Ryan (and all BGN readers) -

You have to understand, the Gathering is long - 10 days - going there represents not just a commitment of time, but one of mental energy. You must get your life in order, get travel arrangements made, get family obligations managed, etc., etc. When you get back, besides the normal unpacking, there is the getting back to a normal sleep schedule, the answering of the “What did you play?”, “What did you like?”, “Who did you see?”, etc., etc. questions over and over.

It dominates your life for the 10 days leading up to it, the time of it, and the 10 days after you get back and are trying to get back into the normal swing of things.

I think it completely normal for a gaming event such as this to be the focus of a gaming column on a gaming website, at least for a few days before, during, and after, such an event.

Ryan,

You bring up some interesting points.  Regarding the BGG/Michael Barnes incident, I actually did start writing about it, but decided against posting what I had written for several reasons, chief among them because I had written about the some of the events leading up to the banning, and as it’s important to me that I vary what I write about, I thought it would be best to give someone else the chance to weigh in on the subject

Regarding varied coverage of The GOF, it just so happens that I Friedemann Friese kindly sat down with me for an hour and a half to talk about his work.  As soon as I can transcribe the tapes, I will post what I think turned out to be a really interesting interview.

And regarding the “debate...of Eurogames vs. Ameritrash”, since I see the whole brou-ha-ha as sort of a “which tastes better, chocolate or strawberry ice cream” sort of thing.  There’s not much point in debating the issue since there is no reason for anyone to make a choice, and the answer comes down to personal preference.

Ryan,

Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful column.  Although I agree with David that the Gathering is a legitimate topic of coverage, I think BGN would be better served if the writers stopped writing to each other.  One of the worst examples of this is when a writer mentions a name and assumes we know the relationship s/he has with this person (this is especially annoying if the person mentioned turns out to be an SO). 

I really enjoy reading reports from the Gathering, but if an article sounds like it was written only for other attendees--inside jokes, out-of-context references--it gets old fast.  Only 300 people were invited; Let’s hope that those 300 people are not the only audience to which BGN aspires.

And regarding the AT debate:  I’ll only say that some of the writing on the new AT blog, Fortress America, is top-notch.  However, I suggest you avoid the comment areas if juvenile posturing annoys you.

Ryan, I will disagree to a degree with you.  I write about what inspires me.  Sometimes this may not even be closely related to what those reading my column may be pondering or considering.  Does that mean I shouldn’t write about it?  Sorry, but I can honestly say that I don’t give much thought to whether a topic is high on the radar of most gamers when I decide to write an article.  If I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute on a particular topic or issue, then I will write about it, whehter or not many or most readers will consider it “news-worthy”.

Regarding the American vs. European games so-called debate, I honestly feel this is just an invention of a few folks who seem determined to stir the pot and create controversey, as well as a name for themselves.  I ... and most folks in the European game scene that I know ... play and enjoy both American and European games.  I tend to play more European games as they fit my lifestyle and tastes.  However, I grew-up in the hobby playing wargames and “American” style games, and still play them. 

What occurred on BGG was very, very sad, with most of it being caused by a few aggressive and, in my opinion, self-serving individuals seeking a name for themselves and taking advantage of every opportunity to stir-up controversy for controversy’s sake.  My experience has shown me that the best way to battle this is to remain out of the fray. 

I feel bad that Aldie was put in a very difficult situation, but ultimately he made the right decision.  If BGG is to remain a civil and fun place to discuss games, moderation will be required and the trouble-makers will need to be warned and possibly expelled.

“I know there will soon be the stirring up of talk about Alan Moon’s The Gathering of Friends on BGG.”

Search “Gathering” on the BGG forums. And what you find is...well very little. Besides Aldie and Lorna’s review, a couple links to blogs, there’s just about no talk of the Gathering at all on the Geek. I think everyone was expecting to be the typical yearly outcry of GoF elitism, but none came about.

Actually, while there is remarkably silly and annoying posturing around the Ameritrash thing, it is centered around a core of dissatisfaction with the current “style” of German games.

I saw a fair amount of it at the Gathering in comments and attitudes. The kicker is, that the ones who mentioned it openly were German. They wanted to see and/or create something different.

If folks desire, I can easily sit down with Mike Barnes and Rob Martin, and see if we can tear through the root ideas of the thing. I play games with them every week.

Moo,
Frank

In my opinion the GoF deserved a good coverage. However, I think it would have been better served by a single full-featured article co-authored by the many BGN writers who attended. Right now, the information is scattered in many places, and a lot of this information is redundant.

The advantage of BGN versus community-based sites such as BGG is that it has an editor and a small kernel of writers who can discuss with each other prior to submitting an article. The net result should be information formatted in a better way such that we, the readers, have less researching effort to do to get to the news.

Regarding the current debate, although I agree with Ryan, I really can’t understand why his opinion needed to be published. I think it should have been an internal e-mail to BGN editors and writers. Publishing is often about deciding what is news and what is not. Although having this debate with your readership once in a while might be good, asking the question systematically will end up cluttering your publication.

Just a note that I replied to Frank privately regarding his suggestion.  Civil discourse is never a bad thing, but I have my doubts it will work in this case ...

Ryan,

I really enjoyed your column.  A little self-reflection on BGN or elsewhere in the hobby is always useful.  However, as a member of the audience, I tend to look to BGN in terms more like those described by Greg. 

It might be really interesting if the BGN columns were forms of news reporting.  Instead, I look on them as feature pieces that containing the author’s musings on personal gaming experiences.  Sometimes they rise to make a broader point about the hobby, but often they don’t.I come here regularly for the blurbs that Eric kindly puts up, and then I might check the columnist titles to see if anything catches my fancy.  However, I do not expect them to be “gaming news” in the strictest sense.  I wonder if the hobby really has enough news for that kind of coverage.  I honestly don’t know.

I agree with your general point about the Gathering.  I also think that worrying about exclusivity it silly.  There is no meaningful celebrity or status to this hobby.  Its supposed to be about having fun and being entertained, but sadly, people want to bring other baggage to it.  If people want to be exclusive, no matter how “public” the venue is, they will retreat.  The public event will have exclusive dinners, special rooms—things you are not invited to.  Its the nature of human interaction.  People who get caught up in it, will never be satisfied, because there is always another layer of “insider-ness” that they will not penetrate.  Oh great, I got to go to the Gathering, but when is Alan Moon going to have me over for dinner?

On the Ameritrash question, I think it is emblematic of a debate Mike Siggins and I had on the Geek a year or so ago.  I thought that the audience for the “light wargame” had disappeared.  Either you had settled in to the Grognard camp, or you were a Euro gamer.  You had chosen your sides and that was that.  Mike was arguing that there was some sort of nascent desire for hybrid gaming.  Euro-length, American theme.

Almost from the moment we finnished the discussion, I realized that he was right and I was wrong.  People are burning out on the sameness of Euro offerings—particularly those who have been involved for a while.  Not everybody mind you, but enough to create an audience.  The Ameritrashers are symptomatic of this reaction to the Euros.  While I doubt people will be rushing back to Fortress America (which really is a good game IMHO), there is an opening for games that are more immersive and contain a stronger sense of narrative.  Story and immersion are the best tonic for “sameness.” I am interested to see how the hobby—particularly the European publishers—react to evolving tastes. 

Jason

Oh, forgot something.  I went to SIU for law school—and learned to move beyond wargames at the University game club.  I miss Egyptian Campaign.  Go Salukis!

Jason

Greg, you are missing the original point. The original problem is that someone who plays games that are outside of EuroStandard(TM) is often ridiculed in our circles.

I’ve had it happen to me--try suggesting MahJongg or Dominoes in some places and you might as well announce that you’ve just contracted a particularly virulent form of leprosy. For years, I’ve heard statements like: “They don’t play games, just cards.”

The entire thing contains elements of parody, and some clever arguments that games should just games....

Except that folks started dragging other folks names through the mud and getting spectacularly crass.

Wow.  Thanks to everyone for all the comments… whether or not you agree or disagree with any of my editorializing.  I think all the points made here were very, very interesting and highly intelligent.  There are truly a wide range of thoughts on the matter, isn’t there?

To Phillippe: My comments were really focused to be editorial.  Even the New York Times & Washington Post challenges itself every once in awhile.  And that was the intent here.  It is comforting that we can do that at BGN and have just an incredible & worthwhile discussion about it.

To Jason:  Awesome.  Go Salukis!  You know our motto. (LOL)

Philippe Beaudoin wrote: “The advantage of BGN versus community-based sites such as BGG is that it has an editor and a small kernel of writers who can discuss with each other prior to submitting an article. The net result should be information formatted in a better way such that we, the readers, have less researching effort to do to get to the news.”

