No room for civility any more?

[Tarquelne]

Re: ZzZzZ.......

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.