Announcement

**Shamael** · February 16, 2001, 12:54

I am not familiar with simultanous movement yet. What do i have to do to have this option enabled?
Otherwise i am interested and i can host.
How about today? I could be available about 00.30 AM GMT (That is 09.30 PST if i am not mistaken).
My ICQ is 108182494.
I prefere x1 movement and production,but i'll play any settings. Level and barbarian activity doesn't really matter.

**Curumbor Elendil** · February 16, 2001, 14:33

I'm glad you posted our conversation, so that your uncalled-for insults and overweening arrogance are available for all to see.

The reason I did not respond is that you are now blacklisted and on my ignore list.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

**agharta_id** · February 16, 2001, 15:01

I am quite aware that i am on your ignore list ... this is exactly the behaivour that one would expect of a person who does not want to debate ...

as for the insults, those who read my response, and our conversation, will see that i did not call you a child or irrational.

i merely asked you if you were a child; and i merely stated that you had not rationally thought out the rules for civ: i did not say you were irrational ... for example: just beacause i have not rationally investigated esthetics, does not make me irrational ... instead, i am simply an individual who has not thought out the rationality of esthetics. period. end.

as for my "arrogance," a dictionary definition is in order, for that word is thrown around far too much.
webster's definition: offensive display of superiority or self importance; overbearing pride; haughtiness.

now, is he or she who presents an argument, based on the rational faculty in the human brain and empirical data gathered by that brain, arrogant? I think not. I if he or she was, we would all be in trouble, for science and philoosphy would be nothing more than "arrogant" wastes of time.

"offensive display of superiority or self importance" ... okay, so i was arrogant in that coversation ... the fact remains, though: curumbor forced me, with his assertions and evasions, to make my superiority offensive, instead hiding it behind passivity and proactive nudgings ... (to those who understood that rigmarole, kudos!)

"overbearing pride" i had not been beaten in argument with curumbor, thus i had not reason to exhibit "overbearing pride" ... when i am beaten, you will be sure to see none of that childish rubbish.

"haughtiness" snobs are people who snub people based on class or higher knowledge they will not share, in fear that the people that they are snubbing will become their equals. I am not snobbish, for i have made a rational argument that any thinking individual can understand, and counter ... notice that inherent to "snubbing" or "haughtiness," is the the concept "ignore" ... curumbor has put me on his ICQ ignore list, thus he must be haughty, disdainfully proud----ARROGANT.

but that does not follow, for a simple reason: arrogant, as you have seen above, has too many meanings within it ... thus, for this reason, i will pass the torch to curumbor to explain what he meant by "arrogance" ...

your turn curumbor ...

**Curumbor Elendil** · February 16, 2001, 17:43

I am not interested in debating you, agharta, as you seem to have lost touch with the real world, in which games are played for fun, objective rationality having nothing to do with it. (The fact that you compare your 'discoveries' regarding Civ to the truths of philosophy and mathematics reveals how deluded you are both about your own importance and the proper role of this game in a person's life.)

Unfortunately, I cannot killfile you as I would do if this were a USENET newsgroup, but I will ignore you. You see, I'm interested in interacting with people in a tolerant fashion, playing on diverse settings in a relaxed, enjoyable atmosphere - and I will be doing so on this board long after you have been spanked back to the Zone where you belong.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

**agharta_id** · February 16, 2001, 18:12

let us pick this message apart:

I am not interested in debating you, agharta, [this much is clear] as you seem to have lost touch with the real world, [possibly, but games serve that purpose: they allow the individual to lose touch with the real world] in which games are played for fun, objective rationality having nothing to do with it. [unfortunately that will not hold. civ is a game of simulation, thus the fun is in the simulation] (The fact that you compare your 'discoveries' [when one sees the obvious, it can not be termed a "discovery"] regarding Civ to the truths of philosophy and mathematics reveals how deluded you are both about your own importance [<--- is this what you meant by "arrogance"?] and the proper role of this game in a person's life.) [to lose oneself, to take a break from the real world]

Unfortunately, I cannot killfile you as I would do if this were a USENET newsgroup, but I will ignore you [oh, so you are an authoritarian that does not believe in free speech?]. You see, I'm interested in interacting with people in a tolerant fashion, playing on diverse settings in a relaxed, enjoyable atmosphere [ME TOO! ME TOO!]- and I will be doing so on this board long after you have been spanked back to the Zone where you belong [what are you talking about? i did not use any dirty language!].

