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.
- 158
- 1
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 -
Company of Heroes 2- arguably top 5 games of all time, IMO - required you to restart the game every 2-3 matches or else you'd get a crash from a memory leak. Matches were sometimes an hour long, and down to the wire when they'd blow up. They didn't patch it for 6 years I think and I still played a ton.
So, hopefully I'll be able to join you guys for a game here.
I'm curious, why do you hold CoH2 in such esteem? Me and my friend group used to play both CoH1 and 2, but the main reason we switched was just that 2 had higher player numbers at the time (which is typical for newer games). At least it wasn't worse in gameplay, but imo it also wasn't better, either.
COH 2 took a long time to get good. I played it since beta. In comparison, I showed up very late and very unskilled to COH 1. I understand many of those players held 2 in disdain, as an "arcade" game.
The QoL features in 2 (fence jumping, ribbon) and tactical depth (True sight) were huge. The addition of 4v4 was a major amount of fun. I know it's a controversial opinion, but coldtech games offered another level of differentiation even if the competitive scene rejected them. The lower TTK made things frantic and faster, and I appreciated the depth of different abilities.
There was a lot that didn't work. Bulletins were lame; commanders were a downgrade, etc.
I've played 3 a bit now and think it's more like 1. I enjoy the performance and visual enhancements quite a bit, along with the addition of verticality. However, I'm pretty bad at it, and my regular playgroup for CoH 2 was shattered when the guy who bugged us all to play regularly committed suicide, so I don't know if I'll get any better.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link