I wish BGN were that organized, Philippe. BGN columnists, including yours truly, typically don’t have their columns ready for posting until minutes before they’re scheduled to appear (1am EST/EDT). Everyone writes because they want to write, and they’re free to choose topics as they wish.

Until I start putting writers on salary (small joke there), I’m not going to issue directives from the home office as to who should write about what. I agree that ensuring coverage of every new game at the Gathering by someone—and having each game’s coverage in one location—would be ideal, but this site doesn’t generate the income to make something like that happen.

Philippe also wrote: “Regarding the current debate, although I agree with Ryan, I really can’t understand why his opinion needed to be published. I think it should have been an internal e-mail to BGN editors and writers.”

I agree, but Ryan chose to post his comments as a column.

Ryan Bretsch wrote: “Boardgame News, under Rick Thornquist, has always stood for insightful writing with a focus on what readers want to hear… not about what we want to write.”

I’d disagree. As I mentioned above, writers are free to write about whatever they wish, as long as the topic is related to games—and writers even have leeway in this area.

Ryan also wrote: “It would have been interesting to see some interviews from The Gathering with game major personalities to try to give some hints (and pictures!) of what may be coming up.”

This happens a lot, but typically these personalities are talking about prototypes or what’s being published in 2008, subjects that we’re asked not to talk about until the publication date draws nearer. Games change from design to publication, and showing images and describing rules of a game that changes does a disservice to designer, publisher, and player.

That said, Tom Lehmann has promised a three article series about Race for the Galaxy that will start in the next month or so.

Ryan then said: “To that end, I am somewhat surprised that one of the major news stories for boardgames has not been covered by our columnists.... It IS important that we cover ALL the news.”

BGN columnists don’t cover the news, unless they choose to. They write columns of opinion. If none of them want to write about a topic, then the topic won’t be covered.

From a news angle, the banning of a BGG member is a non-story. This doesn’t affect which games are available when or how those games play. As for covering even more games, I do what I can in the time that I have. Perhaps I’ll have a Jimmy Olsen someday who can cover companies that I don’t, but for now I’m flying solo in the newsroom.

For the record:  Eric’s comments about the permissions of columnists and what they can choose to write about and are allowed to write about… are technically spot on.  What one believes an entity “stands” for (i.e. its idealized vision)is subject to interpretation and as such may be different from what is technically allowed within the confines of that entity.  To be clear: technically under Rick (and Eric), we were/are allowed to write about whatever tickles/tickled our fancy.  : )

And I would agree, the banning of a BGG member is totally a non-story.  The Eurogames vs. Ameritrash debate IS newsworthy, however… in my humble, highly editorialized opinion.  : )

W. Eric Martin covers all the bases and has a very high attention to technical detail.  Have you all noted that Eric wrote the rules to the latest copy of “Winner’s Circle”?  To date that is the most concise, well-written set of rules I have ever come across for a game.  Cheers!

Thank you for the comments, Eric.

Great thoughts all.  I blogged for the first year this time and while I enjoyed it, I also had some of these criticisms in the back of my head.  If someone were to make a small effort of organization, I’d be glad in a future year to prepare a more detailed piece on a couple of games, and I’m sure there are other casual readers/gamers out there who would similarly be willing to ‘give something back’.

All it takes is someone to point us in a direction.  It won’t be perfect, but it might be a nice way to contribute.  I specifically blogged instead of just posting comments on games at the ‘geek because of the opportunity to improve the signal/noise ratio.  Some of these ideas sound like great follow-up to that.

As to the expulsion of Michael Barnes from the Geek, I agree with Ryan.  I do think the resulting debate was news.  In fact, handling it here—as news—might have been better than the endless tributes, protests, and Geeklists that the whole episode has spawned.  As far as American boardgaming is concerned, BGG is THE forum.  Its evolution and controversies are as worthy of coverage as say the evolution of youtube or ebay, both of which command absurd amounts of media attention.  Its still more substantive than talking about say, the father of Greg “Anna Nicole” Schloesser’s illegitimate child.

Time out, everyone.  : )

To set the record straight: I don’t view Michael Barnes expulsion as news for BGN to pick up.  That entire episode is… and was… capably handled on BGG.  But I do regard the “Ameritrash” movement as an alternative to Eurogames as a very newsworthy item. That was the true point of my article.

To the last comment above: I just want to point out Greg Schloesser is a strong Christian.  As am I.  Along with Rick Thornquist, there is no one I respect in this industry more.  So I just want everyone to stay on point.  : )

Greg has challenged us with the statement “Civil discourse is never a bad thing, but I have my doubts it will work in this case ...” I respectfully disagree with Greg and side with Frank on this idea. I think we can have civil discourse...on useful gaming topics. To me it is everything BGN stands for.  And that is what makes this place so exciting sometimes!

To Jason:  I think you make a tremendous point on the sameness of Eurogame offerings.  I have only 27 games in my general collection.  Yet so many things that come out as “new games” just seem so similar anymore.  So I was curious as to if you find a similar state of affairs from your experiences with newer “Ameritrash” offerings? 

Because of the emphasis on “theme” over “mechanics”, I think this is a great advantage for “Ameritrash” offerings.  Would you agree?

Oh, I agree about Michael’s expulsion.  He no doubt earned it the hard way.  Its the DEBATE, not the expulsion, that is noteworthy.  The BGG community has had a hard time dealing with it though. People are Balkanizing, as you say, they are “taking up standards.” The whole thing has been kind of weird really.  It makes the endless Grognard versus Euro debates seem neighborly by comparison. 

I think the real surprise to it all was that there was a group on the Geek who identified themselves as a minority.  The irony is that they might really be a majority.  Greg Schloesser (and I hope you know my tongue was firmly in cheek above) is an Ameritrasher.  I’m an Ameritrasher.  Larry Levy is singing the praises of Through the Ages—and might just have become Ameritrasher.  Most of the prominent reviewers in the hobby just love games of all sorts.  So, the clevage between Euro folks and the Ameritrash fans is probably illusory.  If there is a distinction, it may be between fans of light games and heavy games, or conflict games versus building games.  There is nothing inherent about Ameritrash that alienates Euro gamers. 

As for theme over mechanics, I think you are right Ryan.  Theme has a tremendous advantage.  But its a step deeper than that.  Theme married to mechanics is the real holy grail of immersion.  If the theme connects in a meaningful way to how a game is played, the game becomes more intuitive, and you remember the experience and even the rules better.  That’s why I might better remember how to play War of the Ring than any number of less complex Euros.  I remember War of the Ring because I was playing out a story.  The rules essentially explained the story. 

The problem with Ameritrash—particularly the older stuff—is that it wants to tell too many facets of a story with too many rules.  It makes the whole thing clunky, long, and unenjoyable.  The rules tend to miss the forest for the trees. But when you truly link mechanics-theme-and elegance, you’ve got something really special.  The neat thing is, I think the hobby is beginning to see it.

Hi, Ryan.  You do like to stir the pot, don’t you buddy?  :-)

Two things.  First, I’m glad you decided not to call for the Gathering to be a public event.  Because it is, always has been, and always will be Alan Moon’s convention.  Alan does all the work and all the organization and subsequently has the right to run it the way he wants.  It’s really irrelevant whether or not a “by invitation only” event serves the gaming community or not; that’s the way the Gathering works and that’s the way it’ll stay until and if Alan decides to change it.  (I happen to agree with you that the Gathering helps the industry, but that opinion is irrelevant too.)

Now, if the issue is whether there should be an open event LIKE the Gathering, that’s very different.  As far as I can tell, BGG.com is very close to fitting that description and in a few years could be just as important a meeting place as the soiree at Columbus.  And of course, there’s nothing stopping other folks from setting up their own open cons and inviting gaming luminaries to attend.  That seems far more useful than trying to make the Gathering something that it isn’t (and probably could never be).

The other point is the Ameritrash debate.  I agree with you and Frank that this is a genuine movement.  The problem is that it’s source was so contentious and fueled by people so willing to shout over all reasoned debate that the story has been drowned out by the braying on both sides.  But even if I dislike the methods used by Barnes, DW Tripp, and some others, they’ve helped to identify a group of gamers who are distinct from eurogamers and wargamers.  This group is the real story, but the issues surrounding it are controversial and noted for their distrust and lack of understanding on both sides.  I’ve attempted to bridge the gap between the sides on the Geek from time to time, but have met only limited success.  It’s a tough story to deal with and I’m not surprised that no one has tackled it head-on on BGN.  It could easily turn out to be more trouble than it’s worth.

Another reason I’ve avoided the issue is that I find the movement names to be so distasteful.  I dislike the term “Ameritrash"--it’s reverse snobbery and serves mostly to divide the gaming community.  And I really hate the corresponding term “Eurosnoot”.  It’s hard to talk about a story when you don’t want to use the standard terminology.

It’s particularly unfortunate that the “movement” everyone is referring to was sullied by ridiculous banner waving, stupid names meant only to divide people, and a few vocal supporters who didn’t know when to stop and actually severely damaged the ability to have sane discussions of their own platform.

To me there is no dividing line.  A “sameness” of euros can occur as easily as a “sameness” of wargames or a “sameness” of Avalon Hills.  What people find most distinguishing, whether or not theme is involved, is the mechanics.  The best of the so-called Ameritrash games could never stand out if they didn’t have good mechanics, even to their own fans.

So what we are looking for, at the Gathering and Essen and BGG.Con and frankly at any grouping of board game geeks across the world, are games that have new and interesting mechanics.  Whether such a winning combo is married to theme or not is actually a secondary concern---across all “party” lines, with the only change being how important theme is as a secondary concern.

There is no Ameritrash.  There is no Eurosnoot.  There *are* mechanics.

And that’s why you have a perfect “issue” to create flamewars over.  When you can create the illusion of diametrically opposed opposites, set up the division wherever you like on whatever you like since there isn’t a real division, you can manipulate discussion and debates to amazing degrees if you’re loud enough about it first.

Stirring the pot, as it were.

Larry,

Hello, Larry. : ) Glad you could join us.  I now feel that the circle of discussion is complete. (LOL) So where do we start?  In one sense, you can call it stirring the pot.  And yes, I guess I like to stir. Just a little bit if so narrowly defined. Of course, you could call it creating meaningful discourse too.  And I definitely like to create meaningful discourse where all sides are respectful to each other.

BGN has proven to be a reliable commodity in that regard.  I really have to give credit to our readers that we can have these great discussions that often prove enlightening. 

Ava,

There is an “Ameritrash” movement.  And there are gaming movements(genres)in general. It has been so defined by its supporters and cannot be discounted just because we find their self-imposed term dirisive.  I think what truly aggravates fans of this self-created genre… is that we (the establishment) are so willing to dismiss what they have identified as a movement… which they do view that as an act of arrogance.  It is up to us to change that perception.  I’m not about to fight fire with fire.

Now, I will say that there are no “Eurosnoots”.  I completely agree there. Just fans of games.  That term is equally upsetting to the Eurogame crowd. “Eurosnoots” is just name calling and a very unfortunate tactic used to inflame passions, not reason.  I disagree with many of the “methods” that are used by Ameritrashers to promulgate their movement.  But I have to separate that out from what the validity of the movement is, itself.

I do think there are some pretty clear boundries between the types of games.  I see your point Ava, but I’m not quite sure how much agreement you will find with the readers anymore that there isn’t a dividing line.

But I think you raise some intriguing points.

To All:

I am off to work now and just want to compliment everyone for the conduct of this column, as far as the comments go.  I really think you have all set an outstanding example that we can have intelligent discussion on this topic and stay respectful of each others viewpoints.  Many, many differing viewpoints here… and yet all have been heard… with respect and intelligence.

So my compliments to everyone here.  : ) And thank you.

Peace.

Ryan,

Thanks for the interesting article that has prompted many different threads of discussion.

SIU: I attended SIU for my first semester of college (spring 1981). I really enjoyed my time with the gaming club there, where I was first exposed to Nuclear War and KingMaker. My parents probably would say that I enjoyed it too much… I still have fond memories of the campus and the people I met there. Sadly, the field I wanted to study was not a strength of SIU at the time, so I needed to move on, which was how I landed here in Aggieland (Texas A&M/College Station, TX). I still root for the Salukis (as long as they are not playing the Aggies, of course!)

The “Ameritrash” thing: I hate the labels and I really don’t see the need for the baiting, name-calling, and divisions. I think that most of us play games in wide range of styles or are at least willing to respect those who do. Likewise, we respect those who chose to play a smaller segment of the whole field of games. For example, I find most word games extremely annoying (probably because my wife absolutely slaughters me every time I play any of them with her). That does not make me think less of those who play them and enjoy them - the games are just ones that I don’t enjoy playing. The rancor and acrimony brought on by the divisions surprised me and, ultimately, resulted in me spending less time on BGG for quite a while (at least I know that I spent a lot less time reading GeekLists...). I think that Aldie did the right thing and the tone has improved, mostly (though I saw some rather distressing posts today in the “Predict the Spiel des Jahres” contest thread...)

The broader subject that Ryan raises is more interesting, though. I would summarize it in three questions:
1) Have the typical European designs lost the freshness that so many of us found attractive?
2) Is it possible to create a short theme-rich game with rules of a reasonable length that don’t require a PhD to understand?
3) Where are the innovative designs coming from these days?

I think that the answers to these questions are:
1) No. Although most of the recent batch of Nuremberg releases seems to be lacking in innovation, I still see some interesting ideas and some very good, clean designs. Also, every industry has cycles where designs are fresh and cycles where designs are less interesting. I feel that we are in one of the latter, but we are not in a downward spiral.
2) Yes. While this seems to be the second-most sought-after holy grail of game design (perhaps only after the ever-sought Civ-lite design), I am convinced that it is not only possible, it has been done! While it is not my favorite game, Mall of Horrors meets all of the criteria: fun, rich theme, easy rules, and playable in a short period of time. I’m sure that there are others out there, but Mall of Horrors is the first one that came to mind.
3) Everywhere. There are games of every style being designed in almost every country. There are classic wargames being designed in Japan, and Civilization games being designed in the Czech Republic. Dungeon crawls, previously exclusive to classic American/English style design, are being designed in Germany and the Czech Republic. Abstracts are being made everywhere. The same is true of train games, business/trade simulations and card games. I am convinced that we have entered a golden age for gamers. The internet has made it easier to discover games in foreign countries than ever before, it has made it easier for designers to find a market for their games, it has made it easier for designers in different countries to collaborate and exchange ideas and it has made it easier for would-be purchasers to buy games - no matter where they are published - no matter what language the rules/components are written in. With this larger potential market, narrower niches of game design are finding enough of a market to support them. All of this is good news for gamers of all interests and countries.

The Gathering: I think it should remain the way it is. I know that I am unlikely to be able to ever attend, even if invited, and I am okay with that. It’s great that a large group of friends get together and play games for such a long period of time. As stated elsewhere, I do regret that the rest of the world gets locked into spectator-mode, especially during the weeks leading up to event.

Thanks again for an interesting, thought-provoking column.

Ryan,

The movement does look to exist; but whether that is much of an achievement on its own is not clear to me.  I have seen self-declared and non-declared movements come and go, and all that happens in the end is that mechanics bleed into each camp, or have even always existed in both camps---which makes one question the validity of declaring camps in the first place.

Take CCGs/non-CCGs.  They are not Ameritrash (as defined by its proponents) and neither are they usually considered Eurogames.  And yet some of the properties of CCGs---base rules and units that modify and add new rules---is now seen in games for both Ameritrash and Eurograme camps.  The lineage of such a mechanic (or, perhaps, meta-mechanic) goes back further than CCGs, too.  What is chess or shogi but a limited form of such games?

When we say we are looking for something new, we should be careful that we are not just trying to head into a new pigeon-hole.  What we want is for games---in general---to evolve.  And that is just mechanics evolution.  We shouldn’t limit ourselves to camps, one way or the other.

Curiously, this leads me back to something I remember Greg saying a long time ago, about how gamers shouldn’t try to categorize games into limited terms---e.g., “this is an area control game"---because it’s the rare game that is purely one mechanic, and games are typically blends of multiple mechanics.  But because we are human, we tend to desire categorization because it simplifies things.

There are reasons I have never liked the terms “Eurogame” or “designer game” because I know they are not true.  I do not view Ameritrash as having any more validity.

"I think that Aldie did the right thing and the tone has improved, mostly (though I saw some rather distressing posts today in the “Predict the Spiel des Jahresâ€? contest thread...)”

Hmmm, I assume it was my post you are referring too, since all others were simply entrants into the competition. The post was a lighthearted lampoon of the SDJ, and apart from a naughty word I fail to see anything distressing about it. Sounds like you are looking for things that simply are not there.

Good article Ryan. As a person who very rarely visits this site I found it surprising that people are complaining about too much GOF coverage. Personally I have found it has arrived and is passing with very little fanfare; I didn’t even realise it had started. I have hardly seen anything on BGG about it, which is interesting considering the hype and complaints it has gotten in prior years.