A Slice of Civ3 Feedback From The Official MOO3 Forum

[Tarquelne]

CUF wrote:

"I don't have a problem with people jumping in but rather the manner they do so."

Maybe its just me, but I think the "manner" he referes to is "in a manner that directly and persuasively argues against my statements."

"heard it from so many others, it's now common, therefor if I know, you repeating it would be meaningless to me."

I think "meaningless to me" supports my contention that CUF is utterly closed minded.

"And I found you slanderous: by arming yourself with sarcasm and english gramar - which you intended to offend by."

I'd like to see CUF point out _excactly_ where Sir Ralph used sarcasm and esp. grammer in a slanderous manner.

"And you're being childishness: stems from you're constant nattering of the same view repeated over say about 4 replies to me,"

And weren't there 4 CUF replies?

"Any adult would have spoken once, and then walked away -"

Oh, come ON! If _he_ replies its childish, and if you do it...?

"I haven't already heard, seen or acknowledged from other people like you."

I'd say the same thing about CUF's "arguments."

"So if you want my honest opinion, you're only here for one reason to argue in you're spare time because you enjoy getting reactions and feeling like you're a part of something."

Projection again?

"Sorry, but I found you're commentary and you're views way off topic in one strand or another."

You presented one "chronology" of the events, he presented an alternate interpretation.... his is off topic but yours isn't?

"I'm here to debate, yes."

This was my favorite statement.

""Snide' would be the sarcasm and imature remarks - you've done that in not so many words, but you're behaviour and actions in life aren't judged by how they're sent, but how they are recieved."

Are you saying here that he hasn't actually been snide, you just, well, I guess recieved word directly from God that he's snide?

How about demonstrating to us exactly where and how he's been "snide?"

A long CUF quote follows, and sorry, _its_ my favorite! I added the numbers to mark the statements.

"But you mistook me with someone who actually cares.1 That was the first problem, the second problem is you continued to 'natter' at me with you're views, and I told you (in not so many words) that I don't care about you're view and that our argument was null and meaningless2 - and at that point I was hoping for a glint of maturity to kick in and that you would accept the fact that we don't agree and you would walk away.3

I was going to say more.... but with 1 and 2 CUF more or less explicitly says that he isn't here to argue, just to proclaim. Or, as I put it "spew." CUF, put a little note at the beginning of your posts, OK? Something like "I know I'm right and any disagreement will be ignored. If you see any statements that look like arguments they are not, they are statements of faith. I will be offended if anyone attacks my faith."

3 is another pot calling the kettle black thingy.

[Tarquelne]

CUF wrote:
"But I do sincerely mean it when I say I don't intend on abusing any member of this board, and I retract any doing so with a sincere appology."

I don't think you understand what I wrote.
To be perfectly frank, I never for a moment thought you were abusive. I thought you were horribly narrowminded, foolish to the point of stupidity, and petty.
And wrong, lets not forget that.

"But the logical and common sense of it is, how do we really know those kind of statistics, I mean out of 4-6 million consumers there is bound to be a good percentage of critics or disapointment, wouldn't you agree Tarq?"

Sure... so? Some of those disappointed people will be "whiners". And some will make criticism that's justified ("No stacked movement is a flaw in Civ3." is a justified critical remark if there ever was one.), and some won't. Even if the existance of such "whiners" is statistically "required" that doesn't mean I (or anyone) should leave them alone.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Why should Civ3 be a worthy successor to CtP2? The CtP series is not part of the Sid Meier's Civilization series. There is no relationship whatsoever between CtP and Civ except to the extent that CtP1 copied "the look & feel" of Civ and used legal shennanigans to get away with putying the word "Civilization" in the title in order to create the false impression of a relationship. The CtP series was done by different people working for a different company and with no access to Civ1/Civ2 source code. It is no more appropriate to discuss Civ3 as a worthy successor to CtP2 than it would be to discuss Civ3 as a worthy successor to Imperialism II.

You didn't like it?

Anyway, I wasn't discussing it, nor did I say it should be. What I do believe is that Firaxis could have learnt a lot from the CtP series (more so than any other games) and used what they learned to make Civ3 a better game. They failure to do so has meant that CtP2 is a superior game, and people are drifting down the forums listings, to enjoy the delights of a game you can customize and personalise more than any other Civ game.

Whooopah!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
and people are drifting down the forums listings, to enjoy the delights of a game you can customize and personalise more than any other Civ game.

And it's a damn good thing that the game is easy to customize and personalize since they stopped supporting the game quicker than any other Civ type game that ever went to market

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Ming
And it's a damn good thing that the game is easy to customize and personalize since they stopped supporting the game quicker than any other Civ type game that ever went to market

Sure Activision did. But the modders have and will do more for the game than Firaxis will do for Civ3.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Sure Activision did. But the modders have and will do more for the game than Firaxis will do for Civ3.

Yeah... but Firaxis will do far more for Civ 3 than Activision did for CtP2... and depending on the final outcome of the editor for Civ III, I'm sure that modders will do the same for Civ 3

[Ironikinit]

Well, one thing Activision could've used was some better marketing. While Civ 3 has detractors, especially around here, at least it doesn't have a reputation as a straight up hunk of steaming crap that would prevent me from even considering buying it.

[Tarquelne]

"It is no more appropriate to discuss Civ3 as a worthy successor to CtP2 than it would be to discuss Civ3 as a worthy successor to Imperialism II."

I think Civ3 is a worthy successor to Imperialism II. It's differs from ImpII more than I'd like, but you can see that the design philosophy was much the same. I think Civ3 is as close to ImpII as we're likely to get in a 4x game for awhile.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah... but Firaxis will do far more for Civ 3 than Activision did for CtP2...

yeah.

and depending on the final outcome of the editor for Civ III, I'm sure that modders will do the same for Civ 3

*cough*BULL*****cough*
Not in a quadrillion years. Have you dropped past the CtP2 creation forum recently? "The Editor" is about as good (maybe) as the CtP text files, granted. Weigh in SLIC and a moddable AI, and Civ3 just looks... well, lame.

[CharlesUFarley]

Re: this "whiner" label.

Originally posted by MarkG
you gave your... opinion on the definition of a word. in reply i quoted three dictionaries. nothing to do with philosophy....

please re-read the post. keywords: habitually, excessive, childish


it's not logic, it's a simple reference...

You and I both know what you meant.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ming
Again... your relationship with Firaxis is very simple. You bought a video game. It was a business transaction. They made money, and you got a piece of software. There is absolutely nothing personal about it.

Which all the more reinforces my point.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Oh - here's another one with too much time

Originally posted by Tarquelne
CharlesUF. wrote:

"I made a few adjustments in bold text, and now it makes more sense. Anything asside from that is only you're opinion and I'm not here to argue over opinion, nor do I care."

I wanted to jump in ... but I was having a terrible time trying to reign in my propensity toward sarcasm and just argue in a straightforward manner. Respond almost line-by-line, or just pick out what I thought were the worst statements and concentrate on those? As I was looking over past messages I decided that the above quote was by _far_ the most important. Lets look at it, shall we?

"I made a few adjustments in bold text, and now it makes more sense."

Because commentary and opinion stops at the individual, it's not something that a mass or group can decide. I stated several reason that I felt were why Firaxis as a proffesional company would behave in such a fasion. Again, it was my opinion and then someone came along (cough) Sir Ralph and corrected my opinion, shouldn't I defend myself?

CUF had put forth his interpretation of what had happened with Civ3, Firaxis, and "the Community. Sir Ralph responded with his interpretation, an alternate interpretation. CUF responded by offering his re-interpretation of SR's. Note that CUF states that his new interp. "makes more sense." This is the whole of his "argument" against SR's interpretation.

"Anything asside from that is only you're opinion..."

I'm not certain if CUF is deningrating SR's opinion ("ONLY YOUR opinion") or making a distinction - that his (CUF's) words are fact, and that SR's are "only" opinion. I think its the latter, as:

"...and I'm not here to argue over opinion..."

You hear an audience of one clapping to you're yet another meaningless tune. Sir Ralph is aware of his own intentions in respect to our debates, he knows that by disagreeing with my view he wished to debate it. I was stating that 'debating' a view or an opinion is usually a big waste of time, because it (in most cases) ends up with little or no resolve. Maybe you should read more carefully next time, instead of pretending to know what you're talking about.

So I think that CUF's position is that what _he_ writes is hard FACT, and what those who he disagrees with write is opinion.

The only FACT that I would like to point out is that you're putting words in my mouth, and twisting a poorly anylized debate to give reason to join any debate you may have with my views. In short just because you disagree with me, what makes you think I'm going to bend for another case of "Sir Ralph" (No offence SR). But I'll humor you...

