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.
- 64
- 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 -
I would say that I at least have no interest in it even despite the leaders. With the ages mechanic, and not keeping a single civ through the entire game, what they are making isn't Civ any more despite having the same name on the box. And on top of that, not only are they destroying the game (imo of course, YMMV), they're doing to to correct something I don't even agree was a problem that needed solving. So I don't really care who they pick, I'm not interested in a new game wearing the skin of Sid Meier's Civilization.
More on topic, I'm not terribly surprised that they are picking leaders based on DEI. It was a problem in Civ VI already (e.g. Catherine de Medici, Tomyris, Amanitore, etc) and it's unfortunately the case that game studios which start down the path of ideologically driven game decisions don't stop there. For more small scale politically correct game design, I also noticed that they have hopped on the "BCE/CE" bandwagon. It's a small thing, but it is pretty annoying to me as well.
I suspect that the whole "one leader, several civs" mechanic is inspired by DEI, even. Now you can girlboss your way through the millennia, and not just one but several patriarchal empires will bow under you.
I don't think it is, personally. It strikes me as an outgrowth of the (imo misguided) design philosophy of Civ VI where you picked a leader first, and a civ second. They really leaned hard into the leaders in Civ VI, and I think they decided from there that what people really cared about is the leader they pick, not the faction name they have. Thus the decision in VII to go with changing civs but a constant leader, when if anything it should've been the exact opposite.
Am I mis-remembering, or could you match any leader with any civ in, I think, Civ 2?
I know you could in Civ IV (not by default but you could enable it in the options). Not sure about 2, that was before I started playing.
The focus on leaders in 6 was a bit ironic given they made them all look like cartoony caricatures. The 2d and 3d art styles was my biggest annoyance about it.
They should bring back palaces. I loved building them. And have the leaders and throne rooms change during the eras and political systems.
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