Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ycz6]

City
Shanty City
Grand City

Shanty City sounds worse than City.  Did you mean to start at Shanty City?

Ruined City
Young City
Grand City

[dondon151]

I like to call the basic level City a "S***ty." Rolls off the tongue.

[eHalcyon]

...

This has too much burden of knowledge.

That's what the FAQ is for.

You can't expect people to go to the FAQ just because some people are spelling poorly and capitalizing letters in the middle of words. This is the Internet! There needs to be some indication that there is a pattern or signal embedded in the text. Otherwise, it just looks like a string of typos.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is off. Wasn't carstimon's post in jest?

I suppose it was my meter that was off then!  /fooled 

[pinkymadigan]

55/54.  Seems like the guys from the neutral response have hijacked this voting...

Edit: 55/55. balance restored

I didn't even know this was a thing. Memes change faster than a woman's fancy.

Well, then early indications were that 1/2/3 was out ahead, but by a small amount IIRC (3/4 votes most of the time. I saw it at a +6 I think at one point). I think post-wise 1/2/3 came out ahead too, so that is probably the majority.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Amazing... This is now a Level 4 thread. Or is it Level 3..?

[Davio]

We should just keep level 0 and level 3 cities as these are the only ones that don't cause any confusion.
So, no more level 1 and 2 cities, be gone!

Instead, we should take the average of 0 and 3 for the middle one, which is 1.5.

So, lvl 0, lvl 1.5 and lvl 3 cities.

[WanderingWinder]

We should just keep level 0 and level 3 cities as these are the only ones that don't cause any confusion.
So, no more level 1 and 2 cities, be gone!

Instead, we should take the average of 0 and 3 for the middle one, which is 1.5.

So, lvl 0, lvl 1.5 and lvl 3 cities.

Precisely what was jokingly suggested in reply #65.
_________________________________________________________________________
By the way, Kroet, welcome to the forums!

[Insomniac]

I use 1, 2 and 3 and am a computer scientist. As a computer scientist you start counting from 0 however

Level0 --> Level * 0

And Level*0=0

So calling it a level 0 city implies it does nothing.

Since City with no piles empties draws you a card and gives you 2 actions I do not use level 0. I use level 1 2 and 3.

[enfynet]

It took me a while to figure out how I refer to City. I think I call it "City" when it's just the expensive Village, call it "Level 1 City" when it get's the first bonus, and "Level 2 City" with the 2nd bonus. So I go by the 0/1/2 but don't refer to the null level.

[Davio]

We should just keep level 0 and level 3 cities as these are the only ones that don't cause any confusion.
So, no more level 1 and 2 cities, be gone!

Instead, we should take the average of 0 and 3 for the middle one, which is 1.5.

So, lvl 0, lvl 1.5 and lvl 3 cities.

Precisely what was jokingly suggested in reply #65.
_________________________________________________________________________
By the way, Kroet, welcome to the forums!

You caught me, I don't actually read every reply, ssssh! 

[gman314]

It took me a while to figure out how I refer to City. I think I call it "City" when it's just the expensive Village, call it "Level 1 City" when it get's the first bonus, and "Level 2 City" with the 2nd bonus. So I go by the 0/1/2 but don't refer to the null level.

I don't think anyone refers to the null level, and that's where the ambiguity comes from. When referring to levels 1 and 2, you could be using either system.

[KingsSkort]

If you search "level 1 city" and "level 2 city," it's pretty obvious that the 1/2/3 system is how everyone actually talks. I have no idea who's voting in this poll.

[SirPeebles]

If you search "level 1 city" and "level 2 city," it's pretty obvious that the 1/2/3 system is how everyone actually talks. I have no idea who's voting in this poll.

Hmm, that is suspicious.  And honestly, the votes cast are just way to close to being dead even.  But it's the computer programmers among us who claim to prefer 0/1/2, and I trust them to be honest with internet polls.

[SirPeebles]

Looking at the forum stats, yesterday registered the largest number of users online at once since last August, around Dark Ages's pre-release spoilage.

