Mr Skeletor's Mailbag, 22nd May
Pretty empty bag this week. I feel unloved.
Panzer “I love my DM screen” Patching writes:
What's the difference between a true role-playing game and a pseudo
role-playing game/board game hybrid?
There are many answers to this hoary old question but to my mind the most
accurate response would be the fact that in true role-playing games monsters
know how to open doors. In RPG board games (whether they be old favourites
such as HeroQuest or state of the art dungeon crawling fares such as
Descent) the dungeons are always populated by a buch of cretins who can't
figure out which way to turn the door handle. Even velociraptors could work
that out!
Any thoughts on this?
Regards
Panzer-attack
Now now Panzer, let’s not re-write history here. Monsters can open doors, just not into un-revealed areas. They are afraid of the dark you see.
The real answer of course is it depends on how strictly the rules are enforced. If the game has a tight, structured sequence of play that isn’t meant to be deviated from, it’s a boardgame. On the other hand if the rules are meant to played fast and loose by the DM, then it’s a roleplaying game. On thing I always found interesting about RPGs is that the DM is allowed to fudge things as he sees fit “for the good of the game”, but players are not. Always came across as dictatorial bullshit to me.
This ‘rules difference’ also leads to the other big tell, if the DM is a game referee, then it’s probably a roleplaying game, whereas if the DM is an opponent then it’s a boardgame. I remember in my younger days being quite blown away (I was easily blown away back then) when reading the rulebook for the Advanced HeroQuest Terror in the Dark expansion, which told the DM in the final room of the final quest quite clearly not to pull any punches and go all out, after all the heroes wont be pulling any punches on you! I thought that was badass!
Panzer,
This is Ken...I like your question, if Mr. Skelly doesn't gobble it up for his mailbag within the next two weeks, I will devote a column to your letter and my thoughts on it. Good question though, thanks for submitting!
--Ken B.
OI! Get your own segment you thieving prick!
Finally some captain anonymous sent me a private mail directing me to a thread on BGG started by Eddie the Cranky Monkey about Boardgame Elitists (link here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/165297). In it on page 3 Sam Healey drops this lovely morsel about Eddie’s criticism of The Dice Tower:
So, I guess I’m trying to say that there are a lot of mean-spirited people out there (in our hobby), of which neither I nor Tom are a part. Be careful not to put yourself into that group of people. You’ve not done so…just a *friendly* warning, and I mean that *friendly* part of it. I thank you for listening to The Dice Tower, and can only hope that you will continue to do so, as you have said.
Until Next Time…Sam.
Sam, from the bottom of my heart to yours, you really are an elitist piece of fucking shit. Just a *friendly* warning from one of the mean-spirited people out there.
Send your mail to fortressat@gmail.com with “[mailbag]” in the subject line.
71 comments:
That's COBB, you bastard! If you're going to use my fake name, GETS IT RIGHT!
What's wrong with Star Wars? What's wrong with sharing your bed? What?
I was totally going to steal that letter. It's like this hot chick your buddy keeps on being too shy to go talk to--eventually you just make your move.
You totally scored with that hot chick, Skelly.
As for Sam...ah, Sam. You are a really nice guy, but as far as games go you are as useless as a tit on a boarhog. Overpower? OVERPOWER?
Joe is sorely missed...I may not have liked all the games he did or agree with his opinions, but he ALWAYS sounded like he knew exactly what he was talking about.
Just a *friendly* reminder, Sam.
Why do you think Sam was talking about you anyway? Says more about you than about Sam.
And I mean that in the friendliest possible way, of course
Why do you think Sam was talking about you anyway? Says more about you than about Sam.
Never said he was. In fact he probably doesn't even know who I am.
But that doesn't make his lame threat any better. Don't criticize too harshly or you will get lumped in with the 'meanie' crowd. What a crock of self serving demeaning bullshit. The fact that no one called him out on it says lots about the mentality that prevails at that site.
And I mean that in the friendliest possible way, of course.
I'm going to kill all of you.
And I mean that in the friendliest possible way, of course.
Frank is right on the money- Sam's comments are not only of the "my head is stuck so far up my own ass I can see my colon" variety but they're also self-righteous and indicative that the "us versus them" mentality that we so often get accused of just as often comes from people like him and Tom "Let's Donate" Vasel. The comment also shows the typical passive-aggressive jackassery that typifies a lot of discussion on Other Boardgaming Sites and podcasts.
Eddie's comments and blog post were very well reasoned, very well considered, and he knew they were going to be controversial but he had the guts to point out that maybe things in "board game culture" are actually hindering its progress. And then here comes Sam Healy with his "constructive" criticism...pretty much, his comment is "you are either with us or against us."
BGGers love constructive criticism...I got a lot of responses of that nature in personal mail from a lot of BGGers who offered me helpful "advice" as to how to post properly and not be considered an asshole by the BGG majority. I am not kidding when I say that I've been told at least twenty times that if I didn't have the "ugly" avatar that people would like me better. Thanks for that, guys.
It's just like I've been saying all along...there's people in the online hobby community (and likely in every online hobby community) that feel like they're somehow leaders or trendsetters and a legion of internet yes-men are always at the ready to back them up...the Dice Tower folks are a great example. I stopped listening to their show way back when the amount of smug, self-serving hubris outweighed anything approaching insightful, interesting, or entertaining commentary about gaming.
_OF COURSE_ we're the "meanie" crowd, come on, anonymous...Sam just doesn't have the balls to name names cause he wants to look like a nice guy and he's likely afraid of jeopardizing the Dice Tower's flow of review copies.
So yeah, Sam- if you read this, make some snide comment or do a skit about it on the Dice Tower so you and Tom can chuckle about it and then Tom can explain to the audience why it was funny. You are truly the elites.
And I _don't_ mean any of this in a friendly way.
So yeah, Sam- if you read this, make some snide comment or do a skit about it on the Dice Tower so you and Tom can chuckle about it and then Tom can explain to the audience why it was funny.
Come on Mike B, don't you remember the Dicetower does humour without being funny, or so ..?
likely afraid of jeopardizing the Dice Tower's flow of review copies.
Mike B. -- I noticed you read Vasel's review of Battlelore:A Call To Arms and also commented yourself. I couldn't agree with you more -- $20 for a few cards and set-up rules is ridiculous and yet he gave it a 10?! I'm sure it's a great addition to Battlelore if you don't have to pay for it...
Yeah, absolutely. Part of the review process is looking at things from a cost/benefit perspective.
Take Steve Jackson Games--they are harmless enough, sure, but the problem with them is getting a deck of cards for $25 retail. That's insane. If it were $10-15 retail I think opinions on them would be considerably higher, possibly.
Tom's review broke my radio silence on posting comments to BGG.
Of course I read his "Words of Christ" red-letter review and then he rated it a 10 saying it was one of the best expansions ever. What a fucking load of shit. I'm sorry, but if that rating and review doesn't say "paid" then I don't know what the fuck does. Tom wants to keep DoW happy so they'll keep sending him advance copies (his review was posted nearly 2 weeks before CtA hit stores). So of course he's going to shove his face up their ass. He ends his comment with "Amen" if that tells you anything.
CtA, although it does at least add a little variety to the game and breaks it free of the scenario structure, doesn't add anything to the game and it does more to hurt it than anything else. Seriously, using the cards it takes twice as long to set up- so we're talking 30 minutes to play a game that might last 20. I don't mind spending 30 minutes to set up TWILIGHT IMPERIUM or PATHS OF GLORY, but for BATTLELORE it's just beyond the pale. There's all this weirdness with the expansion as well- the "Feudal Levy" tokens are just to remind the player that he doesn't have enough figures to really use the setup cards and there's no provision for blue-bannered monsters, lairs, or structures. The new terrains are slightly different versions of already existing ones. There are no new mechanics or game ideas introduced whatsoever and basically you're paying $20 for a deck of cards that lets you do something you could probably work out on your own anyway.
Contrast that to an expansion like SHATTERED EMPIRE, that adds TONS of new concepts, possibilities, and serves to deepen and enrich the game, opening up new strategies to explore and serving to develop the TI3 universe even further. THAT is a candidate for "one of the best expansions I've ever played".
And another thing...why the FUCK is a Longbow a "specialist" weapon in a game themed around the 100 Years War, and why the FUCK is it just a very slightly tweaked version of the already underpowered bow? And why are there so few archer units on the setup cards to begin with?
AGH! Anybody want to trade C&C:A for my BATTLELORE?
And another thing...why the FUCK is a Longbow a "specialist" weapon in a game themed around the 100 Years War, and why the FUCK is it just a very slightly tweaked version of the already underpowered bow? And why are there so few archer units on the setup cards to begin with?
So much anger, maybe instead you should try playing my rendition of C&C:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/212432
Everyone loves a hug!
Not a chance Barnes. C+C:A is a gem with way better and deeper (leaders) gameplay than Battlelore.
Though it got its own highly dubious value expansion pack from GMT (which I reviewed on BGG and got sort of jumped on for). Except the offense was even more egregious than Battlelore's expansion because it cost like ~50 bucks. With 2 new units with changes akin in size to the longbow thing you just discussed but with 100s of different colored blocks giving no appreciable value in game terms.
The scenarios were awesome thoug
I thought I really liked BATTLELORE when it came out, but I think I've realized that I liked the _potential_ of it more than what is being realized with it. It sounded so promising, what with their ad copy invoking classic AD&D and MASTER OF MAGIC (of all things) and the promise of new units and variety seemed infinite. Yet now, I find that if I want to play with this system then I just want to go back to C&C:A which was _already_ the perfect iteration of the system and the one most appropriate to its mechanics. I was really let down in BATTLELORE that it really doesn't resemble medieval tactics at all (like those longbow guys who haven't learned to tilt their bows up to fire OVER things) whereas C&C:A really gives you a feel for hoplite-style warfare.
On top of that, BATTLELORE is a bunch of clutter (both physical and mechanical) for a system that's really very simple and effective without a bunch of added-on stuff. The magic and all is cool, love the fantasy theme, but at the end of the day I'd rather play WIZARD KINGS for a much more diverse and variable experience...that's a HELL of a lot closer to MASTER OF MAGIC.
I'd love to see Vasel review Chapel's version. Amen.
Barnes - I noticed that not only did you knock down your rating of Battlelore on that other site, but, after mentioning Descent, you something like doubled its rating? Without changing the completely negative comments next to it?
Yeah, I upgraded Descent from a 6 to an 8 after playing a couple of games with the expansions, which I thought fleshed the game out a little more and made it more interesting overall...thought I changed the comments, guess I didn't hit "submit"...
J de said...
Why do you think Sam was talking about you anyway? Says more about you than about Sam.
And I mean that in the friendliest possible way, of course
I was following that thread on BGG at the time and I was disturbed by the post then - if it wasn't for the fact that about 98.2% (my unscientific but social poll of BGG users) of users there are boardgaming nerds who wouldn't even dare bump into someone on the street then you'd think that it was the gaming equivalent of the bloody horse's head left in the bed message.
While not mentioning a specific individual I thought it was quite obvious what 'group' of people they were talking about ... so are you just bantering with the lads or being a fucking tosser (and you can take that in the friendliest possible way, of course - or not).
I'm a fucking tosser if there ever was one. You have a problem with that?
Point is that you shouldn't give a shit about what a bunch of passive-aggressive tossers say. They're tossers, after all.
But you can't expect other people to develop a thick skin and not take in a snide comment yourself once in a while. Just like I choose not to care about being called tosser by you (friendly or not).
As I said/sung in a previous mailbag, I think it's a shame mrSkeletor felt he had to leave BGG. Same goes for others that left (in friendly ways or not).
It would just be a bigger shame if you let a passive aggressive tosser keep you from doing the great stuff that's been out here lately.
Alright, you didn't *really* call me a tosser. I just refused to get potentially offended
I FUCKING KNEW IT!!!!
I knew when Barnes, Tripp, Weeks etc were falling over themselves claiming battlelore was 'game of the year' that the emperor had no clothes.
I said from day 1 the 'system' was far to limited for what they were trying to do with it. Now it looks like my prediction is coming true (note: I haven't actually read the CTA rules yet so I'm just going by what others are saying, so I reserve the right to change this post if they end up being full of shit.)
I really should do a review.
Point is that you shouldn't give a shit about what a bunch of passive-aggressive tossers say. They're tossers, after all.
But then we would have nothing to bitch about. And then what would we do all day apart from turn on each other?
Anyway we should do a podcast. We can rip off the ABC and call it "Bastard Boys."
I guess that people here have chosen to focus upon only one paragraph in a somewhat long dialogue. For example, have you forgotten this part:
"While I will wait for part two of this post to measure it (both of them), you certainly say what you have said well. I, for one, do not think you are in danger of losing any ground anywhere for criticising The Dice Tower in this way. For one, you aren’t being belligerent, for another, you aren’t being inflammatory, and for yet another, you were very exact in stating that this was not a personal attack on Tom or Mary, but an address of a problem which you percieve to exist, and in so doing were citing the aforementioned podcasters as examples of said problem."
...or this part from Part 2 on Ed's blog:
"Change is somewhat inevitable in situations like ours for advancement to occur. But to start shooting at our soldiers on the front lines isn’t the way to exact that change. I am not offended at all, and I don’t believe Tom is either. Your viewpoint is valid to a degree, and has, at least, sparked meaningful debate on the topic."
What really confuses, me, though, is that I actually like a lot of the same games that those in the Fortress: Ameritrash group like, and I also agree with some of the things you have said concerning games. You guys have some good thoughts on many different things. But because of the way you say them, I find myself compelled at times to give the warning like I gave Ed. To be frank, most people don't care to hear what you are saying in the way that you are saying it. If you guys would simply think through what you want to say for just a few seconds more, and not go about it with an "f-this" and "f-that" attitude, I would wager that some of the things that have occured in the community concerning banishment and what-not would've been avoided. Instead, you take on your BGG banishment as an icon of worthiness. What I'm saying is that your being banished (or quitting...whatever may be the case) from BGG would've been largely unnecessary had you simply said the same thing in a different way...without the belligerence and inflammatory remarks.
As for my uselessness is concerned, I have never touted myself as an expert in any rite. I am simply a person who likes to play games. And, yes, I do enjoy Overpower. And, yes, it is one of my favorite CCGs...so what? You can disagree with me until the cows come home. It will still be a game that I enjoy. I also like ASL. And Paths of Glory was a game that Joe owned that I wanted to try out because it looked interesting...but we never got around to it. I miss Joe a lot, too. He is/was a great friend. I am hoping to see him this summer.
As for my head being stuck up a certain body cavity...well, that's your opinion, and it's certainly okay for you to have it. Nothing I say or do will change that opinion, anyway.
Just realize that I don't dislike most of what you say or even that you say it...it's how you say it that rubs me the wrong way. So, that's that...form the horse's mouth...or whatever body cavity you prefer.
Until Next Time...Sam.
Holy cow this Sam guy talks a lot. You'd think someone had said he was only asked to contribute to the podcast because someone wanted to sniff his panties.
Alright, Sam...useless is a strong word. You just came across so strongly in that thread, man, it did rub some people the wrong way.
I do like giving you grief for Overpower. I *hate* that game. Maybe it got better after the first few sets, but I played four games of it and was amazed at how bad it was. Discard matching values? KO by getting rainbows? It was like a dressed up regular card game with a Comic-book paint job on it.
That's why I prefaced my comments by saying you're a nice guy. You really seem to be. But PLEASE don't fall into the "trap" on the other side and start looking down your nose at people.
There's only one of us who's been banished...others have chosen to leave because of the politics involved I still contribute to BGG (just did a geeklist today) but I find my desire to do so greatly diminished.
And this is coming from a guy who "tit on a boarhog" is about as strong as my phraseology gets, so it's not all about how the message is delivered. Months ago I was able to illustrate how people started shouting down Ameritrash lists after only the fourth one. Here's this great movement where a bunch of gamers "find" each other, and all BGGers can do is babble about how they wish people would shut up about it.
That's a pretty bitter pill, man.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make (that got lost in the rambling) was that honestly, you and Tom put out a quality podcast BUT you are in no position to start issuing "warnings" to anyone. A warning to what, exactly? Finger waggling? Will you click their tongue at them if they keep being Negative Nellys? Where will it end?
See how people might have taken that the wrong way?
I guess that people here have chosen to focus upon only one paragraph in a somewhat long dialogue. For example, have you forgotten this part:
"While I will wait for part two of this post to measure it (both of them), you certainly say what you have said well. I, for one, do not think you are in danger of losing any ground anywhere for criticising The Dice Tower in this way. For one, you aren’t being belligerent, for another, you aren’t being inflammatory, and for yet another, you were very exact in stating that this was not a personal attack on Tom or Mary, but an address of a problem which you percieve to exist, and in so doing were citing the aforementioned podcasters as examples of said problem."
That is the example that you provide of you not having your head up your own ass? Jesus Christ you really are dense. I'll spell it out to you: "I, for one, do not think you are in danger of losing any ground anywhere for criticising The Dice Tower in this way." losing any ground for what exactly? Pardon me but who the fuck are you supposed to be?
...or this part from Part 2 on Ed's blog:
"Change is somewhat inevitable in situations like ours for advancement to occur. But to start shooting at our soldiers on the front lines isn’t the way to exact that change. I am not offended at all, and I don’t believe Tom is either. Your viewpoint is valid to a degree, and has, at least, sparked meaningful debate on the topic."
That I have no problem with.
What really confuses, me, though, is that I actually like a lot of the same games that those in the Fortress: Ameritrash group like,
So?
and I also agree with some of the things you have said concerning games. You guys have some good thoughts on many different things. But because of the way you say them, I find myself compelled at times to give the warning like I gave Ed.
And again I ask, who the fuck are you supposed to be that you issue warnings to others? Did I miss the election where you were voted gaming community behavior president?
To be frank, most people don't care to hear what you are saying in the way that you are saying it.
Ahh, here is the part where you speak on behalf of the rest of the flock. How very self righteous of you.
If you guys would simply think through what you want to say for just a few seconds more, and not go about it with an "f-this" and "f-that" attitude, I would wager that some of the things that have occured in the community concerning banishment and what-not would've been avoided.
If you're buddy wasn't such a cry baby and had the gumption his teachings claims he has those things could have been avoided as well.
Instead, you take on your BGG banishment as an icon of worthiness. What I'm saying is that your being banished (or quitting...whatever may be the case) from BGG would've been largely unnecessary had you simply said the same thing in a different way...without the belligerence and inflammatory remarks.
But I didn't want to, which is why I left, so I fail to see your point.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I'm not interested in becoming a vanilla PC yes man like yourself.
As for my head being stuck up a certain body cavity...well, that's your opinion, and it's certainly okay for you to have it. Nothing I say or do will change that opinion, anyway.
Actually your wrong there - this post further galvanized my belief that yes, your head is firmly up your ass. So what you do say and how you act does change opinions.
Just realize that I don't dislike most of what you say or even that you say it...it's how you say it that rubs me the wrong way. So, that's that...form the horse's mouth...or whatever body cavity you prefer.
Err, why am I meant to care again?
I'm certain many of the Atheists out there don't like hearing you and Tom blabber on about your Church group, but you don't hear me telling you not to mention it now do you? So don't presume to tell me how to behave.
Well, I'm glad Sam at least had the balls to come on here and say his piece...but buddy, you come across as a completely self righteous prick and there's no two ways about it. Who the hell do you think you are handing down warnings and admonitions from on high? Has it occured to you yet that people like me and Frank DON'T CARE what BGG or the board gaming community feels about what we say? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe not everyone is interested in hearing _your_ soft-serve prattle? I don't expect everyone into gaming to be interested in coming here and seeing people who aren't afraid to say "That game fucking sucks", nor should you expect everyone to adhere to your vision of what the "hobby community" is or should be. It's a big world and there's no reason that both viewpoints shouldn't be here.
