The Myth of a Bugless Civ3

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Not bugs! Even though there are plenty to talk about. So, once again, it seems to me that bugs only sustain a forum when a game that could have been great was rushed out the door. I imagine no amount of patching would fundamentally alter Front Office Football enough to make it the game they want. This is why they talk about the NEXT game.

The reason bugs are talked about is because EA screwed us over and will not be releasing a patch. Much conversation is now even on other text-based fantasy sports games.

It isn't on the substantive things at all. Basically it is one big Off Topic Forum, and if you think that refutes your premise than so be it.

Btw, I also thought this was a troll (I still do). You had enough fun skewering over Mr. Morris last year over this, yet you do it again? For what? Discussion? HAH! That is thrown out the window by your second post, which was exactly what you said when this interview was published last year. So, what is it? Trolling or some deep seating resentment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just checked out CtP and AC multiplaying forums for the first time. A bunch of threads, with people posting when they did a turn. OF COURSE it'll have most then. That isn't discussion about the game, it is posting for every turn.

After that, the Off Topic wins out. Civ2 Strategy is a couple K behind that (but that's been here forever). Civ3 is boosted by the List and what people want.

Sorry, but I still stand by Mr. Morris's radical stance, that bugs do a forum community make. I've been (and others) saying for a looong while that the OT here at Apolyton holds the community together. Mark may disagree but I hold it to be correct.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think any game we get will be bug free. But I also don't think bugs are the only life a forum has, if the game is deep enough people will talk strategy.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

quote: I think all bugs and the like should be kept to a specific thread which is moderated(all other created threads dealing with these issues would be closed and what inside moved to the official thread).

Good idea. I'll just say on this topic that it really is stunning to me that people like Imran exist. This is not an attack. Just a statement. Imran is representative of (for me) a strange kind of person who seemingly lives on-line and totally thrives as long as there's some topic being thrown around. Bugs are a good topic in his view because it stimulates people to post.

My view is that bug-talk spoils a forum unless it is handled carefully, thus my question. Jon has posted one solution. Thus, my "trolling." I consider it preventative maintenance. So far we have one vote:

** Keep all bug talk in one thread. Fine by me. But when that day comes, I'd hope the Apolyton posters won't rebel when other threads about bugs are locked/moved. Again, we'll have to see.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited March 05, 2001).]

[MarkG]

A person who posts private message can not be a moderator on these forums. I'm disappointed to say that as of this moment yin26 is no longer the moderator of the civ3 forums. Dan and I would like to thank him for his (organazing and moderating, not... teasing) services all this time.



------------------
Markos, Apolyton Civilization Site

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Yin, as you know from SMAC, I don't really like bug talk (but then again we were trying to get you newbies to leave ). Actually, wait. What I said in paranthesis is important. We believed that if the bug talk was gone, you'd all leave, and we'd have our OT community back, basically. So, the same concept.

I ain't saying bugs topics are good, I'm saying they are usually the lifeblood of a game forum for a LOOOONG while. I also remember the Baldur's Gate board, where it was either: bugs, OT crap, or how do I... (and then they leave). Bugs definetly keep a certain kind of forum community running, and I do think that Mr. Morris is right on target here. We don't live in an idealistic world. If we did, then I'd say, yeah, there can be talk of strategies and game mechanics (well, not so we can find out what is causing a bug). I don't believe that to exist.

If you make a bug forum, that forum will have more posts that the General in the long run, that I believe fully.

[MarkG]

and yin, if you wanted to discuss how the community will handle the bugs discussion, you would post only the specific quote of the article. posting the whole thing meant that you created a discussion on the entire issue of bugs and what developers say about it. i fail to see how an experience poster like you made such a mistake....

therefore, you're now free to speak to whatever tone you like(always according to the rules of course )

[yin26]

Markos,

I see that you have no problem calling me a troll simply because you don't like this discussion. And yet, you can't make these allegations public? Furthermore, the best you can do is strip me of a moderator title?

You have absolutely the wrong understanding of a forum, my friend. However, it certainly makes sense to me how you get beta copies of games...

[MarkG]

and Lung, there are 1500 more threads archived from the CTP-General forum. so it's not smaller than the multiplaying one...

[yin26]

I wonder if you attended university? There we are taught to be thorough when discussion sombebody's views. I fail to see how quoting just a few lines of Jeff's article is somehow better than reproducing the whole thing? As I said, I think the topic is a fascinating one as written by the guy who is overseeing the QA of Civ3.

If you think this warrants taking away my title, fine. But to this point you haven't made a case.

[yin26]

By the way, nowhere did I mention WHO wrote that private message, did I? And did we sign anything that says "Moderators shall never re-print the contents of a private message"? In my mind, if you hadn't taken to insulting me with the "Troll" comment in the first place, perhaps I might have taken your criticism a bit better.

As it was, I took the trash to the curb.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess now you can say who sent it .

[MarkG]

quote: I fail to see how quoting just a few lines of Jeff's article is somehow better than reproducing the whole thing?

focused is a more accurate word. if you want a discussion on the community and bugs, you would post only what was needed(even that wasnt that necessary actually). posting the whole article was something else. you yourself called it a "teaser". considering the other recent thread of yours, your thread looked like what a troll would post to revive an already done and finished discussion on the jkm article

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 03-06-2001 03:27 AM By the way, nowhere did I mention WHO wrote that private message, did I?

it doesnt matter.

quote: And did we sign anything that says "Moderators shall never re-print the contents of a private message"?

we expect our moderators to be some of the best people of the forums. we dont expect them to post private messages.


and yes, i do it for the beta copies!

[yin26]

Well, I'll leave this to the public to comment on. If people think:

1. Posting "too much" of an article +
2. Anonymously posting a private message =

Stripped of Moderator title, then I have nothing to say.

But I would like you to consider this: What if that private message had been from somebody other than you? Something like this:

"I just received a private message from somebody saying, 'Yin, you move threads too much.' Do you think this is true? I hope he posts publically so I can get more people's reactions."

I daresay you wouldn't have a problem. And yet, that's all I did with your snipe at me. Could it be, then, your emotions got the best of you? I have to say, you yourself are hardly the model of a rational moderator. The irony!

[MarkG]

if you were frequently in the OT, you might remember when someone got a "vacation" partially cause he posted the private message of another