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.
- 111
- 7
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 -
Victoria 3 is coming out in a few days, and I've been conflicted about getting it. For those who aren't familiar, it's a Paradox Interactive game on the Victorian Era, running between 1836-1936, and similar in style to their many other strategy game offerings. I've always thought Victoria 2 was a fantastic game, especially for focusing so much on people, trade and the economy over warfare and painting the map your color. But in the last decade or so Paradox has changed their business model to a more DLC-focused model; while Hearts of Iron 3 released three expansion packs over the next few years and then was done, HOI4 has six now six years after it was released, and with no sign of stopping. Steam lists a total price for all the content of about $185. Stellaris is at $235 or so, while Europa Universalis 4, released in 2013, has a list longer than my screen can display in one go and is $230 while on a 50% off sale. This is all without the base game.
While I'm sympathetic to the fact that a company has to make money, and they are keeping their base game at about $50 and still updating the games, I'm also reaching the end of my rope with them. Their DLCs tend to be just not that great or interesting, they break mods or split the mod community, they result in this incredible buy-in problem and it oftentimes seems to be an excuse to release badly done content and fix it later. I've tried to stop supporting them, at least somewhat, and so I'm behind on DLCs in some games or have others without any. At this point though, I don't know if I should get Victoria 3 on release at all, as as I try to temper my excitement with the knowledge that it will almost certainly be a buggy and unfinished launch with many more dollars to spend in the coming years. But I'm curious to hear from others too; is anyone else as interested in it? Does it seem worth it?
Yes. Even though, ironically, I never played Vicky 2 (CK2 -> EU4)
Part of that is just getting sucked into the community's endless memes about it. It's basically Dr Dre's Detox for strategy nerds, and that has an allure.
But part of it is just that I find the time period and mechanics interesting but absolutely loathe pre-CK2 Paradox's UI design so a Vicky III was the best case.
Not to preorder. Not to buy on launch day.
If the reviews are good and it's not buggy...yes. I've mostly had good experiences with even early CK2 and EU4.
It all depends on which Paradox we get. The "make a good enough game and then increment" or "make a hollow game and then increment". I don't mind waiting a few years if it's the latter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link