**GNGSpam** · February 16, 2001, 19:20

CUR: hey - i cant play civ if thats what youre going to ask. why dont you sign up for the all-night game friday?

AGH: what are the settings?

CUR:1x1x emperor no huts or barbs, a modified rules.txt, 7 players you can read about it on the www.apolyton.net multiplayer forum. i think i sent you a message with a direct link to the thread - check your icq history.

AGH: yeah and i went there ....

no thanks, i do not play pseudo-civilization ... emperor destabalizes the game, no barbs and huts removes the inherent luck needed in a game that imitates real civilization ..

----------------------------

Let me tell you what I see in that above

CUR has a game set-up and he kindly invites you to join.

You then call it "Pseudo-Civ", speaking of silly things like "real civilization" and basically issuing an insult to his game.

Dont like the settings? To bad thats what their playing on. You can make suggestions, but dont just knock it all down.

And whats this "real civilization" bull****? And building the Statue of Liberty so I can change my Democracy into Communist for a war and then back again is "real civilization"? Oh god, give me a break. This is a game, people can play it however they like. Generally everyone is willing to compromise, but we dont need "Pseudo-Intellectuals" such as yourself to instruct us in the "proper" way to play.

Besides everyone knows real civ is a diplo game

**KenThur** · February 16, 2001, 19:48

I have had to delete only 3 people off my ICQ list (& thus players list) in 2 years of CivII MP playing. This whacko is 1 that worked hard to make it up my hit list.

Beware, this guy has a real good story to tell to get U in a game. Then turns into somthing else during play. Especially if U make it all the way to a 2nd session with him (seems to be about his max).

He gleefully told several of us after he bailed on a good game we had started & wanted to continue (despite HIS implusive departure) that he not only wouldn't give us his password to allow another willing player to jump in, he bragged about how many games he had locked up with passwords & wasn't about to give them to anyone, nor did he have any intention of finishing the games.

Be VERY wary of wasting your time with this guy.
Altho, if U make it a League contest, at least U get some points for him crapping out & refusing to finish games.

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"

**Shamael** · February 16, 2001, 19:55

What are you guys fighting for? Emperor,Deity or whatever. What's the difference? Settings are same for everybody if I am not mistaken.
In my opinion,plain old Civilization is the best way to play.
I like huts. And barbarians. Happiness wonders too. Great Wall as well.
I noticed it's kinda hard to start a game here,so I'll be looking on The Zone tonight.
Perhaps some other day?

**agharta_id** · February 16, 2001, 20:06

I feel like picking my nose, but yours will do:

Let me tell you what I see in that above [okay bub, but remember: sight without reflection is reaction, not a thoughtful response. that is why the marxists called individuals, who "reacted," reactionaries ... they did not think the marxist position through]

CUR has a game set-up and he kindly invites you to join. [k, what settings? (here we go again!)]

You then call it "Pseudo-Civ", speaking of silly things like "real civilization" and basically issuing an insult to his game. [i insulted "his" game because "his" game is inferior. we are playing civ, a simulation game, thus settings that are as close to the real thing are very important]

Dont like the settings? To bad thats what their playing on. [damn, you just dont get it, do you? i was not asking to play, i was assaulting his "style" of play] You can make suggestions, but dont just knock it all down. [i dont know what this means ... when rational argument knocks down ignorance or incompetence, i follow right along]

And whats this "real civilization" bull****? [if you can not express yourself without profane language, do not express yourself.] And building the Statue of Liberty so I can change my Democracy into Communist for a war and then back again is "real civilization"? [this is the only intelligent thing you have said: true, the game lacks some realism, but let me remind you that the game was made in 95, with limited resources, for those with primitive computers (133! ptah). sid could only do so much. civIII will knockt the socks off civII] Oh god, give me a break. [he is a valley guy, a valley guy; okay, sure, for sure, for sure.] This is a game, people can play it however they like. [true] Generally everyone is willing to compromise, [not me] but we dont need "Pseudo-Intellectuals" such as yourself to instruct us in the "proper" way to play. [yawn: did you learn pseudo when i used it, or did you know before?]

Besides everyone knows real civ is a diplo game

**Smash** · February 16, 2001, 20:07

My main MP complaint used to be finishing games.Now it is starting games

**Shamael** · February 16, 2001, 20:21

Fortunalely,there are many games,many players and many servers on the i-net. I had a great time playing Warlords online last night.

