Wow, I cannot possibly imagine playing a game where someone criticised me for talking about strategies or outcomes openly.

Boardgames are a social activity, I think I would step up and walk away from any game where someone admonished me for speaking!

Yes, sure, I’ll try and get away with cunning strategies and hope people haven’t seen them, if someone does and points it out to the table, that’s my fault for not being subtle enough.  I cannot, however, get annoyed with that player for pointing it out.  He has as much right to try and win as I do, and if that means sabotaging the position of a leader then that is all part and parcel of the experience

As to how to deal with people who only want to play certain types/genres of games, if you host such a group as a private gaming group, you can create and enforce your own prime directive that players who participate in your private gaming group should be flexibly open to playing a wide variety of modern strategy games.

If yours is a public gaming group or club organized by a group of people, you can vote to create and enforce your own mission statement that players who participate in your public gaming group should be flexibly open to playing a wide variety of modern strategy games.

I think Ms. Meeples’ token idea would work best in the public gaming group but with dual application: as both a voting token for use when deciding which games to play AND as a credit token which can be saved to cash in to play the game of one’s choice.

I would suspect that the system would take 4 to 6 gaming session before enough game-token points could be accrued for the system to go into effect. For a group of six players, I would suggest 5 tokens as the cost for Individual’s Game Choice.

When the group votes on games to play, each person would bid a token in voting for a game title. However, only the players who cast the majority of game-token votes would pay a token. (Those who cast a game-token vote for a game that wasn’t chosen by the majority would be given back their game-token bid.) Naturally, this would mean at times that certain players may choose not to bid at all but instead save their accumulating game tokens so that they can eventually cash in their five tokens to play a game of their choice.

At the same time, in order to earn game tokens, they would naturally be more motivated to go along with playing other games.

As to table talk, whenever and wherever appropriate, I would discourage people from engaging in game-spoiling tactics, such as people thinking out loud their speculations (unless it qualifies in proper context as bluffing). I would also remind players whenever and wherever appropriate that each player is playing for him-/herself and that any discussion should not only be social but also true to the spirit and intent of the game.

We have a pretty simple method for choosing the next game: one quick round of Pass The Pigs.  The winner of the previous game starts, and gets one series (one set of rolls) to get as large a score as possible.  Pigs pass around the table until everyone has had one shot.  Whoever gets the highest score in a single series gets to choose the next game.

If a game is chosen that someone really doesn’t want to play, they are welcome to sit out and see what comes out next, but most people respect.... THE LAW OF THE PIGS!  :)

If someone is not winning the game because they are chatting on their phone, or something like that, and just before I win, someone tells them exactly what they should do keep me from winning, which in turn might help that person (the friend, not the idiot) win, I don’t think my win should be taken away because group-think stopped me.
Each player should be able to play their own game. Weaknesses in play is what one would look for when playing a game. If it is a learning game, that is one thing, but if it is a game everyone knows the rules in and out, it should be individual thinking, and not group-think.
I have a player who does this when he is losing. He tells the friend to do this and that and then this, to stop me from winning. The friend for most of the game was in last place, and because of this group-think situation, might take the win, in a very hollow victory imo. But, if it is the player’s tactics to play dumb for most of the game, and then sweep up, more power to them; that is a weakness for some - to underestimate others bad playing for bad playing instead of tactical maneuvers.

On the table talk issue, the folks I play with most generally talk a fair amount at the table. Most of the time we are kibbitzing about strategies, and I think on the whole that adds to the fun. As you point out, it does tend to make things closer, which makes for some deliciously tense games.

Occasionally, though, the talk will drift from general kibbitzing into manipulation. I’m not sure where the line is, but it is not much fun to play in a game where one or two players are trying to pressure other players into doing things that will hurt one player and benefit themselves. We almost lost a player once because he was consistently a strong player and some of the others at the table would start saying “Get X!” before the game had really even had time to develop. It’s one thing to take on the table when you’re the leader; it’s quite another to have to always take on the table just because you generally play well. I don’t blame him for being sour, and even though I wasn’t the target it definitely diminished my enjoyment too. Luckily we got past that, but things were ugly for a while.

I’d be interested in Ms. Meeples’ take on table talk that has that mean-spirited flavor. Are there types of table talk that aren’t fair?

I’d let the nay-sayer sit out until the group decided upon a game that he did want to play.  This can certainly be awkward, but I suspect that he’d either stop sitting out and play or start bringing a book.

Table talk is an interesting topic.  I don’t mind table talk, but not if it gets too specific.  (And I know the line when I see it.)
“Player X seems to be going for goal Y” is acceptable to me.  “If you move there and I move here and Player C moves there, we can stop him.” is too specific.  As an example, use Thurn and Taxis (taking specific cards as the moves). 

“If you take craftsman, Player X will ship sugar” seems ok.  Saying if you take trader, I’ll craft for you” is not.