The Iroquois Debate: Lets clean up the mess we've created.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Myrddin
Now we have a Spanish-American alliance againt the Iroquois;
the Spanish because they have been left out and the Americans because some of them take a narrow view of other cultures.

The Iroquois are in to fill up the American land mass with enough civilisations. If it compensates for America's history of dealing dishonourably with native Americans, so be it.

No spanish, no american, I'm rather an "indiophile" person and still oppose the Iroquois. There's at least 2 american civs which surpass the Iroquois by far: Mayans and Inca.
There is already one north american civ: The "Americans" and -frankly- there simply was never another Civilization in America north of Mexico, the Mississippi culture -if any- comes closest. This is not meant in a primitive vs. "better" pattern but rather in terms of organization, social structure and urbanity.

[Boris Godunov]

Order in the court...

Our goal here, especially considering Civ3 has gone gold, is not to try and change any aspect of the game. We are beyond that. Any continuing argument is therefore for the sake of intellectual debate, not any sort of productive outcome. The best we can hope for is to perhaps persuade someone else here to our own way of thinking, but I consider this to be an unlikely scenario.

That being said, there is no reason to end this argument. It is clear that strong opinions abound on each side, and that alone is, in my mind, is perfect justification for stimulating public discourse. Those not inclined to contribute meaningfully to said discourse are expected to not participate. Unfortunately, the lack of having anything meaningful to say is rarely a hindrance to making one's voice heard in this day and age.

I think that this debate has two fundamental flaws:

1) The initial poll introduces one too many variables to the debate. The "For PC or not PC" options among those who disagree with the inclusion of the Iroquois has added a tangent to the debate which relies more on opinions, emotions and the impossibility of trying to factually deduce what Firaxis's intent was in introducing the Iroquois to the game than reasoned analysis. It is hereby my suggestion that any references to "political correctness" be dropped from this debate. If Firaxis has decided to include the Iroquois in the game, and they call it "Civilization," we can only conclude that Firaxis believes the Iroquois to be worthy of inclusion and a civilization. Any argument of their reasoning is merely hampering our own discussion.

(No offense is meant to orange--indeed, thank you for moving this debate out of the muck it was mired in before. I think, however, we need to take further steps to save it from being obliterated by irrelevant posts.)

2) A lack of any form of organization whereby we agree on certain rules, definitions, terms etc. I would like to use the example of the debate over abortion in the OT Forum. Here, they have divided the arguers into two camps, limited who can post on each team, and have set out ground rules for debate (While I think the subject matter of that particular argument is hopelessly doomed to lead to acrimony, I suppose I must applaud the participants for being willing to engage in a debate that might challenge their most fundamental beliefs). I would like to see us do the same in regards to setting some rules and definitions, and perhaps designating a moderator.

The problem is, we seem to have no consensus on what defines two basic components of a culture "deserving" inclusion in a game about great civilizations:

1) What constitutes a civilization
2) What constitutes one civilization being more worthy than another for inclusion in Civ3

Of course, these presuppositions rely on assuming that any arguments the Iroquois deserve inclusion in the game DESPITE their NOT being a civilization be discounted. As the game is called "Civilization," we can only consider pro-inclusion arguments that claim the Iroquois to indeed be a civilization.

It is also not helpful to argue that "Firaxis put them in, so they deserve to be in." Again, this argument should have nothing to do with Firaxis's intent. So such reasoning is also discounted.

Now, here is a rudimentary outline of what has been argued so far on each side.

I. Pro-inclusion
A. Iroquois were a civilization
1. Iroquois met x, y, z criteria in cultural achievements
2. Iroquois met x, y, z criteria in power/expansion
B. Iroquois deserve inclusion in the game
1. Iroquois advanced human civilization
2. Iroquois had a significant impact on the world, more so than other civilizations not included in Civ3

II. Anti-inclusion (pretty much nay-saying of above)
A. Iroquois were not a civilization
1. Iroquois cannot be considered "civilized" because they did not have x, y, z
2. The Iroquois were not powerful/large enough to be a civilization
B. Iroquois do not deserve inclusion
1. The Iroquois achievements did not advance human civilization in a meaningful way
2. The Iroquois had no real impact on the world, or had far less of an impact than other civilizations not included.

I stress the word "rudimentary." Please note that there is no "mutual exclusivity" in the outline. For instance, one could reasonable hold that I.A.1 and I.A.2 are factually true, but that the Iroquois still do not belong in the game because of II.B.2. However, as stated above, for our purposes the reverse should NOT be allowed (II.A.1 to I.B.2).

Of course, I welcome addenda to the above, so long as they do not go into the actual specific items of debate. I would rather start with this skeleton and draw from arguments posted here to flesh out the outline. It would even be helpful if we could start labeling our posts as being specific outline points (The above notation is perhaps too confusing, and I am open to suggesting alternatives).

Something else to consider is a schedule of dealing with certain minor points and issues that then lead up to the major arguments (hence, we begin at the "1s and 2s" and work our way up the outline). If this is the case, we might want to dispense with the outline above entirely and do another form, such as a flow chart or pyramid (blast it, those Egyptians again!).

If we can begin--or rather, begin anew--by dealing with the organization issue, I think we can make this whole debate much smoother.

Cheers.

[orange]

That would be something for the ACS Debate Club, not for Civ III. I don't have a problem with debating anything that'll be in Civ III, regardless of whether or not it's almost done shipping or in our hands.

Btw: the poll doesn't have to many parameters, in my opinion.

It's like asking the questions do you like Apples or Peaches better and do you like blue or green better.

Do you like Apples and Blue
Do you like Apples and Green
Do you like Peaches and Blue
Do you like Peaches and Green
Not sure

I only left out Yes it should and yes it's PC because the two contradict each other, IMO.

[Ribannah]

Boris, that is an excellent suggestion.
I'm perfectly willing to rerun my arguments in this format, provided others do the same. May I suggest that we go about it in an orderly way:
(1) we sign up;
(2) after everybody has signed up, we all give our arguments;
(3) only then, we comment on each other's arguments;
(4) when that's done, we defend our arguments;
(5) we get the chance to rephrase our original arguments and point of view.
If there are significant changes, we can re-iterate (3) through (5).

Glad to see you climbed out of the mud!

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

[orange]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ribannah

Boris, that is an excellent suggestion.
I'm perfectly willing to rerun my arguments in this format, provided others do the same. May I suggest that we go about it in an orderly way:
(1) we sign up;
(2) after everybody has signed up, we all give our arguments;
(3) only then, we comment on each other's arguments;
(4) when that's done, we defend our arguments;
(5) we get the chance to rephrase our original arguments.
If there are significant changes, we can re-iterate (3) through (5).

Just do it on this thread! That's what it was created for. Go ahead post away Ribannah, can't wait.

Glad to see you climbed out of the mud!

Your 'cute posts' and overall fakeness amuse and impress no one.

[Ribannah]

I hereby sign up on the side of pro Iroquois.

[orange]

shocker.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange
That would be something for the ACS Debate Club, not for Civ III.

If you mean the teams/moderator idea, on further consideration, yeah, you're right. It would be a little stifling. However, I am still keeping this outline out there as a possibility for beginning to orgnanize things better.

I don't have a problem with debating anything that'll be in Civ III, regardless of whether or not it's almost done shipping or in our hands.

Nor do I, and that's what this debate is doing, and that was my point by saying we should continue. But some were saying it was pointless to continue since the game was complete, and this was my response to them:

Btw: the poll doesn't have to many parameters, in my opinion.

I think this is our point of biggest contention. But in the "Should America be Included" board, you posted:

The fact that this poll is so close makes me sick. Next time, just have a yes or no question with "yes" or "no" answers.

And I agree with this statement entirely, and think this one should have been a yes-or-no poll so as not to further muddy the waters. I really just don't see what the point was of having the PC argument was. As I said in the other thread:

I don't think it's wise to presume the intentions of others or why they feel this way. Political correctness is a red-herring statement misused all over, so I wouldn't bandy it around here. It's a label meant to infer illegitimacy on the in-depth consideration of previously ignored or little-valued subjects. Most people who throw this label at people are doing so because they're afraid of having their assumptions and prejudices uprooted.

There is no possible way we can demonstrate through factual argument what Firaxis's intention was, so it is a useless bit of emotional conjecture derived from what one is predisposed to believe in such matters. Really, all it shows is the number of people willing to bandy about the "PC" label whenever confronted with an idea to which they object.

However, I think IS possible to assemble a lot of facts and sources in the debate over the worthiness of the Iroquois in Civ3 and even what does and does not define a civilization. It is also possible to factually demonstrate why the Spanish are more important and therefore more "deserving" to be in Civ3 (providing we can define what is "worthy" and not). But it's not possible to discern why Firaxis did this or that.

It's like asking the questions do you like Apples or Peaches better and do you like blue or green better.

As the first question in no way relates to the second, I fail to see any connection or why they should be lumped together in the same poll. If the crux of an argument is the apples and peaches, why does it matter if some apple-ites like blue and some like green? What is to be gained by the excess information?

Look at this way: the poll is essentially a yes or no question. Yes Iroquois should be in, No they shouldn't. By adding the PC option, you are thrusting something beyond the scope of the yes or no into it--the divining of Firaxis's reasoning. Their reasoning is 100% irrelevant to an argument over their worthiness. Unless it was a covert attempt to cast the debate in PC terms from the outset, handing an initial handicap to the pro-Iroquois (since PC is "bogeyman" term that can instantly discredit something in many people's eyes)?

As for the "Not sure," I could go on at length about that...What is the point of having a "not sure" option in a voluntary poll? Do people really go about emphatically declaring that they have no opinion on a subject?

If people aren't sure, they shouldn't vote in the poll until they are, IMO.

Alright, now we are really OT. Arguing about arguing...

Cheers.

[orange]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nor do I, and that's what this debate is doing, and that was my point by saying we should continue. But some were saying it was pointless to continue since the game was complete, and this was my response to them:

ah ok, I misunderstood.

I think this is our point of biggest contention. But in the "Should America be Included" board, you posted:

And I agree with this statement entirely, and think this one should have been a yes-or-no poll so as not to further muddy the waters. I really just don't see what the point was of having the PC argument was. As I said in the other thread:

Yes, but that was different. They were trying to be humourous with their options. My poll is still simple, it just has two questions instead of one. It can be done...as I showed with my fruit/color analogy.

At the time of creation, the matter of it being PC was more of a debate. It died off shortly after this thread got going...but I'll pick up whenever necessary

Really, all it shows is the number of people willing to bandy about the "PC" label whenever confronted with an idea to which they object.

I respectfully disagree.

However, I think IS possible to assemble a lot of facts and sources in the debate over the worthiness of the Iroquois in Civ3 and even what does and does not define a civilization. It is also possible to factually demonstrate why the Spanish are more important and therefore more "deserving" to be in Civ3 (providing we can define what is "worthy" and not). But it's not possible to discern why Firaxis did this or that.

That's what we've been doing all along. However, it became me and Ribannah doing most of the talking, with an occasional pop in now and then. More recently, however, I've had some support. Strangely enough, Ribannah did not (though apparently she thinks she did)

As the first question in no way relates to the second, I fail to see any connection or why they should be lumped together in the same poll.

neither do colors and fruit. It was merely a way of getting both questions into one poll. I really don't think it was that confusing.

If the crux of an argument is the apples and peaches, why does it matter if some apple-ites like blue and some like green?

Two arguments were taking place. In a sense, there was a left center and right. The three options represent those views.

What is to be gained by the excess information?

It was being fiercly debated in the other thread.

Look at this way: the poll is essentially a yes or no question. Yes Iroquois should be in, No they shouldn't. By adding the PC option, you are thrusting something beyond the scope of the yes or no into it--the divining of Firaxis's reasoning. Their reasoning is 100% irrelevant to an argument over their worthiness. Unless it was a covert attempt to cast the debate in PC terms from the outset, handing an initial handicap to the pro-Iroquois (since PC is "bogeyman" term that can instantly discredit something in many people's eyes)?

Again, it was necessary at the time, and is not confusing. If you or anyone else is confused, I'll explain the results of the poll. I'm not expecting such a request, it's not hard to do.

As for the "Not sure," I could go on at length about that...What is the point of having a "not sure" option in a voluntary poll?

Some people are indifferent, some people don't care, some people aren't sure who is right and who is wrong.

Do people really go about emphatically declaring that they have no opinion on a subject?

It's the basis of American politics.

If people aren't sure, they shouldn't vote in the poll until they are, IMO.

didn't want anyone to feel left out

Alright, now we are really OT. Arguing about arguing...

Are not!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange

At the time of creation, the matter of it being PC was more of a debate. It died off shortly after this thread got going...but I'll pick up whenever necessary

We're unlikely to reach any agreement here, but my opinion is that the discerning of Firaxis's intent is just irrelevant. See it from the point of view of someone who thinks the Iroquois should be in the game. This person, will call her Ivana, sees in the poll that there are not 2 options, yes and no, but rather 4. And two of them are distinctly anti-Iroquois and 1 is non-commital. On top of that, the two anti-Iroquois are both using the term "PC." Being a person who follows the media, Ivana is fully aware of the negative connotations "PC" have, especially among those who like to accuse "liberals" of being "permissive" and destroying the fabric of our culture...(oops, unintentional rant...)

So Ivana is immediately put on the defensive. She does not enter the argument merely having to support her claim of Iroquois worthiness, but she also must defend against the attack of those who say not only are they unworthy, they're only in the game for PC reasons. It is impossible for her to defend Firaxis for a decision she had no part in and knows nothing about, so the pro-PC crowd can score a cheap victory in her inability to refute such a claim.

Just seems a bit of an unfair starting point for the pro-Iroquois crowd.

Besides that, it wastes time and distracts from the focus of the meaty argument with another that is impossible for any side to debate with any accuracy, because we don't know why Firaxis did anything, period.

neither do colors and fruit. It was merely a way of getting both questions into one poll. I really don't think it was that confusing.

I was talking about the colors and fruit!!!

Or was I? Urrrrgggghhh...

Two arguments were taking place. In a sense, there was a left center and right. The three options represent those views.

Since most people go out of their way to be centrists, doesn't that immediately infer legitimacy on the "center" argument, casting the others as extremes? Besides, the "not sure" option seems more centrist to me. So then it is a Left-Center-Right-Extreme Right poll, which IMO is pretty unbalanced.

Put it this way: What if the Election 2000 Presidential Ballot said this:

[ ] Al Gore, Democrat
[ ] George W. Bush, Republican, but Gore isn't a bad guy
[ ] George W. Bush, because Gore is a left-wing weenie.
[ ] Not sure.

Wouldn't that be a little skewed?

Again, it was necessary at the time, and is not confusing.

Oh, I wasn't confused, but just think the PC thing is coloring the debate in favor of a particular point of view, and that it is leading to a lot of irrelevant posts.

Some people are indifferent, some people don't care, some people aren't sure who is right and who is wrong.

And we care what they think, because...?

I'd rather not have people posting, as they do in other forums, "Guys I don't care, get over it and stop arguing." That isn't helpful.

It's the basis of American politics.

No, that would actually be making a decision in ignorance.

Are not!

Are too are too times infinity + 1!!!

Cheers.

[orange]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
We're unlikely to reach any agreement here, but my opinion is that the discerning of Firaxis's intent is just irrelevant. See it from the point of view of someone who thinks the Iroquois should be in the game. This person, will call her Ivana, sees in the poll that there are not 2 options, yes and no, but rather 4. And two of them are distinctly anti-Iroquois and 1 is non-commital. On top of that, the two anti-Iroquois are both using the term "PC." Being a person who follows the media, Ivana is fully aware of the negative connotations "PC" have, especially among those who like to accuse "liberals" of being "permissive" and destroying the fabric of our culture...(oops, unintentional rant...)