This, of course, is _not_ an indication that CUF is here to argue in good faith. No, instead it's a nice little immunization strategy that allows him to simply and quickly discard _anything_ written that he doesn't like.
But it gets better! The statement ended with:

"... nor do I care."

"Volume-101 The Life and Biography of Charles U. Farley" Get a life...

What's that? Doesn't care about what? About what he calls opinion? What SR writes? Or the whole thing? Whatever interpretation we give to the statement, it leads, again, to the belief that CUF isn't here to argue. Instead, he seems to be here to make pronouncments. They may be put forth in the form of argument, but there is _no possibility_ that _anything_ written will change is mind.

Thus, I think a sarcastic, or even abusive, response is actually appropriate!

I guess I can offend people who have no idea what I'm talking about quite easily, it happens. But for the people (critics) who know what I'm talking about they've agreed with many of my views, hmm... I wonder why that is... could it be... I have a valid point? Just because you don't like the way I sound, or how I express my views don't try so hard to look smart, it will only worsen you're attempt. And when I say I don't care - that means what it means - I don't care. I'm not here to win a popularity contest, or to build a social life. I'm here to criticize and complain about a game that ruined (IMO) the Civilization Genre. But you're not really writing about me, you're writing about you. Because you could care less what I do, or what I think - you're just expressing you're anger toward me in means to vent. So my advice is, go punch a pillow or get over yourself because all you're doing is filling threads with more "debate about debate, ya or nay, I'm a whiner, you're a fanboy, E=MC2 Charles UFarley 101, incorrect speech patterns, flaw flaw flaw, repeat argument, playback" .. exactly, that's about how much sense you make to me, but not for the lack of understanding that you're just here to bi+ch like me.

Lets talk about CUF's psychology, OK?

Yeah lets do that - since we have no life.

CUF wrote:
"But you're important commentary turned out to be meaningless childish slanderous rant. In other words, you offered nothing to that debate, and you're only intention (from what I could see) was to get my attention so that you could feel like you're apart of the group."

Is everyone familiar with the concept of "Projection?" That people tend to project onto others thier own thoughts and traits? I think it's a very powerfull, very usefull concept. Please, everyone, look at Sir Ralph's post. I submit that it was far from a "childish slanderous rant." I submit, in fact, that they _only_ reason someone would interpret it as such is because of projection. I believe this, when combined with use of the word "meaningless", indicates that CUF is a childish person,

Actually I projected that I found his comments and views meaningless to my overall state of mind - one person likes something, the other does not - why argue about it?

- Meaningless.

who's here mainly seeking... probably not so much attention, but rather a validation of his own thougts via what I call the "spew" method.

Oh thats a clever one, how many years of hashing you're bull did it take to invent that term?

He "spews" his, ah, "opinions" into the forum and so feels empowered. All he needs is to feel that one other poster agrees with him to seperate the world into two halves: First, the intelligent, reasonable people who can see the world clearly - who agree with him. The other half contains the childish, the dim, and those who are attempting to ingratiate themselves with Firaxis for no well defined reason.

Or perhaps I uhh... Ummm.... don't care! and maybe umm... lesse.,.... (cough)... ummm ... I'm here to (yeah that's it) Vent. Hmm...that's going quite far out on that limb there isn't it tarq - seems like a misunderstanding to me - perhaps it's those huge warn out shoes you keep tripping on.

"Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995
A person who habitually complains or grumbles

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
a person given to excessive complaints and crying

Why does everyone feel that they look more 'right' or appear more 'intelligent' if they quote philosophy or literature?"

There's a debate about whether "whiner" can be justifiably attributed to certain persons... someone points out the definition of the word in an attempt to demonstrate a "match" between "whiner" and the behavior of some posters... OK?

CUF's response to this simple argument is, bizzarly, that the poster was trying to simply hype his ego/appearance by appealing to philosophy or "literature."

So in other words anyone who expressed anger through complaints or even multiple complaints they're whining - regardless of age, stature, dedication etc. Sounds pretty lame to me. Fact is I doubt any mature adult would call another mature adult a "whiner" in person, just because they have complaints. If a cop complains that you're speeding - do you call him a whiner? If you're mechanic ruins you're mother's car and she complains about him - do you call her a whiner? People have REAL complaints here, and the fact that they spent money on the subject is the bottom. You can figure it out.