**agharta_id** · February 16, 2001, 20:33

My main MP complaint used to be finishing games.Now it is starting games

i am playing right now, and have been for the last four hours ... i expect to finish this one, just like i have finish three in the last two weeks.

**Curumbor Elendil** · February 17, 2001, 01:26

Be careful, folks. Agharta plays ONLY on these settings. If you so much as make a friendly suggestion that one of them should be slightly different, he will call you "stupid," "a little child," and "irrational."

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35/
ICQ 56126989

**agharta_id** · February 17, 2001, 01:59

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Curumbor Elendil on 02-16-2001 12:26 PM</font>
Be careful, folks. Agharta plays ONLY on these settings. If you so much as make a friendly suggestion that one of them should be slightly different, he will call you "stupid," "a little child," and "irrational."

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Ah, the silent one speaks ... I tried to debate these settings with him yesterday, and he peppered me with assertions, not explanations. Eventually, he started to evade me with platitudes, and, eventually, ignored me altogether.

As for his first assertion, that i only play these settings, that is true. But that truth is qualified, as most are: if one can persuade me, through rational argument, that these settings do not best reflect real civlization, then so be it: i will change. The problem with curumbor is that he did not present an argument, just assertions: thus he has no right to trash talk. [what he is doing now] (notice that i my point of departure in civ is not based around entertainment or egalitarianism: i am concerned with settings that best simulate real civilization.)

And for his second assertion? I did not call him irrational, stupid, or a little child, I asked whether he was a "philosopher or a damn child." Note that asking is different than calling. Anyways, enough mind manipulation. Here is a bit of science:

Here is our coversation:

CUR: hey - i cant play civ if thats what youre going to ask. why dont you sign up for the all-night game friday?

AGH: what are the settings?

CUR:1x1x emperor no huts or barbs, a modified rules.txt, 7 players you can read about it on the www.apolyton.net multiplayer forum. i think i sent you a message with a direct link to the thread - check your icq history.

AGH: yeah and i went there ....

no thanks, i do not play pseudo-civilization ... emperor destabalizes the game, no barbs and huts removes the inherent luck needed in a game that imitates real civilization ..

CUR: well, ok. the point is to remove the luck for purposes of gameplay, since we're dedicating a good chunk of time to this.

AGH: hence the "pseudo" civ ... if you want to play chess, go play chess ... if you want to play an expansion game, go play aoe ....

emperor level destabalizes the game: it makes democratic and republican governments too easy to manage ...

CUR: i dont see how that is. [great come back] would you rather play on deity? the problem with deity is that whoever gets the happy wonders wins. believe me, i have fine tuned this modpack so that it is very stable. [assertion; on what settings? how many civs?]

brackets mine.

AGH: not if there are always seven civs ... games that only have three or four human players end up as wonder races, because they have too few players ...

CUR: in a 7 player game it becomes even more unbalanced if one person monopolizes the wonders.[again, assertion]

AGH: deity, raging hordes, seven civ, 100x100, 1x 1x, 4 billion, varied, large land masses is the only proper way to play

AGH: then you are in a game where the other seven players suck.

CUR: but i wont try to persuade you to join the game - its up to you, of course. it should be a good game though. we're playing a game on these settings right now (new millennium eurodiplomacy) and its a good game!

AGH: a good builder can go the whole game without a wonder, and still make a significant impact ...

there are soo few professional builders.

AGH: are you a philosopher or a damn child? please do not use exclamation points to evade my points ...

CUR: what the **** are you talking about?

AGH: the language attached to your exclamation points is language used to end a debate you do not want to participate in ...

CUR: i dont know what you are talking about. i was having a casual chat with you about settings, and you make it personal. chill out dude. [notice the use of the word dude: i hate the word dude!]

AGH: you have never thought out, rationally, whether the type of game you play is rational ... [just because curumbor has not thought out whether the game he plays is rational, does not mean he is irrational. I have never thought out esthetics, but i am still (i think) rational (to an extent?)

AGH: nothing personal here .... i am as calm as the eye of a hurricane .....

AGH: the simple fact is that i made a series of statements as to the proper setting for civ [proposition], and to why i call other settings "pseudo-settings," and you went into evasion mode, not response mode ...

AGH: where did you go?

AGH: *yawn* are all folks in CT as mentally passive as this?

Announcement

A game to FINISH.

A game to FINISH.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment