As much as we want to believe it, not every BGG user is 25+ years old, computer engineer, who attended an adequate school system, whose first language is English.

Fine article and I agree with it all except: “almost any good game of note printed in Europe is likely to have an American edition - whether printed by Z-man Games, Rio Grande, Mayfair, etc. “

I find the strange and more offbeat still doesn’t make it overseas. (it’s almost as if they have a certain formula they are looking for and anything outside that formula is too large a risk to print an US edition for)

I commend the US companies and what games they bring in, but for this gamer I still am craving more…

"Why include information that means so very much to some folk but little or nothing to the majority?”

Because, why not?  What does it hurt to say something like “(originally released in 2003 as Pingvinas)”?  It’s a small bit of information that most of your readers wouldn’t already know and that some of your readers would like to know (perhaps they had already heard of the game with the original name).  I don’t see it as being particularly confusing or distracting to include it, and it could potentially be slightly confusing to leave it out.

Tom, I agree entirely with you about the inappropriateness of much of the criticism of reviewers (whether they be newbies or old hands).  Whether the critiques are accurate or not, its tone and content is invariably rudely expressed.  If you must comment on someone else’s labor of love, why not ask a polite question instead of issuing a challenging “You should do this!” You don’t see people interrupting speakers in face-to-face conversation, constantly correcting their syntax; doing so behind the protective veil of a computer screen is no less impolite.  Plus, as you say, it can greatly discourage new contributors to our hobby.  The criticism is bad and distasteful because it’s rude; as it turns out, it’s self-defeating as well.

I do disagree with your opinion about German titles, though.  Information is never bad.  There are plenty of gamers who fall between the two extremes of newcomer and very informed veteran.  Many of them may have read at some point in the past about a game called Ursuppe or Geschenkt; it would certainly be helpful to them to state that Primordial Soup or No Thanks are reprints of those games.  You’re free to do as you like in your reviews, of course--I just don’t agree with your justification.

I also think it’s a little strange to say that with No Thanks, Geschenkt has finally come out in your native tongue.  Geschenkt is completely language independent and came with English rules (the rules are so simple that they’re basically translation-proof).  It was readily available on the Internet and many B&M stores (the one I frequent most had a bunch of copies).  It wasn’t hard for Americans to either purchase or play Geschenkt.  Naturally, there are lots of players who are put off by a foreign title or play with friends who are, so it’s nice that Z-Man has slapped an English name on the game.  But other than that, there was no value added.  Just a little more reason (to me, at least) for mentioning alternate titles and earlier versions of a game.

I second Larry (and third Doug) for his comments on including the original German titles in your reviews. You may be reviewing games for an American audience, but since you do have readers around the world and your reviews will be available on the Internet for years to come, including the extra sentence about a game’s original name will do international readers and future readers a service. Whenever I introduce someone to Eurogames, they’re often fascinated by the idea of all these games that they’ve never heard of. Including the original name would give readers a hint of this broader world waiting to be explored.

Some people are natural writers, and to them writing is as easy as breathing; it’s nothing to pound out a page or two of terrific prose.

I disagree. Only by spending hours and hours writing, whether reviews or anything else, does one become good at writing. Writers even trade stories about wannabes, such as the following (possibly apocryphal) story I’ve heard:

I was talking with a doctor at a party, and he said, “Oh, you’re a writer? That’s interesting. I plan to become a writer after I retire.” I said, “That’s a funny coincidence. Once I retire, I plan to take up surgery.”

That said, writing is a skill that anyone can do, and I encourage others to continue to write as the effort will likely improve your ability. Becoming really good, though, requires study and constant practice, as does any other skill.

"As much as we want to believe it, not every BGG user is 25+ years old, computer engineer, who attended an adequate school system, whose first language is English.”

Absolutely true.  That doesn’t mean, however, that those folks should get a pass on rude behavior.

Let’s look at it from the opposite direction.

When someone posts a review to the Geek, they are asking for the attention and time of the Geek users. It is a higher order of submission than just a reply in a thread. If they post something that they don’t care enough about to do some basic grammatical checks, then I believe that is rude. The poster is saying that “my time is too valuable to spend on getting this right, but you should spend your time paying attention.” To say that, “I know that my submission was not particularly great, but you can’t criticize me about it,” is not only rude, but arrogant.

I agree that the tone of some of the criticism is unnecessarily harsh, but to exempt all geek submissions from criticism on the basis that all contributions are valuable is to show a lack of respect for those who frequent the Geek. Those who make submissions that go through the Geek mod process should make sure that their submissions are truly of value before they post. Is it a perfect system? No, of course not. But the system is in place so if there is a problem with criticizing submissions, the problem should be taken up with Aldie and Derk and not with those who dare to reject a submission or put less than a maximum Geek Gold rating on it.

True, some are better writers than others. What this means, instead of everything that is written getting a free pass, is that maybe some shouldn’t be submitting reviews. This is because their skill level is not yet at the point where they should be asking the Geek population as a whole to invest time in it.

That does not make them bad people, it just means that they should either wait to submit reviews or use the skills that they do possess to make a different kind of contribution. In the long run it would be more helpful to the posters and users alike to direct them to a more fruitful area of contribution than to either cruelly tear them to shreds or tell them that their work is better than it actually is. “Falsely kind” is no more of a help than is “brutally honest,” although practitioners of both feel their way is superior to all others. The trick is to find the proper balance and actually help the situation.

Paul, if someone sends you an email with multiple misspellings, do you get angry with them?  They’ve taken up some of your precious time with something that isn’t as good as it can be.  Does this bother you as much as the Geek postings?

I am usually quite embarrassed if anything I submit for public viewing contains misspellings, but that’s just me.  Based on the huge amount of typos I see in emails I receive (most of them from very intelligent people), this obviously isn’t a priority with most folks.  I find it a little weird at times (and yes, the word is spelled “weird”, not “wierd"), but it doesn’t annoy me and I certainly don’t consider it arrogant.

The problem is that the punishment you propose comes nowhere near to fitting the crime.  I get a little careless with a posting or submit something that regular Geek viewers have seen a hundred times before and for that I get my head torn off?  The criticisms I’ve seen would be out of line even if they were applied to professional submissions; to make them against well meaning gamers just trying to add a little to the hobby is unconscionable.

You would like to see a higher quality of submissions on the Geek--so would I.  But you know what?  Democracy doesn’t work that way.  If Derk and Aldie had wanted nothing but reasoned and inciteful commentary, they would have set the system up differently.  In fact, there was a website that contained the type of submissions you want; it was called The Games Journal and it went belly up, due to lack of material.

The Geek is what it is.  I have no problem with people trying to make it better.  But that shouldn’t be an excuse for rude and insensitive comments.  I’ll take the polite posting with a dozen typos over one of those “helpful” responses any day.

Larry, you are arguing with me over something that I didn’t say. Where did I propose “tearing someone’s head off?” In fact, I said “I agree that the tone of some of the criticism is unnecessarily harsh.” and that “brutal honesty” was not productive.

If someone sends a friendly e-mail to me that contains misspellings, will I get “angry?” No, I won’t. But that’s not what we are talking about. When someone posts a “review” to the Geek that they don’t bother enough to correct grammatical mistakes in, why are they expecting me to care enough to pay attention to it? That’s what I find rude, because they are causing a waste of time to others. They are standing in the “doorway” to the game, saying “Look at Me!” without providing something worth spending time to look at. It doesn’t make me angry, but it does lead me to discount their opinions because they are showing that they don’t care. They are showing their work to be thoughtless.

The main point behind Tom’s column today is that Geek reviews should be exempt from criticism (exept, maybe, possibly, for those that are extremely bad). I disagree. That does not mean that I think that those who write such reviews should be subject to abuse. But criticism is not, in and of itself, abuse. Just because some critics are rude does not mean that those who submit poor reviews are not also behaving rudely. One does not excuse the other. It also doesn’t justify an author complaining about someone voting to give them only 1 Geek Gold for their submission.

I don’t think that the choice is “either, or.” We don’t have to accept either poor content on the Geek or unhelpful abuse. The Geek itself provides a mechanism for siftign through the dross in the form of the Geek Mod. In this case, Democracy does work in a way to improve the content of the Geek. We don’t have to settle for either posts with lots of typos and little purpose or the abusive posts. If more of the former were sifted through in the Geek Mod process there would be less opportunity for the latter.

Paul, I don’t think our positions are that far apart, but I just can’t agree that those who make submissions to the Geek which are substandard in some manner (containing errors of grammer, spelling, or fact) are in any way rude.  I don’t think rudeness is one of the seven deadly sins, but it should be and one’s behavior has to be a lot worse than lack of proofreading to qualify in my book.  Maybe I’d be more sympathetic to your postion if the practice wasn’t so damn prevalent.  Does it make me think less of their posting?  Sure.  But that’s not the same as being rude.

And I do think my example about an email with many typos is completely equivalent to a Geek posting.  Someone has sent me a message which will take me time to read and they haven’t even had the courtesy to proofread it.  I don’t understand how one can bother you while the other one doesn’t.

I don’t think Tom is saying Geek postings should be exempt from criticism.  He’s saying that rude, harsh attacks are always objectionable and that people should give first-time reviewers a little slack.  I have no problem with either position.

Issues about poor grammar, spelling, etc… should be taken up with the author personally (via email or personal message...) I see no reason to follow up a review with comments or complaints about the formatting or grammar.  (Hey, you can even give it a “thumbs down” if you couldn’t stand reading it..)

However, the focus should be on the content of the article… was it well thought out?  Again, no one needs to be torn apart by it, I think we all agree we should be polite.  I think negative comments are best kept non-public unless you’re trying to correct false information or trying to discuss a point with which you disagree.