I'm not sure what the proper interpretation is here. Is CUF such a dim-bunny that he considers Roget's New Thesarus "literature", or that knowing the meaning of words is some high-falut'n philosophical sophistry?

I'm not as educated as most - so I'll put this in a language I know how - people often use big words and textbook quotes so as to appear "intelligent" or lead the illusion that they are "more right" by using real life examples often in the news or in books - I say the material you find in books should be left there, because that's the opinion of the author with the rare occasional "true story". I mean christ, wake up - it's a game, now we're arguing so much we're quoting books, and making philosophical references, some have even stooped as low as to 'correct gramar'.

Or is it that he commonly feels inadequate compared to those who know something of philosophy or literature? So threatend by such people that even simply looking up something in a dictionary "pressed his buttons" and broght forth those feelings of inadequacy?

Well speaking of literature/gramar it's "brought" not "broght". And no I don't find anyone threatening, I see bits of data with responses that is all. But whatever helps you sleep.

Or is it just that his opponent's argument was a good one, and the only way he could think of to discard it was to characterize it as merely and _only_ a self-aggrendazing act on the part of his opponent? Note, here, that I say "discard" the argument, not "counter" it. My little quote of the day is "Never attribute to malice what can equally well be attributed to stupdity."

So asside from calling me stupid, and dim you really have no point. I slander a game, you slander me - who's more of a fool, the fool himself or the fool who follows the fool? And again you make the mistake of assuming that I'm here to win debates and collect a score of some kind. I'm here to discuss the problems with this game, and if needed defend off a few hijackers every now and then. I won't pass up times like this one....

I don't think it likely that CUF thought to himself "Hmm, that appeal to the dictionary was well done - my opponent now merely needs to demonstrate that some of the critics of Civ3 have been childish, excessive or _habitual_ complainers to make a strong argument vis a vis their whininess. I shall attempt to distract him with an ad hominem attack." No, I think that CUF's twisted brain squirmed around some in it's squishy cage, and the thought "He's just one of those book freaks." (or somesuch) allowed him to forget about/ignore the argument.

More name calling, join the children. Fact is, you don't know me - I'm an email packet loaded with text data that loads onto you're sticky film covered monitor. So to sit back with all these big words and poor assumptions only weakens anything you might have against my views. You called the critics "whiners" (whininess) and childish, and excessive complainers - I hope the critics are reading this and put you right back in you're restraint where you belong (don't forget the soother). Asside from the biological remarks about my brain and the odd enlightening insult, you have resolved absolutely nothing but more rant and whining of the very people you despise. No doubt that MarkG or Ming will close this thread down soon. At the least you're post was mildly amusing. [...applaud...]

You know, there are _two_ Civ3 games. One on CD and hard drive, the other is web-based...

Well you're sub just took a shot at my battleship and failed.

Charles. (Chuck U)

[TechWins]

That I don't believe. SLIC is neede for modders and scenario makers even if the game itself is perfectly balanced.

Ok, you got me, there is no "might" about it. SLIC can ultimately provide the best game.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm glad you think that in the long run, your efforts will be rewarded with profits. But if you can't show profits, or the ability to generate profits... investors will not invest... and the people involved will not be willing to continue losing money. It might continue as a "hobby"... but it won't be a "business".

That's what Vel's saying... he'll make profits by generating and developing good software (games). I'm sure MPS started out like that as well, and many other game companies. Quality comes first, and I back Vel 100% if he's going to risk profit to keep his customers happy, I think that business is gamble no matter how you play it, but I would rather go bankcrupt with an excellent reputation than become a capitalist with 'production-line quality' games. It's money that corrupts the mind, all the great artists and even actors lost the "edge" because they got money-minded. But here's another fact, there are businesses that still thrive today with the same standards and principles that Vel wields so highly.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
CUF wrote:

"I don't have a problem with people jumping in but rather the manner they do so."

Maybe its just me, but I think the "manner" he referes to is "in a manner that directly and persuasively argues against my statements."

Perhaps, or it could just be the obvious - I don't like arguing when I have no common ground with my debate opponent.

"heard it from so many others, it's now common, therefor if I know, you repeating it would be meaningless to me."

I think "meaningless to me" supports my contention that CUF is utterly closed minded.

Closed tight, especially when it comes to hearing the same group of people telling me I have no right to feel the way I do. When I feel that my rights are being attacked, I attack back.

"And I found you slanderous: by arming yourself with sarcasm and english gramar - which you intended to offend by."

I'd like to see CUF point out _excactly_ where Sir Ralph used sarcasm and esp. grammer in a slanderous manner.

"Charley U. Farley, you disappoint me."
"So don't repeat like a parrot"
"It's obvious that you didn't yet work in a company"
"0 points for you so far, Charley."

With those 4 phrases (I didn't look very hard or long) he calls me a disapointment, refers to me as an animal in a degrading manner, makes a personal assumption of my character and my experience in the business world, and then lastly a smart@ss sarcastic remark pertaining to a win for him, and some sort of a loss for me. Now if I was blind that would be okay, but that looks like slander, sarcasm and offensive remarks to me.

"And you're being childishness: stems from you're constant nattering of the same view repeated over say about 4 replies to me,"

And weren't there 4 CUF replies?

That's right - replies. As in 'respond' to someone or something.

"Any adult would have spoken once, and then walked away -"

Oh, come ON! If _he_ replies its childish, and if you do it...?

No, I was debating with John Doe, and he jumped in a mid point and started cutting down my views, I retaliated with a valid defense, and he continued to cut down my views, so I then claim that if he won't walk away, but would rather argue something that has no resolve, he's acting imature. Sounds right to me, don't put words in my mouth or twist things!

"I haven't already heard, seen or acknowledged from other people like you."

I'd say the same thing about CUF's "arguments."

"You did it too"
"No I didn't!"
"Yes you did!"
"Shut up, I did not"
"Yes you did"
"I'm rubber you're ..."

Can we be any more childish here.

"So if you want my honest opinion, you're only here for one reason to argue in you're spare time because you enjoy getting reactions and feeling like you're a part of something."

Projection again?

Possibly, but in you're case it would be called "attention".

"Sorry, but I found you're commentary and you're views way off topic in one strand or another."

You presented one "chronology" of the events, he presented an alternate interpretation.... his is off topic but yours isn't?

We were talking about negativity and posativity, and he started talking about how my views were a waste of time, then why was a thread created for us to discuss those things? He did stray off topic, and I too, but only to follow his course of debate.

"I'm here to debate, yes."

This was my favorite statement.

""Snide' would be the sarcasm and imature remarks - you've done that in not so many words, but you're behaviour and actions in life aren't judged by how they're sent, but how they are recieved."

Are you saying here that he hasn't actually been snide, you just, well, I guess recieved word directly from God that he's snide?

You know what I mean. Whats that brown ooze coming from you're mouth? Wipe you're face.

How about demonstrating to us exactly where and how he's been "snide?"

"Demonstrating to us" ? You assume that you're accomponied by everyone and speaking on their behalf or something? Or is this some kind of anti-criticism cult you're starting up? Either way, you know what "snide" means, and you know what I'm talking about - I'm not going to bend over so you can have you're fun, go look it up and figure it out.

A long CUF quote follows, and sorry, _its_ my favorite! I added the numbers to mark the statements.

"But you mistook me with someone who actually cares.1 That was the first problem, the second problem is you continued to 'natter' at me with you're views, and I told you (in not so many words) that I don't care about you're view and that our argument was null and meaningless2 - and at that point I was hoping for a glint of maturity to kick in and that you would accept the fact that we don't agree and you would walk away.3

I was going to say more.... but with 1 and 2 CUF more or less explicitly says that he isn't here to argue, just to proclaim. Or, as I put it "spew." CUF, put a little note at the beginning of your posts, OK? Something like "I know I'm right and any disagreement will be ignored. If you see any statements that look like arguments they are not, they are statements of faith. I will be offended if anyone attacks my faith."

You're going to need a truck to carry all the bullsh_t away. "More or less saying that I'm not here to argue" ? Do you feel that you'll ascend to the position of 'right' if you refine each and every lie until it becomes truth? I never said any of that crap, anyone who reads this will see that. Just another fine example of you twisting my wording to favor you're view.

Heck, give Tarq a fake tail and he'll chase it all day long trying to figure out why it won't stop for him. How do you get you're ego through the door of you're home? He complains because I'm offensive, and I bi+ch and complain - but he hasn't really said why he's here ... attention or boredom, which is it? Does he actually believe that I'm concerned in some way?

Charles.