No.

Okay, I guess I should elaborate, but it’s really pretty straightforward.  You’ve been upfront from the beginning about your role in the game’s creation.  Your stated opinions about the game are honest ones.  Maybe you shouldn’t have rated the game, but the crime is hardly a great one and lots of designers rate their own games.  I’m frankly surprised that the issue has even come up, but I guess I should be beyond being shocked by anything involving gaming anymore.  Basically, anyone who thinks you’re a shill needs to look up the definition of the word.  Either that, or they’re being petty or, well, stupid.

Having played the game you can rate it anything you wont in BGG. You could also write about t in your blog in your highest praises. If there is any “crime” in shilling then its here at BGN where you and Dale constantly praising its virtues. That could be said its shilling, since you develop the game and use this space to advertise it. Yes, I would see a conflict of interest here.
That being said, I personaly dont have a problem with it.

"want” not “wont”. Shouldnt write when the baby woke me up too early :-)

No matter what you do in this world, no matter how benevolent your actions, someone somewhere will accuse you of having nefarious motivations. Recognizing this makes dealing with these slings and arrows much easier. Self-reflection is a healthy activity and such accusations can motivate you to do so—but don’t spend too much time worrying what others think or say.

Valerie,

If you truly enjoy a game, get excited about it and you truly feel a genuine desire to promote a game you like because you feel others will enjoy it… then I think the answer is self explanatory. 

Ya know, you have a right to give an opinion about a game too!

But I think your question is a larger one and it concerns the dilemna about whether or not writers who have close contact with the game designers in the industry can give an objective review of games… especially when those writers are friends with the designer or are receiving free games from the designer. 

That certainly is a relevant topic to discuss and is definitely on a lot of hobbyists minds.

Well, you can always change your sig to:
“I’d rather be shilling!”
Um....No.

Valerie,

You were always very up front about your role in the design and production process of Dominion.  As such, it seems ridiculous that anyone should feel inclined to complain about you openly sharing your opinions of the game.

Let’s face it, I think that we are all “shills” for certain games at times.  I know that I have 2 designers and one game publisher in particular that I could talk about for hours.  It’s true that I don’t work for them, but you are active enough in this community to have earned the right and respect to review any game you want.  And it is up to the individual to decide if they want to listen. 

Does this come back to that, in my opinion, irrelevant issue of game-review copies and reviewer objectivity?  Yeah, maybe it does.  And I believe that it is again up to the individual to decide, assuming they are given the relevant information, if they want to listen to the review or not.  I would rather have the review than not have it, as I would rather have you giving your opinion of Dominion and excitedly teaching it to me than not having that take place.

Thanks for showing me the game at the WBC and I hope to get some games in with you at the BGF!

Sincerely,
Brad Keen

I would not call it “shilling” and have personally not been bothered by your excitement over the game and your role in its developement.  Obviously, it has dominated your gaming this year and it is probably difficult to write about much else.

That said, due to my personal bias towards variety, I lose interest in repeated mentions of a single game, especially when it is still a prototype and details are not given out.  I noramlly see and play many great prototypes every week, and it might be a little unfair to give one unpublished prototype so much press before it is released.  And I miss your “normal” columns:)

I do understand your excitement, though, and it sounds like a wonderful game by many of the accounts of the people who have had the opportunity to play it.

Hmm… I guess my column “Am I a Shill” that I planned for Wednesday isn’t necessary anymore, is it?

Dale

Ditto what Jeff Allers said above.

I agree with the general consensus that you’re not a shill but it’d be nice to see a bit more variety in your columns.

That said, I do have a question about Dominion.  I’ve played it just once, about a year ago, early in the development process.  I enjoyed it, even without the hype would have been interested in playing again, but I certainly didn’t wet myself over the way some people seemingly have.  But then I never played Magic.  Based on your experiences teaching and talking with people about the game, how much of the chord it has struck is due to the CCG overtones heard by fans of that genre?

Your column on definitions missed the trite yet nigh-on-prerequisite move of asking “What would Merriam Webster say?”.  The answer is interesting to me:
“1 a: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b: one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter”.

That didn’t sound quite right, so I looked up dictionary.com.  It says:
“1.  a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2.  a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.”

I think a part of the issue with shilling ‘complaints’ is these two conflicting definitions.  I have been known to use the word in the sense of M-W definition b and verbally self-announce as someone shilling something when I promote it, even if the only self-interest is expanding that product’s audience.  On the other hand this is in complete contradiction with the notion of being a dupe or decoy.

In no way have you been a decoy or attempted to dupe people.  But you have promoted the product for reasons of self-interest and loyalty.  Does that make you a shill?  I have no idea, but almost certainly not in the way your critics are accusing.  Does it make you a bad person?  Absolutely not!

Does it make you crazy enthused about a game to the point of distraction and potential irrationality? No, that happened, but it was the other way around.

Problem is, you are biased about Dominion because you worked on it. And because you are biased, your opinion has no value.

Apparently, that Shill tag completely negates any personal history, your status as a member of the community, your history as a blogger, and anything else you’ve done.

I got the same kind of response (in a lesser way) when I rated Dia die Los Muertos a 10. I playtested it only 3 times before publishing it, made a teensy tiny amount of money off of it, sold my entire stock, then rated it.

Nope. I’m a shill. You’re a shill. BGG is an asylum.

I think you are only a shill if you have some financial interest in promoting it.  I don’t think you do here, so you are only spreading it for the love or excitement of the game.  Plus you are fully informed and have played the game tons of times.

So I say not a shill.

In this context, Valerie, you’d only be a “shill” if you didn’t disclose your professional association with the game. Everything else is moot.

In my view the label “shill” isn’t really the point - the point is are you using your position as a columnist to promote something with which you are intimately involved?

I think this is ground that should be tread upon carefully and treated with utmost seriousness. And really, it comes down to BGNews and the definition of your column. Is your column a “personal” blog in which you, as an individual, are meant to give your opinion about what you are playing and working on? If so, then you’re on more solid footing.

But if your column is intended to cover a broader range of topics, to be a more or less neutral look at games and trends, and to cover the full spectrum of boardgaming, then you have to ask yourself - are you covering Dominion more than you would if you weren’t involved in developing it? I’m not sure you should even try to answer that…

I think “news” stories about Dominion should be handed off to other writers, and when you write about Dominion you should be even more up front about your role. It really ought to be presented as a caveat before the article (or section) even begins. This is the only way to avoid labels, or even uncomfortable second guessing of your opinions.

I don’t see how you can be a shill when you didn’t try to deceive anyone about your involvement in the game.  Whether or not you should also have rated the game on BGG, even with the disclosures, is a different question.  But I personally don’t see a problem with you having done so, with or without the disclosure.

I’ve played a number of prototypes over the years, some well before their release date, and got to give my opinions.

You play test for the love of games, like I have. You’re not making money.

It would be like calling Melissa a shill for translating Agricola or La Havre.

I wouldn’t let it get to you, unless it were friends saying these things; but then what kind of friends would they be if they did?

Scott, the point you raise is a fair one, but it needs to be balanced against the fact that Valerie doesn’t recieve any compensation for being a columnist.  At least I didn’t get one red cent during my two years as a regular, and while she looks a lot better in a swimsuit than I do, I’m assuming that isn’t a factor in salaries.  The one perk I did get is free membership to BGN, money I’d gladly contribute to charity if it allowed me to write as I pleased.

If I can take the liberty of speaking for the other writers here, the reason we do this is because we enjoy it and we want to give something back to the hobby we love so much.  There’s a difference between the news that Eric provides, which should give a neutral snapshot of the gaming world, and the pieces the columnists write, which should provide a point of view (they’d be awfully boring if they didn’t!).  I always treated my column as a personal blog when I was contributing regularly, a soapbox upon which I could vent some opinions.  I don’t really think there’s any reason to assume it would be any other way.

Ryan B. raised another good point, which is the potential conflict of interest of writing about creations of designers we know and are often friendly with.  Again, I have to cite our amateur status and the fact that any familiarity is inevitably mentioned in the column.  I also have to wonder how often professional reviewers manage to isolate themselves from the people they’re writing about.  Do you honestly think that Roger Ebert has no friends in the film industry?  That would be almost impossible to achieve and would undoubtedly be counter-productive.  Holding volunteer workers like us to a higher standard than true professionals seems wrong.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to be as objective as possible in our writing.  But there’s nothing wrong with a healthy opinion and as long as everyone knows what the ground rules are at the outset, I not only think it isn’t an issue, but it makes the writing more entertaining and useful.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.  It sounds like:

a) there are multiple definitions of “shill” and I might fit some of them, but should be okay with that.

b) sounds like some of you assume I am a professional (ie. paid) columnist and an amateur (ie unpaid) game developer.  Since the number one message here was that I should be upfront about my involvement, I should note that you’ve got that backwards.  (Though that was negotiated later in the process--I had no financial interest when I first started talking about the game.) And frankly, I think that Melissa SHOULD be paid for all the work she did translating Agricola--even if that retroactively makes her a shill too.

I understood the situation regarding profession vs. amateur.  My implication was that you shouldn’t be considered a shill unless you are actually getting paid based on number of copies that get sold.

I particularly always think of shills as people in infomercials or timeshare presentations but perhaps that is a limited definition.

Lee,

Interesting.  I would hope that Valerie *IS* getting paid based on the number of copies sold.  It seems like about the fairest incentive you could come up with for a game developer (in an industry that can’t support many fixed salaries).

I guess this all goes to show that even when you think you are being totally above board there will be people who are even more casual in their understanding that will miss the prior disclaimers.  Hence the need for frequent and repetitive notices in every piece of writing.

This is an area I’ve been talking about with Ben Keightley: the separation between authors and editors and their audiences.  What is the correct balance?  Ben’s view (and I hope a paraphrase him accurately) is that the gap should be large, that the role of author and player, between producer and consumer, between artist and perceiver are fundamentally different and that the differences in role and responsibility have a value for both sides which is lost and even actively destroyed the more it is bridged.  It is nice to see behind the curtain, but too much is lost in both the attempt and the seeing.  Ben has regularly referred to the world of TV and other media and the various failed attempts of actors and producers to participate in fan fora—and the reasons such incursions destroy the value they attempt to sustain.

Valerie’s enthusiasm is excusable and enjoyable, however she is also in a privileged role and that privilege necessarily partially dictates correct behaviour.  She is no longer just a game player.  She can no longer, properly, editorialise on the areas of her profession as if she were just a gamer or just an editorialist.  She’s behind the curtain.

I’m swinging to Ben’s view.  The arguments appear sound.  In sum I would greatly prefer if publishers, designers and developers did not speak of their works to large audiences beyond the normal material of press releases and simple factual clarifications.  Let the audience rule the other spaces.

Well I don’t know Ben, JC, but I’m afraid that view is nonsense.  Who exactly is being harmed if a blogger works with a publisher or a designer becomes a reporter?  Other than giving us a different perspective and some welcome insights, what does it matter?

You’re assuming that this is some major industry and that the distinctions between the two groups are sharply defined.  The former is obviously untrue; it’s small potatoes.  As for the latter, just about all designers are game players and many of them report on their own works or that of others.  Look at all the successful games that have been released in the past couple of years which stemmed from “mere” gamers.  Did people like Jason Matthews and Matt Leacock suddenly step behind the curtain?  Are they now part of “them” and no longer capable of commenting on the gaming scene?

It’s entirely possible that in Big Media, this is a genuine concern.  But in the tiny world of boardgaming, where every game player is removed by far fewer than six degrees of separation from a designer, publisher, editor, or translator, it doesn’t even begin to make sense.

I don’t think Valerie is shrill, her voice is fine.  And I heard a lot of it at Gencon.

Oh, shill?  Brief answer, no.  More involved answer below.

If this column was a paying gig, I think you maybe have crossed the line into free advertising for a product.  However, my understanding of the columnists’ roles here are to share your thoughts about gaming.  Since you’ve been busy developing Dominion, of course it’s going to be a frequent topic as it has been foremost in your gaming thoughts.  I see nothing wrong with your choice of topics and as others have mentioned, you’ve been up front about your involvement.

Even your worst Dominion dominated article (no, I haven’t graded or ranked them ) have been way better than your too busy because I am off for X-con “articles.” So, please keep writing about whatever has interested you that writing cycle.

Of course, I say this as someone completely disinterested in Dominion.  :)

(About halfway through our first game at Origins, one of my kids asked, “When this comes out, can we buy it no matter how much it costs?")

No deception = no shilling, in my view.  Note that pitifully transparent deception, as was the case with The Publisher Who Shall Not Be Named on BGG a few years back, is still deception.

Personally, I like the fact that Valerie and Dale have been so open about Dominion.  I hate it when the parties involved with an upcoming game that looks interesting are really tight-lipped.

Scott Russell wrote: “(About halfway through our first game at Origins, one of my kids asked, “When this comes out, can we buy it no matter how much it costs?")"

O.K., Scott, it’s time for you to come clean, too--what’s in it for you? :)

I think I would be safe in saying that most BGN columnists don’t get paid in any currency… actually I would bet that none of us do.  But there are more ways you can be paid than just in $$$, so I disagree with that as a qualification to be or not be a shill.  Now I do agree with Larry Levy on this point… let’s face it no one gets truly “hurt” in the end with these game reviews.  At the same time there are many people (fans) who expect that any formal “news” site… be it NBC Nightly News, horse racing news or boardgaming news… will have some air of objectivity about the topics they are covering. 

(However, I think we would all agree that NBC News should be held to a much higher standard than a boardgaming website.)

Again, in *this* business no one gets hurt...but it is always helpful to have credibility with all segments of your reading audience. Right? In Valerie’s case, my litmus test is this: does SHE believe in the game?  If she does, Valerie has every right to give the game she helped develop a glowing review… regardless if she had a hand in its development or not.  The caveat here is that I think Valerie has done a very good job disclosing her role in development of the games she promotes. 

That’s key.

--------------
Regarding potential conflict of interest in writing about creations of designers that writers are friendly with:

Citing our amateur status doesn’t do it for me.  Anyone receiving free product is in effect only *quasi-amateur* anyway and I feel as though a higher duty is owed.  The publisher doesn’t pay in free games just because someone is a distant “friend”.  I think that’s wanting to have your cake and eat it too, Larry.  : )

But I also feel a game doesn’t have to be skewered to prove someone is *objective* either. That’s not helpful to a small publisher who has worked really hard on their creation.  Its their *baby*.  Now I have been sent and taken a few comp games but fortunately I have been delighted with everything I, personally, have ever been sent.  So I have no guilty conscience in giving a good review.

The makers of Parlay once wanted to send me their game for review… I told ‘em I would accept it but the review was going to be exactly what I thought of the game after playing… so not surprisingly no review game showed up on my doorstep.  Thankfully, I think that was just as well… as I already have a tendency to know what I am going to like… and not like.  Although sometimes, I guess, even I am surprised. 

But the bottom line is that I prefer to write about games that I like.  And I think that is very reasonable for someone who only occasionally reviews games.  The fact that I BUY the vast majority of games that I play, makes me feel I can write with a certain degree of credibility.

As for the rest:  Just give me a reasonably “professional” column that is interesting and expresses an actual opinion and I’m good.

Sorry, but I’d say yes, shill.  I think you’ve abused your position here to write may more comments about a game that isn’t released than was necessary.  But of course this is BGN where shilling is legendary.  Another spotlight on a Ted Alspach game, perhaps?

** Just for the record, please note that Ryan B. and Ryan Walberg are NOT the same person. 

------------------
By the way, when I say “The publisher doesn’t pay in free games just because someone is a distant “friend”” ...  it means that publishers give away those games for business reasons.  And at the point writers accept and receive those games, then they are receiving some element of *pay* in my book. 

Hence, it becomes a lot harder to claim the pure *amateur* argument.

Just wanted to clarify that one point.

I’ve had the same worries, Valerie.

My theory is that as long as you are providing new information - an insight into the game development process, your thoughts about what you’re doing, oooh, I don’t know, an overview of how the game is played ;-)—then it’s fine.

Now if you were posting OMG GO AND PRE-ORDER RIGHT NOW in your column space, every week, that might be shilling.

Weirdly, while I have worried about turning myself into a shill, I have never thought “OMG Valerie is such a shiller” - so you must be OK.

Now Dale, on the other hand ... *evil grin*

Wow, almost too much to read here…

From Wikipedia (the one true source :):
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.

I’d say you don’t qualify.

(Note, I’m not associated with Wikipedia, but I do write for BGN… :)

My take is that the answer to this question is both yes & no.

In scrounging the net one can find a variety of definitions for the word shill (as you can see in various comments here). 

It seems to be that the various meanings fall in one of two camps: Informative and Negative.

Webster defines shill as: “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”

I think it is safe to say that Valerie has done this and would be considered a shill by this definition.  So what?  I would say all of us who are passionate about this hobby would be considered a shill under this definition.

The other definition of shill is much different.  For example, Urban Dictionary says a shill is: “A person engaged in covert advertising.” (there is more, but this is the essence).

I think Valerie’s involvement with Dominion can be called many things, but covert is not one of them.  The key element to this definition of shill is deception.  I definitely do not think Valerie has attempted to deceive anyone regarding this game and her involvement.  I would not say Valerie is a shill based on this definition.

It is clear to me that Valerie is passionate about this game and has been open and honest about both her involvement in its development and her love for playing it.  She was just sharing some of that with the rest of us.  As more people became caught up in that and wanted more information, she was happy to oblige.  Which of us being in a position to do so in regards to a game we loved would have done differently?  None of course. 

So, by the letter, yes Valerie can be said to be a shill for this game, but in no way is that a negative thing.  However, based upon the general use of the word shill and what is intended when it is tossed about, I would definitely not refer to her as a shill.

My take anyway…

TR

Valerie’s insidious plan to further promote Dominion by writing an article about her being a potential shiller and generate zillions of comments so that even more people would read it has been successful beyond her wildest dreams. A masterful plan! Mwa ha ha.

At the going game developer royalty rate, Valerie will be able to retire comfortably starting on or about October 24th (one day after Spiel starts), because there is SO much money in game development…

...and in board game design…

...and don’t forget the wonderful BGN writer’s retirement plan…

To be a little more clear:

The only definition of a shill is probably the prevailing group-think opinion on BGG. Which is definitely pro-shill.

Problem is, most of the group have absolutely no clue about how games work.

Even if Valerie had designed the game, she might stand to make a few thousand dollars. As in very low and very few thousand.

So instead, this game has caused her to obsess and burn hundreds of hours on playtesting and perfecting it. Her and Dale’s opinions and analyses of the game are far more valuable than anyone else’s.

Even if she is being paid (which at a guess I would say payment is involved, and probably a fixed fee that will certainly end up being less than minimum wage. )

So I would label her a shill, and then follow up with “So what?”

Did you ever say the same word so many times in a row it stopped having meaning?  Try it!

Shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill...shill

With that said, I’ll get back to the undertone of Valerie’s original post.  Sometimes people say things with the intent of being hurtful.  Sensitive folks wonder if they have a point.  In this case, my answer is no.

Stick with it and keep telling us how things are going.

Damn shill.  Now excuse me, I’m off to http://www.avatarart.com/ for kick-ass custom character portraits, fiction illustration, & game design.  AvatarArt: “Drawing Your Imagination.”

Nice to meet you, Larry, and I’m sorry to hear that you find my point of view nonsensical. While J C represented my basic thesis well, I’d like to clarify a couple of points, related to the assumptions you assign to my argument, namely that this is a ‘major industry’ and that there is a clear distinction between author and audience.

I am a reasonable person of reasonable intelligence who is not hopelessly naive, and so I am well aware that nobody is getting rich here, that Valerie Putman is not sitting in her castle with stacks of money, and that she is not so attention-crazed that she will promote her game every chance she gets and create opportunities to do so if she feels the need. However, when these humorous images are sarcastically lobbed as preemptive strikes, it makes for an environment that feels hostile to dissenting voices.

Just as it’s not so helpful to make money a rhetorical factor in the conversation, it’s equally counterproductive to compare the scale of the boardgame industry to, say, the television industry. The important factor, and where the industries can be compared, is that a celebrity culture does exist in both cases. Although I am personally a fan of celebrity cultures, thinking that they offer important protections to all parties, my argument does not depend on any value judgments, but only on the recognition that we are indeed dealing with a celebrity culture.

I feel that any honest assessment of the community will arrive at this recognition, although there is appeal in resisting honest analysis in order to come to an opposite, more populist conclusion. I am not sure how much time to spend on this point--I will be happy to provide evidence if I really think it’s necessary--but the only important things to take here are that the boardgame world does indeed have levels of celebrity, and that with greater celebrity comes more social capital.

My working thesis is that too much creator involvement with the consumer is counterproductive to the consumer’s most important goals: developing a better understanding of games and a better understanding of his taste in games.

An important assumption is that the work a consumer (or a group of consumers) does toward understanding a game is intrinsically more valuable than what a game’s designers says his game is about. This is not unique to the boardgame world. After a certain level, mathematical concepts are best learned when students are given the space to arrive at the conclusions themselves. Closer analogies: thousands of fascinating ideas are uncovered when studying great literature. The best movies have many interpretations, all valuable, all valid, even if not what the creator originally imagined.

In no real sense would the film world be richer if David Lynch published a press release giving his authoritative breakdown of Inland Empire’s symbology, and making a small jump, in no way was the boardgame world richer when Tom Lehmann published his essay defending Race for the Galaxy against its detractors’ cries of “No interaction!” He is a celebrity with a large amount of social capital. His words with respect to Race for the Galaxy carry more weight than anybody else’s. There is now an authoritative, canonized, celebrity-endorsed response to the question of the nature of the interaction in Race for the Galaxy. I can’t see this as good for the customer.

Similarly, I find Wei-Hwa Huang’s level of participation in the Race fora both distasteful and extremely counterproductive. When he weighs in on a discussion, he will settle it in the eyes of many, many readers. As an insider closely associated with the game’s design and development, he enjoys celebrity status and lots of social capital. His opinion on a given card’s utility is worth ten times as much as mine in the average reader’s eyes. Again, I can’t see that kind of imbalance as a good thing if the goal is to have an environment where consumers can discuss games to gain a greater understanding of them.

Yes, in the boardgame world there is a fuzzy line between creator and consumer, and yes, it is challenging to walk that line. That does not mean that we shouldn’t try! Valerie enjoys a certain amount of celebrity and is therefore in a position to help shape consumer taste in games. I think she should resist that urge as much as possible. I think that the less consumers hear from celebrities and the more they hear from each other, the greater their ability to make their own decisions about their tastes. I certainly don’t begrudge anyone their enthusiasm for their work, but as the industry becomes more of a celebrity culture I think we need to keep an eye on our interactions, making sure that our priorities are where we want them to be.

Ben, thank you for your lengthy and well stated discussion of your concerns.  I’m sorry if my initial response seemed strongly worded, but based on JC’s brief summary of your views, I didn’t see any way of sugarcoating my reaction.  While I still have many issues with your position, I now have a better idea of where you’re coming from.

I actually agree to some extent with the heart of your argument.  Valerie recently posted one of her favorite Dominion strategies on the Geek.  This is something I wish she hadn’t done and thought so before this current discussion arose.  My objections weren’t that she’d give unnecessary weight to her position, but that gamers like to discover strategies on their own.  If a game is unusually difficult or counter-intuitive, some hints are often appropriate (in fact, I wish they would be provided more often).  But a detailed strategy from a designer or a developer seems more like a spoiler than a useful strategy guide.

I have two main objections to your positions.  The first is the division of gamers into celebrities and non-celebrities.  I contend this is far fuzzier in gaming than it is in other areas (such as movies/TV) and so-called celebrities in gaming are far more common.  For example, in my own little game group (which has never had more than two dozen members at any one time), I’ve gamed with Jason Matthews, Ananda Gupta, and Christian Leonhard, well known game designers; Ben Baldanza, well known game columnist and reviewer; Alan Ernstein, well known designer and publisher; Kurt Adam, well known reviewer; Anye Mercy, well known publisher; and Shawn Metcalf and Marc Houde, who aren’t that well known, but who are both publishers and designers, and therefore might be considered at least minor celebrities.  I rub elbows with these notables by traveling 30 minutes from my home every Saturday.  Then there’s Joe Huber, Stephen Glenn, Brian Yu, and Kevin Nunn, who were my friends before they became published.  There’s also gaming celebrities like Greg Schloesser, Derk, and Aldie, all of whom I count as friends.  I refuse to believe my situation is that unusual.  Many “ordinary” gamers know people like this--it’s a small hobby and if you’re active at all, it will happen.  This is far removed from the gulf between movie goer and movie actor (or anyone else in the motion picture industry).  If such “celebrities” are so commonplace, the dividing line between them and the other participants in the hobby is mighty slender, particularly when people cross over into celebrity-hood all the time.

My other objection is the amount of importance that people give the views of these “celebrities”.  They do have added weight, without question.  But that weight can be easily matched by non-celebrities.  Look at Alex Rockwell (alexfrog on the Geek).  When he started posting, he sounded like a wide-eyed kid in his early twenties (I don’t know Alex, that’s just my impression).  But then he released some very well written and reasoned strategy articles, including a very influential one for Puerto Rico, and suddenly his word carried enormous weight.  You can argue that he had passed over into being a celebrity, but he did it through his thoughts and his ability, not due to other accomplishments.  I would say his views would be just as impactful as Andreas Seyfarth’s on Puerto Rico, despite Seyfarth being far more of a celebrity.

There’s also the basic stubborness of the average gamer.  For every gamer who bows before the “accepted” wisdom of certain game strategies, you can find one who thinks it’s full of crap.  A designer’s words will certainly carry more weight than Joe Blow’s, but there will be nothing like unanimous acceptance of his views.  We’re just too independent and ornery a bunch.

So yes, I’m not wild about the creative people revealing pet strategies, but only because it might spoil the exploration portion of the game.  Just about anything else, including columnists befriending designers and using them as information sources, seems not only acceptable, but healthy.  This portion of your argument I don’t accept.  So we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

I think Ben’s response stands well.  I find no fault with its argument and it says the things I poorly attempted better.

The discussion of wealth, of money made and lost are irrelevant.  The primary currency being exchanged is not money, it is social relevance, status and even the small form of celebrity enjoyed within this (small) social circle. 

Similarly the discussion of whether Valerie’s behaviour fits the definition of “shill” misses the point.  While Valerie’s question and supporting post are suspect (What are the possible answers?  Yes, you are a scummy shill but only by a set of standards the socially irrelevant will use!  No, you’re not a shill and everyone who say so are just jealous dupes!  It is as impossible a question as, “Does this make my butt look fat?") I assume that they are in fact an earnest appeal for validation/correction of a possible faux pas, not a debate over the definition of shill-dom—and I think she (and Dale and the other BGN- and BGG-posting designers and developers) are right to be concerned, questioning and tentative.  I’ve certainly been quite ill behaved in this area in my support of my AoS maps.  It is a valid line of questioning for a field that has grown large enough to support an internal structure of criticism,

Likewise there is a difference between posting to BGG and BGN and posting on a personal blog.  BGN and BGG are watering holes for the larger audience of players.  Much as I may (and do) post design articles to my blog, that blog’s readership is exquisitely small and has necessarily already stepped behind the curtain.  Despite the ubiquitous used of ‘net search engines and the culture of cross-posting and ‘net citation, weakening Ben’s covenant, there is still a separation of audiences, of authors and consumers that is preserved, allowing the interpretative consumer-audience discussion to continue.  Which is the point: the separation of authorial-dictat from consumer interpretation.

Man, I should have just duplicated Larry’s response:

“No.”

First I have to say that if the purpose of a column is to provoke interesting discussion this one is a success!  Thanks to all the participants.

Ben,

I understand your point of view, but find that I disagree.  I’ll take the dangerous view of incorporating the boardgames are/are not art debate into this thread.  I think they are, and I’m always interested to hear the point of view of the artist.

As a customer I do pay attention to who is providing the information I consume, but I don’t see the value in not providing that information at all.  Now, I understand your point that there are fan forums and publisher forums, but in this still relatively small hobby, I don’t yet see a need to add ‘never the twain shall meet”.

At the same time, I agree with Larry that I also saw Valerie’s recent BGG column and was a bit disappointed.  I would have preferred to discover that in play!  Also, it is overly reactive in my opinion to be responding to concerns about ‘broken’ elements prior to publication.  If you are confident that the game works simply smile to yourself and move on.

I return to the fundamental belief that if everyone is forthright about what they say there is nothing wrong in them all sharing the same space.  The credibility of the designer, publisher or play tester is determined by their performance over time in a ‘small pond’ such as ours.

Although I think that looking at the industry as a celebrity culture has value, J C has identified another way that is at least as useful: has the field grown large enough that it can support an internal structure of criticism? Where the answer is ‘yes,’ I feel that creators have the responsibility to step back, and that consumers have the obligation to demand that creators step back. Now, in any field of sufficient size there will always be degrees of hype, and a degree to which the ‘masses’ will have their tastes dictated to them.

Game X is hardly the worst offender in this category, and Valerie is far, far from the most active promoter of games in which she has personal involvement. I do feel, though, that media influence in the industry is growing, and there should be an equal and opposite push from the consumer end of things. We are big enough that we can choose, critique, analyze, and discuss new games. It is wonderful that the hobby is large enough, smart enough, and strong enough to do this, unassisted by designers and publishers. We should keep a very close watch on exactly how much of that power we cede.

Ben:
A second question.

Should industry people comment on or critique other people’s games?

Consider that those other games are either competitors or at least some sort of acquaintance (our hobby is pretty incestuous.)

(Not answering for Ben)

Good question.  In example, most recently Lews Pulsipher extensively critically commented on a Brittania derivative.  I thought it was a fine article, but also one that should have remained on his blog and mailing list and should not have been posted to BGG etc. 

I see a three part divide here among players, designers and publishers (I normally count developers as a mixed-breed of designers and publishers, but view them as publishers for this question). 

Players are an explicit requirement of the consumer-interpretation discussion.  They can’t be removed. 

Designers occupy an odd middle ground.  Like Larry I’ve played with many designers (and unlike Larry I think there are very very few people in the hobby who do/have to a statistically significant degree, but that a very large percentage of those few are also publicly voluble/visible).  Because of the high rate of intellectual incest in game design, as well as the ever-present gamegeek-with-a-design, designers occupy an odd middle ground.  On the one hand they author the original material that defines the interpretative field and on the other hand they iteratively translate the ongoing consumer-interpretation discussion into new designs, thus extending and participating in the ongoing discourse by cannonicalising it into new nouns (err games).  As such they are both part of the conversation and yet external authors of the original material that is being interpreted.  My internal rule of thumb, newly formed and untested, is that ratings are fine, ratings comments are fine, reviews are often questionable and any analysis that shares common areas with the designers own games/topics/genres etc is probably not kosher.  (I’ll have to think about this—the middle ground is full of odd exceptions).

Developers, like publishers, have the problem that they represent publication-viability.  Theya re where the busines, marketing and players intersect.  They are the gates to the new media that is being discussed.  In some ways they are Bernaysian PR personified.  If they participate in the consumer-interpretation discussion they cross two worlds, the world of attempting to develop products that fill needs and the world of leading the discussion that forms and defines those needs.  The problems are obvious and it is an intellectually incestuous space. I do not think it is physically possible to remain honest while bridging those two and I do not like it, not one little bit.

Frank, since I imagine your question is mostly rhetorical, please allow me to jump to its conclusion, and forgive me if I’m off base. If ‘industry people’ were suddenly prohibited from publishing thoughts on other people’s games, even given a fairly narrow definition of ‘industry people,’ we would lose a great deal of hugely valuable game commentary and discussion.

Although your question comes close to implying a slippery slope argument, I don’t think it’s unreasonable per se, and I think it’s something every ‘industry person’ should decide for himself. Most players in this field are fair and honest, most of us have useful and interesting things to say, and most of it should be heard. Generally, people have exercised discretion, announcing their relationship to projects, and allowing consumers to reach their own conclusions about their level of interest in a game or how a game works. However, I can point to a handful of situations where I feel celebrity figures have abused their positions. In general, the community’s response to this abuse is delight.

I think just as industry people should exercise discretion when promoting their work or commenting on the work of colleagues/competitors, consumers should not just hand over the keys to the castle. Yes, that means viewing the opinions of industry insiders with skeptical eyes. Yes, that means telling Wei-Hwa and Tom that we appreciate their game and their support, but we are going to play with it now and come to our own conclusions. Yes, that means telling Lookout Games that we appreciate their enthusiasm but they need to take a step back.

The issue is not black and white! There are clear advantages to hearing from and being able to communicate with the creators of that which we consume. There are also clear pitfalls. Many people belong to both groups, or one or the other depending on the game, or the genre, or the publisher. Regardless, I am recognizing it to be my responsibility as a consumer to resist and protest media influence on the hobby. This does not mean I consider media influence a bad thing, just that there should be checks and balances as part of a constant effort to keep roles separate so as to allow our community to continue to grow.

@Benjamin, that first post btw, not whatever has followed, because I’m slow and the thread has grown and what can you do: As by good luck I happen to live in a world in which I can just reply to your post willy-nilly, I will use my invincible aura of celebrity to squish your arguments like so many small, helpless, pre-softened, squishable objects. I have four main points.

1. Unaccompanied Sonata

And I quote: “My working thesis is that too much creator involvement with the consumer is counterproductive to the consumer’s most important goals: developing a better understanding of games and a better understanding of his taste in games.”

Okay so who is that talking about? As a consumer I am just looking to have fun; I’m not doing any soul-searching. I can’t speak for everyone else. Like you do. Oh yes. I went there.

You seem to think there is some magical pure vision you could have, the experience isolated from the rest of existence, which some essay on Inland Empire or whatever is denying you. First that isn’t remotely true. Everything affects you; you can never have that untainted experience. Second that desire is utterly subjective. Some people may prefer to watch a movie alone in the dark, without reading any reviews, so as to better determine how much they like it in uh those circumstances. Other people may prefer to watch the movie with friends, knowing that when someone else laughs, maybe that will make them find the movie funnier than they would have otherwise. There is nothing that makes one of these things objectively better than the other.

2. A Clockwork Orange

Man I have seen this play out a lot. Someone gets all uppity about David Lynch talking about Inland Empire, or whatever it is. Like they are tied to a chair with their eyelids propped open, like in that scene in A Clockwork Orange.

Man, if you don’t want to know what David Lynch has to say, don’t read it. David Lynch saying it improves life for some of us and has no impact on you. It’s ridiculous to demand that he not say it so that you won’t helplessly attach the eyelid proppers and tie yourself into the chair. If you have so little self-restraint well I have no sympathy there.

Then too, some of us can read an essay by the author and not have the original experience somehow spoiled. A Clockwork Orange is a good example. Apparently the book has a final chapter, not in the movie, that invalidates everything that came before it. btw spoilers. Knowing about that chapter hasn’t hurt my enjoyment of the movie. Reading that chapter hasn’t hurt the rest of the book for people that I know who’ve read it (I can’t say for myself, since I haven’t read the book, because man, I’ve seen the movie, and the book has that bad chapter).

Man, it’s not just ridiculous, it’s offensive. How dare you try to take away my fun? Really, anytime someone’s vision of a perfect world is a place where they don’t have to put up with other people enjoying stuff that they don’t like, they are the enemy.

3. One Million Years B.C.

I always try to work in the evolutionary argument when it’s remotely relevant. It doesn’t do much here, but it’s remotely relevant, so here goes.

We were built for living in very small communities. The guy who wrote that song you like? He’s right over there. We live in a different environment today, so this doesn’t really tell you if knowing the author is “better” in some way, but still, it at least suggests that we should not find it difficult.

4. Sally Simpson

Finally some empirical evidence. It’s not as unbiased as I would like, but what can you do.

I make up games and play them with my friends. We also play games that I bought, designed by people we have never met. We have both experiences.

Do my friends bemoan the presence of the game designer? Well that’s hardly a fair question here, but no, they do not. In fact I know secondhand that one of them once commented on how it was nice to have the designer around, because then when you complained about something, maybe he’d fix it. I have heard no secondhand complaints about having the designer around. I don’t feel like people have a harder time expressing their “true” feelings with me around; if anything they are damn loose with the criticism.

As a game designer I am kind of stuck with playing games with people who know the designer. So maybe I am just bound to defend this position. But what. Other people can put forth their arguments. Me saying something doesn’t shut anyone else up. Just like you aren’t shutting me up. Man. “Responsibility to step back.” The sad thing is that once in a while someone like you may convince someone like Lynch not to publish that essay, and then I miss out. Is it really so awesome to kill off other people’s fun? Maybe I am missing out on some great fun-killing here.

* * *

I know I tend to phrase things overly dramatically - the stuff just rolls off the tongue better - and well for all I know you’re a great guy. Nothing personal! J C Lawrence stands out as a poster at BGG who is trying to think things through and well there is more to think through here. Really you guys could be attacking something blatantly self-serving, like say movie previews, and I would be saying, man, I like movie previews, I should get to watch them, what’s it to you? I have focused on the David Lynch thing because that’s just so blatantly ridiculous; like your world is worse because I get to read what Lynch has to say, when what Lynch has to say is in fact content in its own right; you might as well say I shouldn’t get to see the movie. Mark Rosewater has a weekly essay on Magic that I read and it’s all so utterly game-promoting. But he has interesting stuff to say, when it isn’t just Magic cards talking to each other, and I’m glad he gets to churn out the essays. May you never shut him down!

How many customers are really supposed to be fooled into thinking they like a game because the designer says how great it is? Man I haven’t met anyone like that, not ever. A wall of essays can’t stand up to playing the game and hating it.

Well, since my name’s been dragged into this, I guess I’ll comment.

I think it’s fine for designers to give advance info for an upcoming game, as long as it is clearly labeled as such. 

For example, I wrote some design columns for Amigo’s website when they did advance publicity for UK&K and I’ve done various design previews for BGN.

I submit my previews to Eric at BGN for various reasons, but one of them is that outside submissions at BGN are reviewed by an editor, not just a moderator, which helps ensure I’m providing interesting content and not being too commercial in my previews.

If I do write an article on some overall aspect of gaming, I either try not to use my own games as examples or clearly label them as such.

In general, I agree that a designer on online forums should mostly provide info (rulings, responses to requests, etc.) and let players judge and comment on a published game as they see fit.

This is what I try to do on BGG.  I don’t rate games there, comment fairly sparingly, and often pass on discussions (even when I think about them and have some insights that I don’t see others bringing up).  To me, that’s one of the costs inherent in being, to some small extent, a public figure in a given industry.

However, I did write one long post in response to a particular criticism of Race for the Galaxy.  What prompted it was that I saw repeated statements to the effect that Race “had eliminated the player interaction present in San Juan”, by players who were confusing the exclusivity effect of the role selection mechanism in both games with its sequencing effect.  This is just not accurate and was starting to become, in frequency, “swiftboating” by the game’s detractors.

So, I wrote one long post discussing interaction in Race, responded a few times in that thread, and then shut up.  I think that was an appropriate response.  I don’t think people are required to put up with false “swiftboating” comments.  I have no regrets about that action and would do it again.  If Ben feels that was inappropriate behavior, that’s his opinion.  I don’t agree in this specific instance, though I do agree about designers needing to be careful, in general, about commenting on their own games.

Okay, this has just gone to the next level.  We’ve got JC and Donald X making voluminous posts, featuring cannonicalising, old movie subtitles, and the deification of David Lynch.  I don’t understand a word of any of it, but it sure is fun!  Keep it comin’, guys!  :-)

New Rule: Only Donald X can write about Dominion. He writes too well and too infrequently.

I suppose it’s at this juncture that I should point out that although I feel strongly about and stand behind what I’m writing, I don’t feel comfortable personally lecturing to strangers on how I feel about their behavior, and I don’t think that the latter point invalidates or contradicts the former. With that being said…

Tom, I greatly appreciate your candor and your reply. I also understand your frustration at being dragged into this conversation, especially considering your restraint and overall posting style on BGG. In fact, your essay caught my attention because it was so out of character for you. I understand your feeling that your game was under unfair attack, and I like the swiftboating comparison. Your essay struck such a nerve with me because I saw it as demonstrating a lack of trust in the community to be able to reach the correct conclusion without your assistance. This perception, combined with the game’s incredible popularity, caused me to find your essay distasteful, even though I personally agreed with 100% of its contents and felt your position was very well-argued. Sticking with the cinematic arts, here’s an imperfect but reasonable analogy: your essay felt to me like Steven Spielberg doing the talk show circuit and spending his time responding to factual errors in complaints made by Schindler’s List detractors. Given the film’s commercial and critical success, this would come across as tacky.

I do not feel good about calling you tacky, Tom, and this is not how I would like to introduce myself to you. I think your irritation at having your game swiftboated is completely justifiable, and I think your response was even-tempered and, again, completely justifiable. I have a problem, though, with the dominant environment in the hobby being one where you feel comfortable posting such a reply. The more protected your voice is, the less protected a dissenting voice is. As a consumer of games, I find dissenting voices, even if completely, utterly wrong, to be more valuable than the author’s voice, so I’d like to see them protected.

Just a note:  Tom Lehmann had a nice response here that I completely agreed with… and I certainly respect Benjamin Keightley’s very polite clarification. 

I’ll just comment to the very intelligent, impactful but respectful discussion on this article.  This is truly when BGN elevates itself.

Kudos to all…

By the way, 55 comments on this article so far.  That has to be a record…

Hmm… let’s see:

I don’t think a single post was “tacky”.  I agree that endlessly harping on the point, as in your analogy, would be.

I also disagree with the notion that “protection” of expression among creators and consumers is a zero-sum activity; that one person saying something automatically drowns out another person and that therefore some creator expression needs to be suppressed so that consumer expression can be heard.  That, to me, sounds as if *you* don’t trust the “the community to be able to reach the correct conclusion” without regulating expression of opinions…

I let some careless language slip through in my last message, and I’m not surprised to get called on it so quickly! “Protection” is a hopelessly unspecific and therefore unhelpful word, so let me try to unpack this idea a little bit. I believe that there is a strong advantage to keeping artistic creators separate from audiences. The advantage is that without the creator’s direct involvement, there is greater space for interpretation. I view maximizing this space as more important than the designer’s wish to have his interpretation understood.

The obvious, and fair, objection is that just because the designer participates in a conversation, that does not mean everyone else can’t, too. Well, this is only true to a certain extent. The designer of a work, especially a juggernaut like your Race for the Galaxy, has a certain gravity. There are real and perceived social and political advantages to aligning one’s opinions with the designer’s. So, the instant a designer registers a preference or an opinion related to his work, that preference or opinion becomes, on balance, more valuable. Contrary opinions or preferences will have to fight harder to be heard. I regard this as an essentially negative phenomenon, particularly when a game is receiving a lot of attention.

For a bit of contrast, and possibly to make myself a hypocrite, I think your detailed analysis of 2038’s initial auction is a fantastic, welcome addition to the database. The game is older, uncontroversial, and not generating plenty of good analysis on its own. There, I consider your insider knowledge welcome because outsiders (consumers) aren’t doing the work. If a flurry of 2038 discussion were to start up again--possibly even kickstarted by your own posts--I would again think the most appropriate behavior would be to bow out of the conversation, and I would hope that the participants in the discussion would appreciate that decision.

Sidestepping back to the original question...I can see Larry’s point that the “columnists” here should be treated more like personal bloggers, so that it is good and natural for them to post more frequently about what they are working (and benefiting in social stature if not financially) on. I can accept - and enjoy the POV - if that if that is the “mission” of BGNews.

I just have to point out that although I don’t know much about BGNews, other than being an avid reader, I had assumed that with it’s name, logo, and the fact that it has editors, that BGNews was aspiring to be more than that - to be equivalent to a newspaper or a journal in another industry. I think that’s actually an admirable goal, but to get there you would have to (IMO) be even more careful about crossing the line, or blatently obvious when doing so.

Considering the articles here to be mere pirvate blog postings is self-deceptive.  BGN occupies much the same role as an edited journal in a more traditional field.  By collecting columnists and their columns, and presumably editing their articles into a consistent presentation BGN both lends its gravity to their content and enhances its own editorial stature (+ve feedback loop).  The same content published on individual blogs/sites would not have the same effect; they would in be lonely voices lost in the clamour.  BGN adds profound editorial value by collecting the content; something that disperate blogs cannot do for themselves.  Once BGN collects the articles they are no longer little private blogs lost in the great Internet hurly burly.  They are learned postings in a well edited and thus well respected journal (and I do think Eric does a remarkable job).  They aren’t private blogs any more.  They are now performing on a larger and grander stage.

Tom, let’s not confuse press releases and other classical marketing material with more private pronouncements.  Your articles for Amigo are simply marketing copy and presented as such.  Likewise for what little i know of the other content you reference.  However such things are rather different in both intent and presentation from your spirited defence of RftG’s interaction or your analysis of 2038’s auction.

The key element here is interpretation.  An announcement of an upcoming game is (hopefully) mostly factual.  There is a game, it has a theme, it fits the following rough market definitions etc.  That is a little different from statements like, and I paraphrase Valerie, “...the best game at the convention.” As you note, with rare exception you do not tell your audience what to think about your games.  I like that.

About the breadth and role of BGN Columnists:

Well said, on your second point Scott.

J.C., I think you are *exactly* right in your assessment of BGN.  Also very well said.

Jeff,
I stand to gain a game that my kids will pretty much play with me any time that I enjoy.  It’s way better than a financial reward! :)
(For full disclosure, my “contribution” to Dominion has been learning from the rules while Valerie watched and teaching it several times, officially at Gencon and unofficially at Origins.  I also posted a review at BGG.)

I do not like the idea of “stifling” authors or publishers in any manner.  I like hearing and reading about strategies, backgrounds and the development of games from the people involved. 

Personally, I have no problem “arguing” with a designer or developer about strategy while at the same time, I accept their word on the reason a specific rule was tweaked or why an artist was chosen for a particular card. 

If that type of discussion isn’t to your taste, don’t participate, but as another poster stated, please don’t take away my fun.

Scott Pease, your assumptions about the columnists on BGN are understandable, so let me provide some background (and try to alleviate any impressions that my good friend Ryan “Loose Cannon” Bretsch may have left).

The “news” portion of Boardgame News comes primarily from Eric’s research and reporting.  The columnists are encouraged to provide any leads we can, but it would be a mistake to consider us as reporters.

Other than that, we’re pretty much free to say what we like.  I can’t speak for the others, but during my regular gig here, I don’t think one word of my columns was altered by Eric.  There may have been a couple of isolated instances where he pointed out factual errors, but I’m not even sure of that.  In fact, the standard procedure is to post the articles ourselves; Eric doesn’t even have the opportunity to change things.  I’m sure he provides editorial assistance on some of the things that go here, but I’m not aware of him doing it for the columns.

I think if you look at the work of the different columnists, you will find disparate styles and views.  The purpose is not to provide a consistent viewpoint, nor is it to inform.  We are here to entertain.  That goes back to the early days of the site with Rick Thornquist, who wanted new material every day of the week to encourage people to check on the site daily.  Thus, seven folks with decent writing skills were asked to provide material once a week; no other direction was provided.  The cast has changed over time, but it still seems to be working out.  However, the columnists themselves are not expected to provide news coverage.

JC’s post is simply incorrect.  This is not an edited journal, nor is there a consistent presentation.  Perhaps this should be made more clear, but I would have thought the very different kinds of columns (Valerie’s con reporting, Dale’s haikus and Fantasy Football palavar, Frank’s Fimo work, and Kris’ wargame interviews) would have made that apparent.  I guess not.  It’s nice that people consider the BGN articles to carry greater weight than that of individual blogs, but I would hope that’s due to the quality of the writing, rather than the site setting itself up to be some authoritative organ.  I agree that with that status, there is some additional responsibility to continue to provide quality work.  But strict impartiality is not one of the requirements, nor should it be; we each have our own likes and dislikes and to keep those out of our scribblings would result in a much blander and less interesting series of articles.  The columns are not news articles, but the opinions of seven very different people.

Scott Russell, I’m sure that your plea for your ‘fun’ not to be ‘taken away’ from you is sincerely felt, but it’s also rhetorically over the top. I’d like to identify ‘fun in this context as something like ‘ability to publicly engage in communication with designers/developers/publishers about their work, and privilege to both report on and consume others’ reporting on pre-release product.’ Feel free to throw out the second half if you want, and please correct me if I’m way off on the first half.

With the exceptions of the editors of the industry’s big media outlets (BGN, BGG, CSW?), nobody is in a position to ‘take away’ this ability. This sort of language conjures up images of mustachioed villains standing over women tied to train tracks. What I am in a position to do is publicly argue that our media is beginning to serve the industry more than it is the consumers. If I am wildly, impossibly successful, the result will be less personal designer involvement and less prerelease publicity, but it will not be because Scott Alden forbids such discussions but because the community will have changed its preferences. This is not a process that’s fairly characterized by the language you’re using.

I’ve already talked about why when designers publicly dissect their own work it makes it harder for contrary voices to be heard, which in many cases effectively narrows the interpretive field. I would be happy to expand this point but I can’t imagine it’s so controversial, even if we disagree on the power of this phenomenon. What I certainly object to is the claim, made explicitly by you and Donald X. Vaccarino above, that by simply not participating in these conversations myself, I am immune from their negative effects. This is simply not true, and for an obvious counterexample, we can look at Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner.” Is there any question that Ridley Scott’s statement that Harrison Ford is in fact a robot made it more difficult to argue that Harrison Ford is not a robot? It’s not an impossible argument, and of course once the work is out there, everyone may do with it what he wishes. Still, if I want to argue the contrary position, I have to fight against the evidence that the work’s creator says I’m wrong, even if I never personally read, heard, or saw Ridley Scott say such a thing! I certainly won’t participate in a conversation on the subject for long before I learn that Ridley disagrees with me. I believe Ridley’s influence has narrowed the field of interpretation, and again, I view this as strictly negative.

Coming to the second half of my ad hoc definition of fun, are there any other media where reporters publicly editorialize on products prior to their release? I’m not familiar with any, so it’s hard for me to look to them as a model. However: in literature, in television, in theater, in cinema, in painting and sculpture, in the restaurant world, reporters are almost always given the opportunity to see the product before consumers. They then keep their opinions private until the product sees wider release. What consumers hear about the product before its release is understood to be publicity or advertisement, and savvy consumers regard this information not with hostility, but certainly with a skeptical eye.

This is much less the case right now for the boardgame industry, which has managed to frame almost all of its products’ prerelease publicity as just some guys having fun and talking about stuff they’re excited about. Consumers will take that information much more seriously than information identified as publicity. They let down their guards. I place no blame on any given person, but I do view this publicity-posing-as-guys-talking as manipulative and undesirable. I think it’s important for people to recognize that they will often be media figures, and it’s equally important for consumers to recognize that a lot of what they read on BGG and BGN is publicity.

What a crappy week to lose power.  I’ve been out of the conversation since I lost power at 3pm on Sunday (thanks Ike).  I still don’t have power and probably won’t until next Monday, according to the power company.  So this is a brief post from the wifi at my local Starbucks to say I appreciate that a good conversation has occurred and unfortunately I’m going to have to read it after the fact.

Sigh.

Still at Starbucks here....  I think that Ben and Donald both have really good points.  Unfortunately, they are conflicting and I’m not sure who I agree with more.  So I am going to go back to my gut instincts.  I have removed my strategy article any my game rating from BGG.  The “consumer” can do that.  I apologize to any one who feels that it is too little too late.  I don’t apologize for my articles about Dominion here on BGN.  I would dread writing this article every week if I didn’t feel like I could write about whatever I was interested in that week.  That said, I understand that you prefer articles on a variety of topics and nobody wants to hear about the same game over and over again.

I want everyone to know that I really appreciate the conversation that occurred here.  I really care about doing a good job at whatever I tackle--whether I’m getting paid or not.

Ben wrote “...are there any other media where reporters publicly editorialize on products prior to their release?”

A great parallel to our “little teeny tiny” industry is the videogame/PC game industry. Take a look at IGN, Gamespy, 1UP, etc. and the columnists/reporters there fill up their pages with previews upon previews of games that they are both excited about and others that they are given some sort of prerelease access to. The hype for Spore, Halo, Rock Band, GTA IV and other games was absolutely huge, and as a player of those games, I love every scrap of prerelease info I can get.

I also disagree with your claim that “in literature, in television, in theater, in cinema, in painting and sculpture, in the restaurant world, reporters are almost always given the opportunity to see the product before consumers. They then keep their opinions private.” There are scads of sites that offer previews of movies, tv shows, books, (don’t know about restaurants, that’s not really my thing) before they’re out if you know where to look. Ain’t it Cool News exists soley because movie and TV viewers want to know about what’s coming out next, and what the AICN columnists/reviewers think about those movies/shows. And oftentimes those same reviewers/columnists are given access to behind-the-scenes info and people involved with the productions that you can’t get otherwise.

Personally, I want MORE people like Valerie providing the ins and outs and ups and downs of product design, development and production, not less. Dominic Crapuchettes of North Star is probably the most prolific of any designer/publisher in terms of telling us EVERYTHING about their process, and I find it fascinating…

The people who read BGN regularly aren’t your run of the mill gamers. No one I game with regularly checks BGN each day for news. They might come to the site occasionally, but they’re not as invested in the industry as I or many of the folks here are. The people who pay for a BGN subscription skew towards wanting to know as much as possible about what’s going on in our little industry, and already know enough to put a filter on what they’re reading every day.

The statement “I do view this publicity-posing-as-guys-talking as manipulative and undesirable” seems like you’re saying that Valerie or Eric or anyone else is writing with some sort of malicious intent. I can’t believe that’s the case with any columnists here. Now cartoonists, on the other hand, have a long history of malicious intent… :)

Ben says
“I’m sure that your plea for your ‘fun’ not to be ‘taken away’ from you is sincerely felt, but it’s also rhetorically over the top. “

Slightly perhaps.  But if people are swayed to your viewpoint, I will not be able to read the type of articles that I enjoy.  So while you cannot directly curtail my fun, you can reduce my opportunity. :)

For example, based at least partly on your arguments, Valerie decided to pull her strategy article. So I am not sure how far over the top I am?

You correctly identified what I enjoy about Valerie’s, Dale’s and Melissa’s posts. The “ability to publicly engage in communication with designers/developers/publishers about their work” is exactly what I fear you are advocating against with your stance. 

I will grant you that I actually enjoy the author/director/creator explaining exactly what they meant when they produce something ambiguous which seems at odds with your preference.  That alone may account for a large part of our disagreement.

Ted.

Within the English-language boardgame arena there are effectively two fora: BGG and BGN.  The rest are comparative noise.  The many software etc magazines you cite exist within a much larger and more complex media space.  With the larger media space the audience can afford to self-differentiate into populations that stray behind the curtain and those who don’t/won’t.  That opportunity doesn’t (currently) exist for boardgames as the field is too small.

Like you I am interested in the processes discussed.  Also like you most of the people I play with don’t read BGN.  In fact most of them don’t read BGG either (we may differ there).  I have no complaint that it is possible to get behind the curtain (there will always be people with those interests and that’s a fine market for someone to serve) but given the small size of the field it is inappropriate for such a large portion of the media to be behind the curtain.  I’d have no complaints if Valerie’s Dominion articles were posted on her private blog and I think that’s a fine place for them.  The audiences that want that data will differentiate and seek it out.  I do complain that such a significant portion of the boardgame media-space, in the form of BGG and BGN, is forced behind the curtain by such articles.

Ok...it seems that in my haste to “fix” things in the short time that I have internet access here at the coffee shop I just made things worse. 

Apparently, there are just as many people who were unhappy about the deleted post as there were people who were unhappy about me writing it in the first place.  Will I EVER learn that you can’t please all the people all the time? 

The article was recovered by the BGG admins and I have applied the “spoiler” feature to my post so that people can think twice before reading it.

Did I mention that this was crappy timing for losing power for a week?

Hi Larry,

Well, guess what?  The *loose cannon* you speak of is now turning straight back onto you.  I read your response post to JC Lawrence… and agreed with it.

But I really don’t see that you and JC are far off from the same broader conclusions.  I guess I should clarify:  I agreed *exactly* with J.C.’s broader conclusions about what the readers perceptions of BGN’s responsibilities should be.  I say that as a “reader” of BGN.

I agree with your “details” with regard to how BGN is actually run.  I say that as a “writer” of BGN.  Your assessment is very accurate.

But reconciling any differences between the two, in broad brush strokes, is not mutually exclusive.

Does that help?

Ryan, yes, a man’s reach should exceed his grasp and all that.  So if people want BGN to be as good as it can be, I’m all in favor of it.

My problem with JC’s assessment, other than it’s essential inaccuracy, is that I think it’s counter-productive.  If we start thinking of ourselves as The News Source for Gaming, which provides Learned Postings and adds Profound Editorial Value, we’ll be too full of ourselves and our importance to provide one necessary ingrediant:  fun.  We’ll also be trying so hard to provide a balanced viewpoint that we won’t be able to say anything interesting at all.

I think we’re losing sight of the fact that gaming is supposed to be fun.  If Designer A wants to comment on his games, that really doesn’t lessen the enjoyment I get from it.  If it means that other people’s views on it carry less weight, so be it.  The syncophants will be happy, because they have the designer’s views and I’ll be happy because *I* know the true facts from Geek User B’s article.  Win-win.

I also want to commend Ted Alspach, whose response to Ben’s comments mirrors my thoughts.  I thought his counter-examples were very well thought out.

The principles that have most informed my comments here are that (a) consumers’ authority over their own tastes is more important than the industry’s preferences on the matter, and that (b) consumers’ ability to interpret work for themselves is more important than the designer’s/developer’s desire to have his interpretation heard. Larry, I strongly disagree that fighting on behalf of these principles has anything to do with “fun” one way or the other. I strongly disagree that the degree to which the industry’s function is to entertain has anything to do with the degree to which conversation about the industry should be serious.

Ted, I appreciate your examples. The sources you mentioned break down into publicity engines and marginal blogs with self-selecting readership. I don’t think either of these are desirable models for BGG, although whether the former (publicity engine) is a reasonable model for BGN is more debatable.

With some trepidation, I am going to try to address the main thrust of Ben and JC’s comments, as opposed to the side issue of my own behavior.

In creative fields, some consumers want to interact with creators; others don’t.  This interaction can take many different forms:

* Previews/teasers of upcoming work.  From time to time, I skim blogs of favorite authors for info on when something new is coming.  Sometimes, especially if an author is departing from his or her usual fare, I’ll read posted early chapters to judge whether I should buy the book.

* Behind the scenes information.  I like film, am curious about the film-making process, have read various books by film directors on film, and have attended talks and Q&A sessions with various directors, actors, actresses, editors, film score composers, etc.  I personally feel these interactions have enriched, not detracted, from my film-going experiences.  Similarly, I always read and appreciated the Designer’s Notes that Jim Dunnigan supplied in S&T back in the 1970s.

* Biographical information.  There is an age-old debate as to whether biography should or should not affect how we, as consumers, react to a work.  None-the-less, many consumers are interested in biographical information, some because they feel it informs how they view a work, others because it helps them “feel closer” to a favorite creator, and still others out of sheer curiosity.

* Interpretative debate.  I attended a performance of Hamlet where Gertrude was portrayed as an alcoholic.  I stayed after for a discussion/Q&A with the actress who talked about places in Shakespeare’s text that supports that interpretation.

In none of these cases do I feel that my contact with or knowledge of the creative types hampers my ability to form critical judgments of their work.

However, I am certainly aware that some consumers prefer to approach and discuss a creative work with as little previous knowledge as possible.  People vary on this.

Where I see potential problems is when these different forms of contact and motives for doing so get intertwined; where, for example, a critical discussion is mixed along with a “feeling closer” non-critical discussion.  Then, you have people talking at cross-purposes to each other.

Here, I think the problem isn’t so much with either discussion (I think both are valid), but with not clearly labeling and separating these discussions.  Online forums, in particular, tend to mix up readers with different interests and motives with sprawling and rapidly mutating discussion topics.

For me, the solution lies in clear labeling, not in suppressing creators’ expression.

So, while I believe that creators do need to be careful in commenting on their own work—sometimes (some) consumers do want to hear from the creator, sometimes they don’t; sometimes, there may be conflicts of interests or the appearance of such; overexposure can occur; sometimes, not making something explicit may be the most effective artistic choice; and so on—I don’t agree with Ben and JC’s arguments that the reason for doing is because of limited forums or inherent power differences between consumers and creators.

I personally would have no more problem, for example, stating that “I believe a more satisfying interpretation of Bladerunner is to believe that Harrison Ford isn’t an android” (if I believed that), despite Ridley Scott saying he considers Harrison Ford an android, than I do in saying, “I find portraying Gertrude as an alcoholic in Hamlet very effective, even though the text is pretty clear this probably wasn’t Shakespeare’s intent”.

I believe in the free expression of ideas, labeling them clearly so that individuals can decide what they want to pay attention to and what they want to ignore.

Larry/Tom:

This is the essential problem of all journalism: how to be properly responsible for the public voice it represents.  The fact that the primary purpose of games is entertainment does not mean that the primary purpose of game journalism is entertainment.  Journalism and the thing it reports are not the same.  You can have all the fun you want _and_ you can be responsible.  They are orthogonal.

Labeling helps, yes, but it leaves the question of the bully pulpit still open.  I’ve no interest in stifling anyone’s range of expression; there’s no suppression.  Please, write what you will but pick the stage to fit the message.  Some stages carry additional implications.

Larry,

Are you having fun yet?  ; )

Larry,
Please don’t let this thread distract you from testing my prototype--you know the REALLY COOL one that’s still looking for a publisher (anyone?).  And I wouldn’t mind it, either, if you write about it in your column--that is, only if you are REALLY excited about it…

...uh oh, JC’s back online...gotta run…

Sorry, folks, I couldn’t resist--just wanted Larry to have some fun:)

Seriously, it’s been interesting, but I’m burned out...and for the record, I like having designers share notes/blogs/forums.  It’s what separates our hobby from some of the elitism that permeates other art/entertainment forms.  That accessibility is what inspires lots of us lowly gamers to design and publish our own games.  And THAT’s fun.

Ryan:  As a matter of fact, I am.  This has been a most interesting discussion and even though I’m struggling to understand some of the concepts the loyal opposition is presenting, they have obviously been very eloquent in their defense.

And no worries, Jeff.  In my next column, I will take advantage of my position of power and present Mr. Allers’ brilliant new prototype to you in exhaustive detail, whether you want to hear about it or not.  The bad news, Jeff, is that I’m so caught up in this discussion that I probably won’t write another column until next year!  :-)

Please excuse this comment if it is buried somewhere in the voluminous number of posts already, but it seems to me that one of the issues is not whether the designer/developer publisher should be providing the type of information that Valerie has posted on Dominion for example, but rather is BGN the most appropriate forum for such information. 

JC has alluded to BGN being closer to an edited journal or something along those lines which demands a greater level of care with respect to the types of articles and their content when coming from those behind the curtain.  I think he is on to something here and while I have thoroughly enjoyed getting deeper insight, maybe that insight belongs in another place - such as a blog for example rather than BGN.  The case of whether information like this should appear on BGG feels much fuzzier for what it is worth.

I think that might help keep some separation that some are seeking and temper the cries of shill as so often perception helps shape reality - rightly or not.

Actually, I think I do have something useful to add:  Being a long-time writer for BGN (although only on a monthly basis), I have often included in my articles the fun I’ve had with other game designers and even the joy I’ve experienced in making prototypes, play-testing them, and showing them to publishers.  Since I have a different sort of niche than most writers here, focusing on expereience-heavy feature stories, I did not see that as much of a problem.

When it finally came to getting published, however, I left my game preview in Eric’s capable hands.  I’ve written more extensively on the design process for my forthcoming games, but decided to put them in a personal blog and post links for those who are more interested in reading that kind of stuff, mainly Board Game Designer’s Forum and the designer’s forum on the Geek.

Although I don’t mind it at all if name recognition from my writing gets people to notice my games, I’m sure that playing the games will be the ultimate test, and if people don’t enjoy playing them, they won’t sell.  And I don’t intend to stop writing just because I’ve suddenly stepped behind some “curtain.”

Of course, my situation is slightly different than Valerie’s and Dale’s in that I do not write reviews and rarely even describe how specific games play (except for Nuremberg when I couldn’t resist getting the scoop on so many new games). 

BTW I’ve noticed that there are at least a couple of people here spending plenty of time writing lengthy comments when they could be utilizing that energy to write columns for BGN, and practicing what they are preaching.  Eric is always looking for more…

Harrison Ford was a robot?!  ;P

@Steve: I know, right? Maybe that’s why the voice-over is delivered so flatly.

Let’s stick with the important issues, people: Ridley Scott, auteur, spoiling Blade Runner for everybody. CUT TO: A man at a typewriter. Zoom in on his face. Wait a minute. Something’s wrong. Something’s horribly wrong.

1. Ridley Scott did not write Blade Runner. The hand that tapped out “Then we’re stupid and we’ll die” was either Hampton Fancher’s or David Webb Peoples’. Man, no-one remembers the writer (and don’t think I’m forgetting Philip K. Dick, but man, there are all these good bits that aren’t in the book, this is not just Dick’s show). What happened was the director’s guild tried to get more credit for directors by pointing out how impressed everyone was with Hitchcock. They got the writer’s guild to agree to the “a film by” credit and over the decades it’s done its damage; there you are referring to the director as the creator. It’s pretty sad for writers who aren’t directors. I mean if Shakespeare were a screenwriter it would be Hamlet, a film by Ridley Scott. You would be telling me what Ridley Scott said it all meant, as if that were what mattered; who cares what Shakespeare had in mind.

Fancher doesn’t have much to his name, but Peoples also did Twelve Monkeys (another adaptation, and solid entertainment), Unforgiven (I’m not into westerns, but I think it won some awards or something), and some garbage like Hero (the Dustin Hoffman thing). Anyway Scott didn’t write Blade Runner and so his opinion isn’t even relevant. He doesn’t get to make that call. I am utterly unmoved by what he has to say here. Hampton Fancher said he wanted it to be ambiguous. If you are going to be swayed by what the author thinks, there you go. It’s ambiguous. Hampton Fancher said so. I’m happy I could unspoil this movie for you.

2. In the original flick, some stuff ended up on the cutting room floor (although whoever swept that up kept it for later). Watching the original theatrical release, you might wonder whether or not Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, or you might not even think of it. As originally planned, and in later releases, there’s a dream Deckard has which then this other guy knows the contents of. Hmm, how’d he do that? And isn’t that just like where Deckard knows Rachel’s secret memories? The point was specifically to make you wonder if Deckard was a replicant. After that it’s not much of a revelation to hear that he’s supposed to be one; it’s like, weren’t you paying attention? It’s only a revelation because the original release cut that stuff. So I mean, to keep this information properly hidden, we need to not let people watch the director’s cut. To me that’s the first step in a path that ends with not publishing the book in the first place. Why let the book spoil your interpretation of Dick’s unwritten idea? In the book Deckard is human; how dare Dick muck with Fancher’s vision of ambiguity like that.

3. I loved that movie. I saw the original, the video version with whatever extra bits of violent footage, the “compromise cut” (they found this cut, a compromise cut that Scott made after the studio didn’t like the initial cut, and they were going to show it around at theaters as a “director’s cut,” but Scott found out and said hey let me make a new director’s cut, so this only showed in two theaters that had booked it already, one of which I saw it in), and the 1992 director’s cut. I have not seen the 2007 director’s cut, since I own an earlier copy of the movie, which I can watch for free. Man. How many versions of this do I have to see. Anyway despite this, and despite reading Premiere for years and still occasionally visiting showbizdata.com, I did not know that Scott had said that Deckard was a replicant, until you (Benjamin) mentioned it just now. Apparently that information is not just blasting from bullhorns as you (one) walk (walks) down the street.

Inland Empire is a recent flick, Lynch actually wrote it, and it makes no sense. It’s just a much better example. Lynch saying what Inland Empire is all about would actually mean something. I don’t feel like it would ruin my enjoyment of the flick, which I haven’t seen btw - I adore Blue Velvet as much as the next sicko, but Inland Empire looked bad and I knew he had written it on the set and well maybe someday I will be that desperate. I could see it ruining yours though and well like I said, don’t read the article. You don’t need an isolation tank to avoid this stuff.

It is actually relevant, as other people have posted, that there be a distinction between ads and reviews. When Lynch says something about his movie, we know that it may be self-serving, whereas when a reviewer talks about it, who knows, maybe this is real criticism, or maybe he’s biased by that time Lynch came over and they played air hockey and then made meat sculptures. Being connected to the industry, even as a reviewer, is eventually going to lead to bias, and well I’d still rather not give up the experienced reviewers. What, if Knizia decided to write game reviews, I would be reading those, no question, and the fact that he’d just as soon have Ra be more popular than Puerto Rico would not really bother me.

OK, getting back to board games (but not necessarily the original topic), I think there might be a good blog topic for Valerie in your essay on “Credits in Film”, Donald.

In board gaming, thanks in large part to Alex Randolph, the designers get top billing on the box cover.  Developers often put quite a bit of work into the designs as well (although it varies from game to game), yet they usually receive little credit.  What do you think, Valerie?  Something for next week?

Many of the recent posts have revolved around the same basic idea: to what degree can proper labeling of content act as a surrogate for journalistic ethics?

I think that it can go a long way. In any industry, it’s impossible to get truly unbiased editorial content that’s actually worth anything, because a personal stake or interest in the subject tends to be a prerequisite for the level of expertise that informs most good writing on any subject. Further, knowledge of the preferences/biases of the writer can, to a certain extent, be useful to the reader. That being said, almost every industry--including ours--still values the concept of ‘unbiased’ journalism. And in general, the industry does a decent job of separating publicity from editorial content.

To try to humanize myself somewhat, I will mention that I, too, am a fan of publicity. Tom, your Designer’s Previews of Race for the Galaxy were excellent publicity pieces that had a lot of value for me. Ted, your use of BGG and BGN to promote Bezier Press’s work is useful to me as a consumer and very clearly, consistently labeled as promotion. But where does it get murky?

Although this is not the most high-profile example, I’m not entirely comfortable with the good cop/bad cop routine that J C Lawrence and John Bohrer have developed. John’s branding efforts would be eyebrow-raising if they weren’t so comically transparent, but J C has managed to position himself as nothing more than an enthusiastic fan. This isn’t really the case: there are substantial political and social advantages for both parties in their relationship. The net result is probably positive for the consumer: since this relationship really got started, availability of Winsome titles has shot through the roof, and strategic analysis of Winsome games is certainly stronger now than it was two years ago. But to what extent is this due to genuine fan excitement, and to what extent is it the result of a marketing push? I think it’s a little of both, and I don’t think consumers are served by willfully ignoring the impact of publicity.

J C recently wrote a list on BGG that, conveniently setting aside the issue of a ‘hidden’ Winsome connection, was a great example of non-publicity editorial content. The list, with a direct link to the problematic comment, is here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/34477/comment/897096#comment897096

In this list, a conversation is taking place among J C, some peers who agree with his opinions, and some who don’t. Under Dominion’s entry, one poster opines that the game was designed to serve a specific market. Donald, you reply with an irrelevant anecdote that can only be honestly interpreted as publicity. Like the early replies to this thread that mocked the idea of boardgame shills cashing massive royalty checks every month as rewards for their deceptive behavior, your reply mocks the idea that Jay at Rio Grande Games actually hires focus groups and Madison Avenue ad firms to cynically calculate a game that will move lots of product.

Just as nobody actually makes the bags-of-money argument, nobody actually makes the Madison Avenue one. The comment to which you replied was rhetorically excessive but your response was even more cynical than the position you assigned to the original poster. You weave a romantic Genesis myth, designed to humiliate anyone daring to spread rumors of focus groups and telephone polling. But the truth is that the actual genesis of Dominion is irrelevant to the consumer’s point, which is that he has negative feelings about BGG’s current dominant taste in games. Your reply had the effect of being a cynical piece of publicity.

Undoubtedly, many people will disagree with me, and these particular examples aren’t nearly as important as the reality that there is a gray area between candid conversation, journalism, and advertisement. Acknowledging that this gray area exists is a very important step in maturing as an industry, and collectively deciding how we want to regulate this gray area is an even more important one.

To come back to my original point (and to again touch on the last exchange I had with Ted), what are good journalistic/editorial models to look to as we shape this industry’s media? Unlike Ted, I think gamespot.com, aintitcoolnews.com, and elbo.ws are terrible, worst-case-scenario models. I think more 2.0 models like digg or del.icio.us have something to offer, though I’m not too familiar with them. I’m very familiar with, and ovbiously arguing from the perspective of, traditional models like the New York Times and even, say, popmatters.com and salon.com. I’m open to others, though.

Ben: Your last post is a bit confusing.

Could it be summarized as “Industry” involvment can be good and bad, but that Industry needs to stay away from discussions that are meant for “Community”.

Except that we don’t have a solid definition of Community. Rules clarifications and discussions of components clearly call for Industry input. Reviews kind of imply Community.

But Previews...? The only folks with experience of the game are almost entirely Industry. There are fewer chances to show off a game than videogames (which are the model that us gamers seem mostly trying to emulate.)

The definition of release is also kind of vague. I could argue that anything from Winsome is a kind of a playtest copy, looking for feedback to see which game make the cut and become real games. In that case, the idea is to pull the Community into the Industry side of things.

Sure, that’s a fair way of summarizing my position. I think “needs to stay away from” is a little strong, and I think that with our current anything-goes philosophy, it’s certainly unreasonable to hold designers to standards derived from other models. In my last (too long and kind of loosey-goosey) post, I identified a couple of examples of behavior I consider unhelpful. From there, I asked the question: If I can or have convinced you that this is unhelpful behavior, how can we shape our media in such a way that this behavior is discouraged? What other industries have dealt with similar issues, how have they responded, and what is our assessment of both the effectiveness of their response, and the suitability of their models for our world?

I’m not really sure where you’re going with the second half of your comment. Yes, my point is that folks with pre-release experience of a game are associated with industry, and that their public comments are basically publicity. Although one could quickly get bogged down in discussions of Winsome’s business model and what its actual goals are, my early comments on my pre-release copy of this year’s Essen Set are the result of an unspoken, publicity effort by Bohrer. I am advertising for him and have struggled with the potential implications to my credibility when I make pre-release comments. Is any of this good or bad? No: it’s publicity, and how best to label and present it is one of the questions this industry should be asking itself.

q equals Benjamin: “In this list, a conversation is taking place among J C, some peers who agree with his opinions, and some who don’t. Under Dominion’s entry, one poster opines that the game was designed to serve a specific market. Donald, you reply with an irrelevant anecdote that can only be honestly interpreted as publicity. Like the early replies to this thread that mocked the idea of boardgame shills cashing massive royalty checks every month as rewards for their deceptive behavior, your reply mocks the idea that Jay at Rio Grande Games actually hires focus groups and Madison Avenue ad firms to cynically calculate a game that will move lots of product.

Just as nobody actually makes the bags-of-money argument, nobody actually makes the Madison Avenue one. The comment to which you replied was rhetorically excessive but your response was even more cynical than the position you assigned to the original poster. You weave a romantic Genesis myth, designed to humiliate anyone daring to spread rumors of focus groups and telephone polling. But the truth is that the actual genesis of Dominion is irrelevant to the consumer’s point, which is that he has negative feelings about BGG’s current dominant taste in games. Your reply had the effect of being a cynical piece of publicity.”

I disagree utterly of course.

What that guy said was “lol Dominion sucks if you like it you suck lol you all have OCD lol sheep lol.”

I replied as if he meant what he said literally, which obv. he didn’t, and corrected him in a coldly factual way that I enjoyed because hey this was JC’s list after all. Time for some inarguable facts! I probably should have added “I hope this clears up any confusion,” but man I overuse that. Of course that anecdote was irrelevant to that guy. Well in the sense that you mean it. I certainly expect it annoyed him. If he went back to that geeklist and read it. If he missed it the first time well hopefully he clicked on your link.

Now you are doing the same thing he did. I “weave a romantic Genesis myth, designed to humiliate anyone daring to spread rumors of focus groups and telephone polling.” Like I’m sitting in my laboratory, figuring out how to squish these rumors of telephone polling that are just cropping up everywhere. I didn’t design it at all; it actually happened. And I didn’t tell the story there or in that manner so as to humiliate focus group rumormongers. I wrote it to humiliate that one guy who said “lol you all have OCD lol hey why do I even post at BGG if I hate everyone here lol.” I wrote it to entertain me while I typed it up. And I phrased it that way because I enjoyed doing the Spock thing in a JC thread.

You say no-one makes the Madison Avenue argument and then you make it yourself. You think my post is cynical publicity. Like I am cleverly working the angles to sell more copies, or perhaps blindly publicizing as I fumble around in the forums, helpless due to having a product to promote. When in fact people were already talking about Dominion there and someone had just said “so was your mom… last night.” If somehow someone buys the game because of that post well I don’t know what to tell you. I am not going to cease existing for you so that people aren’t conned into trying my game by my charm and joie de vivre.

Yes, I made Dominion in a log cabin in 3 feet of snow; the original cards were made on sheets of scrap metal several feet across and you needed a forklift to shuffle them. I was trying to cure polio; instead I cured boredom. If you like the game, I only ask that you be kind to homeless people when you think of me. Asking for spare change is a game too you know, and not an easy one. It’s a game of torquing the incentive grid and manipulating ambiguity; it’s all about how you frame things for the people passing by that have change. Now if you’ll excuse me there are some sick children I need to poke with twigs. I know that may seem out of character but well we all have our flaws.

Donald, I owe you an apology for my sarcastic tone in my last message to you. It wasn’t called for, it distracted from my points, and (maybe most importantly) it wasn’t as friendly as I try to be. The real goal in mentioning that exchange on J C’s list was to identify an example of what I’m calling publicity--but which could also be called spin, or PR, or branding--that doesn’t necessarily appear to be on the surface. Yes, it was a marginal example, though I think it has value even if I can successfully argue that it exists in a gray area. This is what I think Valerie’s question is about, so I think it’s relevant.

I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to agree with me, but if I wanted you to listen to what I was saying, I should have resisted the sarcastic language. I’m sorry for that, and I hope that even if you can’t understand my point of view, you can at least hear that it’s sincerely felt, not personal, and held with the best intentions for the community.

No hard feelings, and I like sarcasm fine. Oh sure. I like sarcasm. No but really. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to apologize in return here or what; honestly I have just tried to be entertaining while vehemently disagreeing with you.

What I would like to convince you of is that, whether or not me saying something about Dominion is going to influence consumers on the issue of buying it, I should be allowed to say it.

Let’s say Tom Hanks goes to a restaurant. That’s gonna make some people see his next movie. People seeing him at the restaurant are gonna be all, wow, I saw Tom Hanks, and then there’s the movie and hey why not see it. But Tom Hanks wanted to go to a restaurant and those people enjoyed seeing him there. We have to let Hanks into the restaurant - all else is madness. And the net effect on humanity is not negative here.

BGG is some forums. Forums exist for the people who post there - well or they die out. BGG is apparently someplace where game designers are in fact encouraged to post - they give you a nametag and everything. And man everyone has one of those things. You can’t walk into a thread without bumping into five or six game designers. J C Lawrence for example is one. Man he said he wasn’t interested in my game - isn’t that a conflict of disinterest? He’s drumming up sales by putting down the competition. See you can pursue this ridiculous argument ad infinitum. Anyway the point is, I should get to go to restaurants, and man, I really really should get to go to restaurants with big “game designers welcome” banners. Suggesting that this is bad in some way makes no sense to me. Sure it may have an effect on sales - positively or negatively, I couldn’t tell you which. Everything affects you. Me mentioning Tom Hanks may end up with you going to see his latest flick; I put the thought in your head. I shouldn’t have to keep mum about Tom Hanks because of that. Anyway going to a gaming site is going to affect your level of interest in games and well that’s not news and not bad. Is the way I see it.

Playing off the obnoxious, “Shill baby, shill.”
As for Tom Hanks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzRQG7EqKeo&feature=related

Well, as a frequent lurker, occasional comment exempt, I thought I may give you some insight. I saw Valerie at Origins and GenCon. At Origins, I saw more game play of Dominion W/O Valerie then with her. At GenCon, every time I went into the RGG room Valerie was teaching a game. Never did I see her teach Dominion. She seems to have interests beyond the game. This is ridiculous. Her column is about her personal gaming experience. Give it a rest. I would say that Jay is more excited about the game than she is. He spoke of it at both conventions and showed much interest in promoting the game. I still don’t think either of them are shilling. Pshaw, Valerie is a great columnist and you all are just jealous. I know I am occasionally, but I don’t accuse.
Side note to Valerie-http://www.prayerfoundation.org/mother_teresa_do_it_anyway.htm

Donald - can’t wait for that “other” game to get out… I’ve been wanting it for my nephews! I was very happy when Jay told me that it will be coming out as well!

And I hope everybody realizes that the good people at BGN are doing a service for free and enjoy the fact that we are lucky enough to have the site! I think everyone here can see from the styles presented here that these reporters are offering a very blog-like style for the most part. If they are excited about a game, that’s usually because they are playing it a whole lot.

I’m sure the this latest comment run has put many thoughts in the heads here and more than likely will produce a shorter amount of posts by the same reporter on the same game… especially if there is a connection with them and the game. This is probably a good thing.

However, it wouldn’t hurt for everyone here to lighten up a little (including myself) and realize that the reporters are doing weekly columns here for free and like most of us will tend to talk about the things that occupy their time and thoughts… i.e. they are humans. This is a good thing.

I enjoy BGN and the columnists perspectives. I hope that everybody enjoys what the site provides.

I hope to be forgiven for veering off the original topic somewhat, but it is very uncomfortable to have one’s actions called “distasteful and extremely counterproductive” and I feel that I need to defend myself somewhat.

Benjamin Keightley’s comments on my actions heavily imply that I have taken some sort of adjudicator role on the BoardGameGeek forum on Race for the Galaxy, that somehow I am passing judgments on cards and strategies and cowing the readers, that I am abusing the trappings of celebrity and social capital.

This is completely at odds with my perceptions and intent.

For the most part, my posts have been limited to facts. Often they will be of facts that are not known to the general public, such as development history, or upcoming expansions, but sometimes they will be of facts that people already know but probably haven’t noticed. When I do contribute opinions to the occasional strategy threads, I’m pretty careful to label things with phrases like “I think” or “I suspect” or “I believe that”, which is my way of indicating that these are opinions and don’t carry the weight of law. People who know me know that I’m rather nonjudgmental and rarely, if ever, try to settle a discussion by fiat.

I do recognize Mr. Keightley’s general sentiment that it is possible for someone closely involved in a game’s development to abuse the trappings of celebrity and power, causing excitement and buzz in a game that is otherwise undeserved.  I disagree with the implication that I am guilty of such abuse, and if Mr. Keightley can point out specific examples of cases where he felt I’ve overstepped the bounds of propriety, I’m willing to discuss them on a case-by-case basis and publically apologize if necessary.

But if Mr. Keightly’s point is that my mere participation is offensive, regardless of the contents of my posts, then I have to vociferously disagree with his philosophy.  While the majority of participants of BGG are on the consume side and not the produce side of things, I don’t think the purpose of the fora should be restricted for the benefit of consumers only.  It should be for all game-players, whether they are novice or experienced, whether they are involved in the game’s development or not.

Yes, it would be improper for me to praise the game to high heavens while acting as if I had no involvement in the game’s development.  It is just as improper for Mr. Keightly to cast aspersions on me when I have done no such thing.

If I had simply played the game a few thousand times after publication and made comments, Mr. Keightly would probably have little to object to.  It is very strange how merely by participating in the process before a game’s publication suddenly renders all my comments worthless in his mind.

It is fortunate, I think, that most consumers don’t share Mr. Keightly’s views to the extreme that he appears to.  Otherwise, I would at least like to see some money and maybe a design credit before I get kicked out of the fanclub for being a celebrity.

(Not writing for Ben)

Wei-hwa,

I don’t think that the perceived problem is your assumed bias, your (non-existant) encouragement of hype or buzz, or that your participation on BGG is inherently offensive (it isn’t).  It is the point you skim over, the participation of authors in interpretative discussion and whether or not the BGG discussion fora are properly the exclusive domain of the consumers.  The assertion is that authors should not participate, even indirectly, in consumer-interpretative or critical discussion of their works in consumer fora.

Hi J C,

I did apologize for going off-topic.  My last post was purely about addressing the context in which my name came up in the discussion, namely Benjamin Keightley’s post.

But you seem interested in my viewpoint on the actual issue of this whole thread, which is that whether authors should participate in consumer-interpretative or critical discussion.  So, here it is.

My feeling is that in the past, the distinction between consumers and producers, at least on a large scale such as making mass-market movies or making high-quality boardgames, has been pretty clear.  So it has been easy to have “consumer-only” communities, mostly because actual producers were few and far between and they mostly had to speak through their work.

But I think technology has given us a the combination of fast communication and rapid development, and that we won’t be able to maintain divide between the producer and consumer; not when eventually everyone will be both.  That this thread even exists is proof of this erosion.

With pretty minimum effort, one can, for example, create a video and upload it to YouTube.  Maybe your video is commenting on someone else’s video.  At that point, are you a consumer or a producer?  Which side of the line are you on?  It’s no longer clear. 

Part of the problem is that technology has now made quality easy to emulate.  When I was in first grade I created a board game out of crayon and dice, and had some friends play it.  If someone had intervened then and said, “wait, you’re the game designer, you can’t be involved in any discussion about this game.  It wouldn’t be proper” I’m sure you would think that was crazy.  And yet some games nowadays are probably put out with about as much effort as I put into my crayon game.

With these sorts of trends, in maybe 50 years we’ll have the technology where I can come up with a game idea, sketch out the rules, and a nicely printed box becomes available worldwide within weeks.  The game will live or die in the market based on how well it is.  Someone else will be able to make quick changes and fixes to the rules and have their version available.  When that time comes, we will all be authors and consumers at the same time.

At that time, any fora that restrict themselves to “consumers only” will find them behind the times, provincial, and forgotten.  Is that a bad thing?  Perhaps.  But I doubt there’s anything that can be done to stop that trend.

Wei-Hwa, thanks for your outstanding replies to this thread; I truly regret that you didn’t join earlier. Although my contributions to this particular conversation have passed the point of diminishing returns, your questions and comments deserve proper responses. I’ll do my best here, but I also want you to know that what you’ve written will be strongly informing any further comments and arguments I might make on this subject.

There are three separate but related issues here. First, you feel attacked by me and don’t appreciate it. Second, there is the question of what differentiates publicity from objective journalism from disinterested editorial content, and how our hobby’s media outlets would like to organize, edit, and present those different types of content. Finally, there is a broader philosophical question of ideal levels of creator involvement with consumers’ interpretive work.

The second issue is certainly the easiest to have a discussion about, and I think a neat, tough problem. How do we want to structure our media? Media outlets in which I see a lot of virtuous qualities include good newspapers, a handful of magazines, National Public Radio. These outlets have very strict rules concerning journalists’ or columnists’ relationships with their subjects. These rules cover personal relationships, business relationships, usually forbid the taking of favors or free product, require full disclosure of conflicts of interest, but generally prefer to avoid conflicts altogether. Media outlets in which I do not see a lot of virtuous qualities include aintitcoolnews and gamespot.com. These outlets are dominated by publicity.

Above, I asked for examples of media that featured a lot of pre-release editorials. The only response I received to that question was from Ted Alspach, who pointed me to sites like gamespot.com and ign.com. It’s possible that I just have ridiculously old-fashioned, Victorian sensibilities, but looking at 1-up.com as a model of hobby reporting is an incredibly offensive idea to me, literally as absurd as a fledgling newspaper looking to the press releases in the ‘news’ sections of corporate websites for inspiration and guidance. It’s from this perspective that I found your session report on Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm distasteful. I’m not sure how to honestly interpret that piece of writing as anything but as a piece of publicity. This has nothing to do with a failure to disclose your relationship with the title, and nothing to do with a failure to disclose or hide bias. It’s about using a section of the hobby’s most important resource reserved for session reports to publish publicity.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, I find that session report (and plenty of others) distasteful. That doesn’t mean I doubt that your motivations were pure. I am sure you are excited about the release and thought other excited players would be interested in hearing some details about the game. You’re absolutely right; there are a lot of excited players. Just like people appreciate movie trailers, and people appreciate ‘Gran Turismo Car of the Day’ features on video game websites, people are going to appreciate prerelease information on games they’re excited about. My objection is essentially to placement, to context. Is there any publicity-free public space in the boardgame world? I think there should be. I feel like the ‘Session Reports’ section of BGG should be one of those places, although one doesn’t have to agree with that minor point to hear my main argument, which is that a media environment dominated by publicity is not a healthy one.

A media environment dominated by publicity is not a healthy one, and although the hobby would certainly not be served by adopting the New York Times’s editorial standards, it is at least as foolish to look to publicity-dominated outlets like video game websites as role models.

Moving on (and wrapping up), we do disagree on the ideal level of involvement a creator should have with his audience. I do find, in general, your contributions to strategy discussions to be counterproductive, just as I found Tom’s article on Race’s interaction level counterproductive. You stated very eloquently that in many artistic arenas, technology is quickly dissolving the line between creator and consumer. I agree with this, and I agree that it can be wonderful for this hobby and for communication in general. I think it also comes with some real problems: I believe strongly in the value of allowing a community to do their own interpretive work. When the creator is relatively isolated, as he has been historically, the handful of people he discusses his creation with have almost no impact on the larger community’s ability to do their own work. When the creation is occurring in full sight of and with the participation of the consumers, as is increasingly the case, it’s much trickier. I think we should be looking for ways--at least in the back of our heads--to try to preserve the value that comes with this separation, even as creator and consumer become increasingly indistinguishable.

I hope that this response has helped with the first issue. I didn’t want to turn to specific examples to make my point specifically because I don’t think it’s worth people’s feelings being hurt, but ultimately I decided it was worth it. I’m not so sure now, but I hope I’ve at least explained the reasons behind my words to the point where you no longer feel personally attacked.

Ben:

1up and IGN are how media works in this decade. Lots of previews, terrifying amounts of publisher intervention. Far more and of far dangerous types than BGG and BGN combined. They have insanely expensive weekend press junkets to sell games to their press.

It still works.

There is now obvious cynicism over press releases from companies. Games that are heavily promoted but are really awful still tank. Really amazing games with large numbers of previews and glowing critical acclaim also tank. (Psychonauts. The studios next highly previewed game Brutal Legend is now scrabbling for a publisher.)

And the top selling games are Madden and crappy children’s licenses. The games that really aren’t hyped at all anyway.

The ideas that companies are involved closely with the press is initially offensive, but it still mostly works. The business model allows the press to continue.

Your idea of totally independent press is also somewhat flawed. The past decade has drifted even in traditional media because advertising now makes up such a significant portion of total income.  (I have worked for over a decade for a major metropolitan newspaper. I have a front row seat.)

There are still lots of little perks that show up for reviewers. Products come with full guides to explain to how to look at parts of a videogame and “properly” review them.

Previews are also a new thing. They cannot exist without publisher cooperation and intervention. The only choice would be to go back to the old printed model where reviews are the only info you ever get on a product.

PS. There are perks to the newspaper thing. My wife Sandi managed to end up with one of these:
http://www.attractionsmagazine.com/blog/?p=891

Hmm.  Frank works for a Great Metropolitan Newspaper.  As anyone who has ever met him can attest, he’s certainly Mild-Mannered.  He also wears glasses and I’ve never seen him and Superman together at the same time.

Hmmmmm…

Mild Mannered....?

Funny you should bring that up. I did just suggest in an email to a senior manager that one of his employees should be skinned alive and dumped in a vat of salt.

I doubt he’ll do it, though.

----------------------------------------------

I have been trying to wrack my brain for any media where product previews appeared apart from computer and videogame magazines....

I remember Byte having coverage of new computers as the prototypes were being shown off at trade shows. It seems as if the 80’s kind of began a type of media devoted to consumer products.

Curiously, that type of review-centric media is perhaps a primary model for any gaming related website.

Another thought on previews is that if there is any prerelease detailed information on a game---the amount and level of detail of the information released is under fairly strict control of the publisher.

A: Does it matter if the information comes from a writer close to the publisher as opposed to a copy of a press release?

B: Do we really believe that people are THAT stupid not to realize that any prerelease information is biased?

One more vicious thought… Ever wonder if some of the shill-busters are just jealous because they don’t get to play with the toys early?

The above sounds quite rude. Think about it for a second. There is going to be a measure of envy and resentment toward the person posting. The shill-busters are likely biased by those feelings.

Thanks for responding to my comments, Benjamin.

While I agree with you, in general, a good thing to allow a community to do its own interpretive work, I seem to disagree with you as to whether people involved on the creation side should be part of this community.

I posted a session report not to drum up publicity, but because I had an exciting game, I happened to be taking notes, and I thought that people might like to hear about it—which is what I thought was the purpose of the session report section.

It seems to me that your ideal world, one where anyone involved in the creation process has to distance themselves from the consumers, is much more counterproductive, and I mean that literally.  “You can either be involved in the creation of the game and be banned from the community, or you can stay in the community, but then you’re not allowed to participate in creation.” Faced with that choice, I think a lot of potential producers would rather stay in the community and not produce, and many potentially good games would be lost.

The reason our community is feeling this more acutely than most is because unlike movies and videogames, board games have always been communal in nature.  We play board games because we do enjoy the amount of structured human interaction it brings.  As videogames start becoming more communal in nature, I think they start feeling some of this pinch too.

I understand the fear, that if the creator were allowed to be part of the community, then their voice would dominate and many potential voices would be silenced.  But ostracizing creators from a community they helped create is not a viable solution, in my opinion.

I understand your desire for a media that is free from the shackles of publicity.  But I think it’s a pipe dream.