Tom, don’t let the (apparently) vocal minority get you down.  The vast majority of us enjoy and appreciate your reviews.

Tom, I continue to be somewhat horrified at the amount and kinds of criticism you routinely receive for your reviews.  I mean, the last time I checked, your efforts are provided free of charge, as a labor of love.  I don’t recall many snipes at Schloesser’s or Thornquist’s reviews; they may not be as prolific as you, but they do contribute quite a bit of stuff.  But for some reason, your reviews serve as a lightning rod.

The fact that people feel comfortable criticizing you isn’t nearly as bad to me as the way it’s done.  Very often, it’s a third person comment, as in “Vasel’s reviews are crap because of such and so”.  It’s like they’re discussing Roger Ebert’s output or some other far removed critic.  If I were you, I’d be tempted to say, “Hello?  I’m standing right here!” How much nicer it would be if they were worded like, “Tom, I think your contributions are great, but don’t you think your reviews would be better if you did (fill in the blank).” It would certainly make me feel more comfortable reading the critiques.

Then there is the criticism which is just plain rude.  This is always a potential problem with posting on the internet, but again, you appear to be a special target.  It’s like your prolific output makes you eligible for any moronic thought that comes into any gamer’s head.  Rudeness is never forgivable, but at least if people were paying to read your stuff, it would be somewhat understandable.  When it’s received for free, it’s completely inexcusable.

Do I think your reviews are perfect?  Heck, no!  There are a number of things I’d change if I were Grand Poobah of the Universe, with the power of time and space, and I could wave my hand and make everything the way *I* wanted it.  But, to be honest, altering your reviews would be pretty far down on the list of things to do.  More to the point, I recognize that they’re not written exclusively for me, but for the world at large.  And different people will enjoy different things about them.  There are a huge number of contributors in the world of gaming and each has their own strengths, weaknesses, and style.  Each adds to our enjoyment of our hobby; some a little, some a lot.  It doesn’t seem like too much to ask for us to pick out the good and ignore the rest.  Constructive criticism can be good and occasionally appropriate.  You’ve shown far more patience than I think I would under the brunt of the criticism you’ve received and you’re open to change, which I think is laudable.  But come on, people!  Let the man produce what he wants to and enjoy it for what it is!

Keep up the good work, Tom.  I don’t think your writing is at a Jr. High level.  The vocabulary might be (doubt it) but one does not need huge words to write a clear, concise essay (review/whatever)…

I’m glad to hear you’re not going to tack on any extra burden on yourself when doing reviews.  Going through a team of editors… I shudder what that might look like.  As you say, things that are mistakes are quickly corrected… Yay!

I wholeheartedly agree with your position on FAQs.  People shouldn’t need them to play.  It is fine to mention them, if possible, but it is a strong strike against a game if a FAQ is required to correct it.

Tom-

Let the nit-pickers nit-pick, for some reason complaining about little details that don’t matter brings them a perverse form of joy.

Your reviews do a great job of flushing out almost all pertinent details of a game.  Here are some of my thoughts on things:

1) Grammar, and spelling have nothing to do with the purpose of a game review and anyone who complains about these should reconsider why they are reading a board game review in the first place.

2) You are Tom Vassal, there is no way to get around that.  You are loaded with experiences, opinions, and a writing style that is yours, and yours alone.  Complaining about your style of writing is akin to disagreeing with Picasso’s Blue Period.... or more aptly not enjoying the writing style of Anne Rice. One’s enjoyment of a writing style is completely subjective, and you can’t please everyone, so don’t try. Furthermore, the style in which you write has nothing to do with the purpose of the review.

3)As for the only compliant that relates to the expectations of a board game review, that is the accuracy of the presented rules, I agree with you.  Any errors you make can be easily corrected with a quick comment by a fellow gamer.  A reviewer should not be expected to get everything absolutely correct, errors will creep in… it’s unavoidable.... one can only expect these errors to be minor.  If you forget to mention that the second round of bidding in For Sale is blind, that is a big deal, however if you state that the starting amount of money is 10, it hardly matters.

The purpose of a game review is not to rewrite the rules, or captivate the reader with nuanced prose.  Reviews are meant to put across the fundamental mechanics of a game and offer a personal opinion as to the quality of the product.  In this light you write excellent reviews, and you should be proud of your efforts, don’t let the nit-pickers get you down Tom.

Tom,

Whiners love to whine. You’re doing them a great service by not changing anything and giving them the outlet they so desire.

Not changing a thing is a win-win scenario!

Or should that be a win-whine?

Whatever.

Tom,

I think your reviews are fine.  They are very well-written, and you communicate your thoughts very well.  Certainly they are much more cohesive than what I’ve read from people who claim to be able to detect “high-school-ness”....

And I don’t think that a team of editors is needed for articles like this---much less for articles like this that are already well-written.  Whoever came up with that idea was a little bit silly at the time.  Whoever decided to then have a fit because you had second thoughts was, frankly, acting like an idiot.

And I think a few people may want to target you, not because you write bad reviews (you don’t), not because you’re arrogant (you’re not), not because of anything you’ve done.... but because you’re far too nice and too considerate. 

Most people would not have listened to such frothings, much less try to find whatever grain of truth they may or may not have contained.  But you do listen.  I applaud you for this.  Many would.  There are a few, however, who consider this blood in the water.  And they cannot be mollified by any extension of olive branches, because they would consider that just another reason to bait you.

Ignore those people.  Entirely.  They do not deserve your attention.  There’s an entire universe of better things to do.

Like more reviews!

Tom,

You are taking the complaints and criticism WAY too seriously.  It’s obvious that you take care in the creation process.  It’s obvious that a lot of people read and enjoy your reviews.  You should not take the criticism and complaints to heart.  Your work, imprefect as it may be, is of very high quality.  Don’t change your process or style in response to a vocal few.  Just ignore them.  It is what they deserve.

Remember that most criticism is worth what you paid for it.

"You are Tom Vassal, there is no way to get around that.”

Sure there is—he’s actually Tom Vasel!

Eric-

Thanks :$)

First of all, I don’t think that the folks who initially came to me with the idea are idiots or silly.  They did so in a very frank, nice way - and I’m glad they were interested.  Please don’t take this article as a rant against them, and I apologize if I put them in a bad light.

Secondly, thanks for all the kind words!

Thirdly, if you forget how to spell my name, it’s simply Vaseline without the “ine”.

“After thinking it over, [Tom] seems to have decided that his reviews are perfect and not in need of any outside input.”

or

“You and others volunteered to expend time and effort to increase the quality of Tom’s reviews, but he has decided that our efforts are worthlessâ€?

Nice.

I hope these people, Tom, don’t export thier brand of “niceness” to others… Geesh.  We should all be so grateful, I suppose, that they have given such a comparatively miniscule amount of their precious time to critique someone else’s work.

Side note to these people if they are listening:

Tom is an unpaid reviewer of games.  His effort on your behalf is taken up for free.  Any more than you would want someone to suggest to YOU that your thoughtful efforts be held up to such public scrutiny… then think about and put Tom’s efforts in the same light and perspective.  Tom has no control who and how many people read his body of work.  But regardless of that, he has no more of an obligation than the rest of you to post 100% completely accurate reviews 100% of the time.  In fact, given his numerous contributions to the hobby… I would strongly suggest anyone walk a mile in his shoes given the sheer volume Tom produces… before passing such contemptous judgement on his body of work. 

The only people who have the right to do that are MAYBE his editor at Boardgame News and Tom himself.  And I suspect Tom is probably his toughest critic.

Please.... just THINK.

Personally, there is a reason that so many people read Tom’s reviews, so he must be doing something right.  But I think, myself, it more appropriate to pay a reminder to those who would so freely critique others with a quote from Theodore Roosevelt which I think sums it up:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

I do need to clarify one very important point. 

As reviewers, whose purpose it is to basically critique other’s work, we cannot be immune to taking impartial critique ourselves. 

That being said, I don’t know of one reviewer that finds himself/herself so arrogant as to feel they need to proactively suggest setting up an advisory committee for the publisher to follow their suggestions. 

And I cannot fathom anyone at all becoming so publicly/privately dismissive when they find such advice or suggestions naturally go unheeded.  Really.

It is the nature of our position, as reviewers and as writers, that we always be receptive of feedback and critique when done in a meaningful way. 

But for someone who has not published games nor published formal reviews to literally put oneself above the reviewer… or even the publisher, in the manner described by Tom in his article is just absolutely amazing to me.

I echo the sentiments of the many here by saying, “keep up the good work"--but only if you and your wife are enjoying it.  If it’s too much pressure, don’t be afraid to give some of it up, or take a break from it for awhile.  Your contributions are appreciated, but you are worth so much more than your game reviews!