Larry, I guess that we just have different standards of what we expect to see from electronic communication. I expect a little more effort for a piece that is being held out as a thoughtful review of a game than I do from a quick, informal e-mail response from a friend telling me he’s going to be coming over tonight or a post on a forum where editing is not to be expected.

I would be less accepting if the same friend asked me to review an article he’d written and was ready for publication and it had a slew of typos and grammatical errors. My reaction would be, “Why do you want me to invest my time in this if you aren’t willing to put enough into it to get the basics right?” Now I may not put it that way to the friend, as rude behavior is no excuse for further rude behavior. I might reply that I couldn’t get a good handle on the piece because the typos were too distracting. That would get the message across without being rude. I also wouldn’t consider it a major deal, as this whole controversy has become. However, I would not be doing my friend a favor by withholding all critical remarks and failing to point out the flaws in his work. It would not help him to be a better writer and would end up puttign him in the position of getting slammed by others who review his work.

I got off on a tangent, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on our personal expectations of communications.

I can agree with you and Tom that rude responses are not called for. They accomplish nothing.

However, I believe that Tom is, in fact, saying that newbie posts (and maybe others) should be exempt from criticism. That, I disagree with. There seems to be an equation with any criticism being defined as rude. if not, I would welcome an illumination on just what is meant by “a little slack.” Just when is criticism (non-rude) of a newbie post allowable? There is such a thing as constructive criticism. Tom seems to dismiss its existence.

Saying, “That review was crap and the writer is a moron,” is rude and unacceptable. On the other hand saying, “That review is poor because of x, y, and z” is not out of line, and if “it could be improved by a, b, and c” is added, that would be good. It exhibits an effort on the part of the critic and contains something that the review author can use and ponder, deciding what may be useful in the future.

Now it is possible that the author could respond with, “I don’t care what any of you think, I am going to do things my way,” but that still does not exempt the author from criticism. He may not learn from it but that doesn’t give him the right to condemn anyone who wishes to still do so constructively, no matter how futile the effort.

I don’t think new writers are exempt from personal criticism.  I just think that it should be done kindly, and privately. 

I also think that many of the people who criticize other’s writings do so out of their own need to criticize rather than to help.  Some folks get a big kick out of finding mistakes in others’ writings.  Bah.

I would say that new writers should be exempt from personal criticism, as that isn’t warranted, but I think I know what you mean. I also agree that specific comments are best done privately (unless the forum is one where it is accepted to post critiques for the benefit of others). However, I see nothing wrong with using the Geek Mod system to reject a piece or give it a Geek Gold recommendation of less than 3.

As to the motives of why someone criticizes, I see that as irrelevant. If the criticism is delivered properly and is valid standing on its own, then it remains valid and has worth, regardless of the motives of the critic. If an author rejects a criticism because they are passing judgment on the motives on the critic, then the author is missing out on some possibly valuable insight. By impugning others’ motives, the author is just hurting himself. If someone can point out where I can improve myself, I am not going to disregard it just because they might be doing it for selfish motives.

Tom,

Well-written article.  Input is input and given the differing standards that we each hold to what is substanitive in the article, as long as the feedback is honest and factually accurate...do we really need commentary on the quality of their writing?  In the case of a columnist, I would say yes.  They have a higher responsibility because they have an established readership and standards for the publication.

In the case of an a “newbie” just writing a little ole summary that creators of the website seem fit to allow him/her to post as open opinion?  I would say no… what is the point?  If you don’t see their input as useful...simply dismiss it.  Don’t dismiss the person.

After all, it doesn’t mean that someone else doesn’t find the writing useful.

Paul, with regard to newbie writers, I just get the picture of some enthusiastic young gamer making his first post and having the joy knocked out of it by a plethora of critics declaring what his review “should” have been.  He might learn from those comments, or he might say, “The hell with this!” and return to lurker mode permanently.  I would find that latter option to be very sad.

You say, “On the other hand saying, ‘That review is poor because of x, y, and z’ is not out of line, and if ‘it could be improved by a, b, and c’ is added, that would be good.” My contention is, why not just limit yourself to the latter quote?  Make the criticism a suggestion, make it constructive, and make it non-judgemental.  The world won’t come to an end if the author ignores your suggestion, you know.  The commentator’s goal should be the same as the reviewer’s, to enhance commentary on our hobby, so constructive comments make much more sense to me.  I would never make your first statement to a newbie author and would probably never say it to a writer of any experience.

I think Ryan pretty much has it right.  You can always ignore a posting you think is pointless (I’m sorry to say that I do that to most of what I read on the Geek).  If you think you can be helpful, I don’t think some suggestions are out of line, but since the written word is so stark, making it as mild sounding as possible is worthwhile, IMO.

I know your heart is in the right place on this, Paul, but not everyone is as confident of their writing skills as you and I are and overly harsh criticism can have a surprisingly disruptive effect on some developing talents.

By the way, Paul, I’m unfamiliar with the Geek Mod system.  How does it work?