So Ivana is immediately put on the defensive. She does not enter the argument merely having to support her claim of Iroquois worthiness, but she also must defend against the attack of those who say not only are they unworthy, they're only in the game for PC reasons. It is impossible for her to defend Firaxis for a decision she had no part in and knows nothing about, so the pro-PC crowd can score a cheap victory in her inability to refute such a claim.

The two anti-Iroquois are NOT supporting the idea that it's PC. One believes it is for PC reasons, the other does not.

Besides that, it wastes time and distracts from the focus of the meaty argument with another that is impossible for any side to debate with any accuracy, because we don't know why Firaxis did anything, period.

Well the argument NOW doesn't involve it. Before it did. I don't care anymore! If you don't want to argue it don't

Since most people go out of their way to be centrists, doesn't that immediately infer legitimacy on the "center" argument, casting the others as extremes? Besides, the "not sure" option seems more centrist to me. So then it is a Left-Center-Right-Extreme Right poll, which IMO is pretty unbalanced.

Put it this way: What if the Election 2000 Presidential Ballot said this:

[ ] Al Gore, Democrat
[ ] George W. Bush, Republican, but Gore isn't a bad guy
[ ] George W. Bush, because Gore is a left-wing weenie.
[ ] Not sure.

Wouldn't that be a little skewed?

Only if you're ignorant enough to simply vote centrist. And in any event, I'd still vote Gore

Oh, I wasn't confused, but just think the PC thing is coloring the debate in favor of a particular point of view, and that it is leading to a lot of irrelevant posts.

Show a post that even mentions PC past page 1. I don't know if there are any.

And we care what they think, because...?

Everyone who gets into a poll thread votes, I'd rather they not affect the people who have opinions. It's just automatic...poll - vote. I've voted on SMAC polls before, never played the damn game once.

I'd rather not have people posting, as they do in other forums, "Guys I don't care, get over it and stop arguing." That isn't helpful.

changing the poll won't stop this, trust me

No, that would actually be making a decision in ignorance.

My mistake

Are too are too times infinity + 1!!!

la-la-la, la-la-la, I can't hear you, la-la-la

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange

The two anti-Iroquois are NOT supporting the idea that it's PC. One believes it is for PC reasons, the other does not.

Yeah, but my point was the mere mentioning of it in those questions was already, before the first post was made, coloring the debate in such a way to immediately throw the Pro-Iroquois on the defensive.

And in any event, I'd still vote Gore

Yay! FINALLY we agree on something!

Show a post that even mentions PC past page 1. I don't know if there are any.

From Page 2, posted by orange:

I'm sure Rib could come up with an infinite number of PC civs to throw in Not the Spanish though

HA!

Also, monkspider and I had an exchange about it on page 3, I think. That was exactly the kind of tangent I think we should avoid (even thought I am guilty of participating in it... ).

changing the poll won't stop this, trust me

Touche.

la-la-la, la-la-la, I can't hear you, la-la-la

Of course you can't, it was type.

[orange]

Yeah, but my point was the mere mentioning of it in those questions was already, before the first post was made, coloring the debate in such a way to immediately throw the Pro-Iroquois on the defensive.

Why? If anything it would put Firaxis on the defensive...

those who feel it was PCness can post why they feel that way, those who feel it was not PCness can post why they feel the way they feel.

I can't change the poll...so...is this going somewhere?

From Page 2, posted by orange:
I'm sure Rib could come up with an infinite number of PC civs to throw in Not the Spanish though

HA!

bah...

Of course you can't, it was type.

What?? What's that you say???

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange
I can't change the poll...so...is this going somewhere?

*sigh* I suppose not...

Well, because I am such an unremitting dork, I'm going to take my outline and interpolate the arguments made on this and other threads into it, offline, and then post it here. It may take me a bit. Or should I bother? Does anyone care at this point beyond the three who have posted tonight?

[orange]

no!