Though not by crazy amounts.

[theory]

Thanks for noticing this -- it prompted me to go look and it seems that someone is spamming our registration.  Though it predates this poll, so the two don't seem related.

[Donald X.]

Thanks for noticing this -- it prompted me to go look and it seems that someone is spamming our registration.  Though it predates this poll, so the two don't seem related.

If bots are an issue, one thing you can do is have a "bot trap" subforum. You have to post there once to be able to post anywhere else. Bots don't know that and so never post.

[Forge!!!]

I voted 0/1/2, I'm not a computer programmer or anything like that, that's just what I've always called them. 0 piles are gone, 1 pile is gone, 2 piles are gone. I don't think it's suspicious, I just think there's two very valid ways of looking at it and some people use one way and some people use the other.

[unlinked]

just the way my minds works.
 

$city = array(
       0 =>'+1 Card, +2 Actions',
       1 =>'+2 Cards, +2 Actions',
       2 =>'+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1'
);

[theory]

Thanks for noticing this -- it prompted me to go look and it seems that someone is spamming our registration.  Though it predates this poll, so the two don't seem related.

If bots are an issue, one thing you can do is have a "bot trap" subforum. You have to post there once to be able to post anywhere else. Bots don't know that and so never post.

Bizarrely, they have made 0 posts.  I don't understand why you'd make 40 spam accounts and no posts.  They didn't even have website spam links.  It's a bit like the comment spam on the main blog right now: spam with no links or advertising, wtf?

I have looked into the bot trap subforum, and I think SMF would require a lot of mods and jiggering to get that set up.  But there's verification required before your first post now, and so that would help (a bit).  It seems like a lot of this is also being done manually, for whatever reason.

In any event, I added a registration mod that blocks registration if you show up in stopforumspam.com, which all of these people did.  Bleh. 

[Donald X.]

I have looked into the bot trap subforum, and I think SMF would require a lot of mods and jiggering to get that set up.

Really? Posters with 0 posts are Newbies; posters with 1 are Pawns. You make the Newbie group only allow posting in that one forum. They can read them all but can only post in that one. That seems like a normal forum software option.

[theory]

I have looked into the bot trap subforum, and I think SMF would require a lot of mods and jiggering to get that set up.

Really? Posters with 0 posts are Newbies; posters with 1 are Pawns. You make the Newbie group only allow posting in that one forum. They can read them all but can only post in that one. That seems like a normal forum software option.

I have problems creating usergroups with 0 posts.  Right now half the new registrants go into a "Newbie" group, and the other half go into another "Newbie" group.  Upon first post everyone is promoted to Pawn, but the two separate Newbie groups make setting permissions difficult, because only one Newbie group shows up there.

[thirtyseven]

Proposal:

0 piles = Newbie
1 pile = Pawn
2 piles = activated Pawn

[Tables]

I think 0/1/2 is a lot more misleading. If someone says X is level 1, the immediate assumption is that it's at it's lowest level.

That seems like an entirely false assumption. You are taking some other contexts and using them, ignoring other contexts you don't like, and ignoring the what cities actually do.

The truthiness of the assumption isn't the issue here. It's the implication. Perhaps that would be a better word. You can't make a statement that has a natural implication and then complain when people make that assumption from it.

[ConMan]

Bizarrely, they have made 0 posts.  I don't understand why you'd make 40 spam accounts and no posts.  They didn't even have website spam links.  It's a bit like the comment spam on the main blog right now: spam with no links or advertising, wtf

Some of it is diversionary or delaying tactics - prevent you from looking closely at which ones are or aren't spamming, or wait a while before putting in the spam posts hoping that you're only scrutinising the new users. Another tactic that's coming up on a different forum is to create an account that replies to threads with either very generic comments like "Very interesting, thanks for the info" or copies text from somewhere else, aiming to get the account confirmed and the posts up, then either starts its spamming or just changes its signature to include the spam link now that it has a "legitimate" post.

[theory]

I guess. Right now it just seems like a family is having a disjointed conversation via boardgame strategy blog comments.