I can confirm that @UpmostRook9474 never disrespected the tastes of pro-Balkan people on the forum. We always had civil discussions.
The reason all that answer to point 5 was brought up is because not once, and once again not @UpmostRook9474, there were some pro-Asia or pro-Africa people who simply came to hate on pro-Europe or pro-Balkan topics. Not arguments, which I respect and understand, but simply being passive-aggressive and “witty”.
On the other hand, I have never seen pro-Europe coming to hate on pro-Africa and pro-Asia topics.
There are people who think “you like Europe, I like Asia, cool” and then there are people who think like “you like Europe, that’s bad, we already have too much Europe, you can make a mod for it, it’s a waste of time”, etc. And I’m not talking about OP because even though he disagreed with balkan civs his attitude was not aggressive or passive-aggressive. But there are some people on this forum who were aggressive or passive-aggressive about this.
Which is a behavior I don’t understand. Why would anyone choose to come on a pro-Europe topic and then complain that there is a pro-Europe topic. Usually when there is a TV channel I don’t like on TV, I just change the channel. I don’t have the kind of anger to write a hate letter to the produces about how much their TV channel sucks because I don’t like it.
This also happens because as you said “People who are against African civs so to say are less vocal about it because they’re less “protected”, it’s less safe to say that”. The Balkans enjoy no such social protection.
Yes, looking back it’s pretty ironic that we discussed that on a topic about why Balkan civs shouldn’t be added. It wasn’t by design, I made a counter-arument post on the OP, then @Apocalypso4826 asked me details about a certain concept in there, one thing led to another, it all happened organically. But if anything, goes to show there are people interested in the Balkans.
The reason I am a bit repetitive and obsessive is because of the Romanians are to be added, I wish a historically accurate version of them would be added.
Most westerners are only interested in the medieval history of: England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Russia, Turkey and maybe some niche Japan, Poland and Hungary but that’s where it stops.
The only thing they really know about Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania is “Vlad the Impaler”. Like the point 6 in the OP, he assumes the Balkans were pretty much the same as the rest of Europe, so what’s the point? So I basically make those topics to combat ignorance and show they were in fact different. Without my topics, how much would you know about Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania?
Even Vlad the Impaler’s campaign, which is actually in game, has plenty of historical blunders:
There I made a list here on how to fix it with sources and everything.
Some historical blunders are inevitable, especially in a video game, but I’m not talking about Spanish having a Paladin witch French coat of arms, but… in the last mission of the campaign, the narrator says Vlad died… he didn’t. It’s all in the post. Imagine messing up the story of Joan of Arc, the forums would be full, because most people in the west know about that story.
I mean I had people on the forum saying “We don’t need Romanians, they are already represented by Slavs”. Which, what?! I agree that you don’t want Romanians, that part I get it, it’s ###### ### are already represented by Slavs? It’s like saying “We don’t need Italians, they are already represented by the Teutons”, Italians are not Germanic, and Romanians are not Slavic. They have Slavic influence, just as Italians have Germanic influence. But at the end of the day it’s Latin with Slavic sprinkles.
Take Paradox games for example. In Crusader Kings 2 Romanians were South Slavic (not to mention other historical inaccuracies, but for the sake of simplicity just focus on one that’s major) and in Hearts of Iron 4 before recent patches they got the political parties and leaders wrong (this is 1936, plenty of doccumentation). And this was not some esotric knowledge like the middle ages where you have to dig.
So, I would rather overshare, just in case, than undershare and see a major blunder in case the Romanians are added. Of course, you can’t expect a “perfect civ” but the more the devs know about it the better.
I bet that if Romanians are added and they have Steppe Lancers, Cavalry Archers and Paladins (which they used) some people on the forum are going to be like “Why do Romanians have Steppe Lancers?”, because they assume the civ must be a copy-paste from France or Teutons or something.
And yes, I’m still aware of the irony 
but this is kind of the direction the topic went into.
OP must be like:
