don't have to do this - that the debate move to a less provocative leader. I ask since Stalin (and Hitler) can lead to controversy by the mere mention of their name. This is a viable request since this part of the arguement refers to the assignment of all traits rather than just one. An example of alternative would be why I think that Genghis or Alexander - arguably power hungry leaders - shouldn't have the Expansive trait.

P.S. The Firaxis definition of charismatic is +1 happy face, +1 happy face with monument and broadcast tower, 25% reduction in promotion costs.

* War weariness being the exception.

[Will9]

So if happy faces don't represent happy people, wouldn't that mean angry faces don't represent angry people. I think I'm right. Happy faces represent things that make people happy. (there arn't really any angy faces just unhappy faces) Unhappy faces represent things making people unhappy. When their are more things making people unhappy than happy some people will get angry at you for not trying to meet their needs.