Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 60
- 2
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Firaxis, like Intel, used to have a tick-tock release model: even-numbered games good, odd-numbered games bad. They have abandoned it with Civ 6, so I hope Civ 7 will be better than both 5 and 6.
I wouldn't say "bad". Civ 1 was obviously great, even if Civ 2 was much better, and Civ 3 and Civ 5 were both good, even if both started out as "one step forward, two steps back" in comparison to their predecessors. And then Civ 6 was the first one that I didn't even think was worth upgrading to even for novelty value. (I played one copy of it, but then didn't buy several copies for family multiplayer games like I had with 5 or even encourage friends to get it for multiplayer like I had with 4)
I think the more alarming thing about the odd numbered Civ games was overreliance on expansions/DLC, which went so far as to reintroduce game mechanics that had existed in previous versions and then been omitted from the sequels' base game. Civ 3 left out multiplayer, Civ 5 left out religion and espionage. And if you find yourself having to wait to upgrade until the game is back up to par again, why not just do what I did and wait a little longer until the game is in the bargain bin?
More options
Context Copy link
My brother in Christ, Civ 5 was awesome. And while I didn't play 1 or 3, I think it's safe to say 1 was good (otherwise nobody would've bought it and we wouldn't have had the series).
Civ 5 introduced the doom carpet, which was a step back from the doom stacks of 4.
I disagree. One unit per tile was such an improvement that when Civ 5 came out, I could never go back to 4. Combat actually became fun in 5, rather than a chore to be avoided like in 4.
How is combat fun in 5? Rally points are impossible, so you're actively punished for fielding a large army from many conquered cities. That's why they changed conquest victory to 'secure all capitals' because it was too much of a slog to secure a large chunk of the world.
It just is? I absolutely have fielded large armies, painted the map, and had a blast doing so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link