The thing is, Sam, is that it really should be about games...the problem is that it isn't. It's about folks like you having a high-and-mighty approach- under the assumption that doing a DIY podcast grants you any authority- that positions you above us. You are a personality in the online hobby community, just like Tom Vasel is, and just like me and Frank have (disgustingly) become. The biggest difference between you and us is you feel like you have some kind of responsibility to be a "good guy" and promote this smiley face agenda whereas we could give fuck all about it and would rather be up front and honest- and have a great god damned sense of humour about things while we're at it.
But whatever...like I said, I respect that you came on here and gave your opinion but I do not respect that you did it in a condescending way.
At least you didn't do like Tom and come on here with "but I like Duel of Ages!" That was truly pathetic.
AGH! Anybody want to trade C&C:A for my BATTLELORE?
After that tirade, why would anybody want to? :p
Wow...so far, my response didn't have the effect that I was hoping it would. Condescension was furthest from my mind while I was writing my response. I abhor condescension, and as such, I would never intentionally take part in it. So, I apologize for seeming that way. I suppose that I was trying to somewhat bridge the gap, here, but it doesn't seem like anyone really wants a bridge built. So, I apologize for assuming that one was desired or even needful.
I don't presuppose to be any of those things of which I am accused here. I do not think myself an elitist. I view myself more like a dwarf in a large room with a great many giants. I do not think myself to be an authority on anything. As for where I come off giving people advice, I think anyone, no matter their status, should warn others of danger, whether it be real or percieved, whatever kind it is, or form it may take. I did not intend for it to be taken as a "mafia-style" horse head on the bed type statement, either. I apologize for that misperception, too. As far as Ed's comments are concerned, I think (that is to say, I meant to point out originally) that his argument was indeed valid (although I didn't agree with it), and I appreciated the tact with which he delivered it.
Finally, I do not think I am better than anyone here or anywhere else for that matter. I know too much about myself, and too little of everyone else to make that kind of judgement call. So, I wish you all the best...and I'm not saying that because I feel like I must.
Until Next Time...Sam.
Curious what effect you _were_ hoping for? You talk about 'bridges'. Do you see yourself as "repairing the damage" and all gamers being united in an eternal brotherhood or something? Just because we all play boardgames doesn't mean we're gonna hold hands or anything. Are you just covering your ass after making some stupid statements? Maybe you would be better of if you "would simply think through what you want to say for just a few seconds more" If that isn't condescending then what is? Using words like "banishment" certainly makes it sound like you consider yourself 'above' us mere mortals. Bit too D&D for me with your 'icon of worthiness'. My friend, this is about boardgames. You are not saving the world one boardgamer at a time or anything. You are not your geek gold. you are not the games you play. you are not the number of your posts. High and mighty doesn't cut it unless you are one of these "giants" you refer to. Anyway just some "friendly warnings" from someone with no "status" who says 'fuck' occasionally.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that whatever Sam's going to say ain't gonna cut it with this crowd. Give it up Sam, we wanna talk games.
Are you just covering your ass after making some stupid statements?
Actually, I spend probably an average of two hours on each post that I write, no matter how short it may be. And it isn't idle time, either. I read, re-read, and read it again...over and over until I feel that I have chosen the words that I want. I stand by what I have said. What I was apologizing for in my last post (and I guess this one too, now) was the *misperception* that people had of the words I carefully chose.
Maybe you would be better of if you "would simply think through what you want to say for just a few seconds more" If that isn't condescending then what is?
I'll reference what I already said earlier about choosing my words. And, no, I don't think it's condescending at all. Condescension implies that I think less of the people and/or their abilities of comprehension to which I am talking, and I don't...not even close.
Using words like "banishment" certainly makes it sound like you consider yourself 'above' us mere mortals.
I'm not the one who did the kicking-off/banishing/whatever you'd like to call it. I thought it was stupid that it happened.
My friend, this is about boardgames.
It's becoming clearer to me that the opposite of this statement is true in some cases. It seems that, for some people here (not all), this is much more about having their own little niche where they can say whatever it is that they'd like to say without regard for anything and without reproach. That's fine and well, really. There's no reason for them not to have a place like that. But don't tell me that it's about the boardgames when I am being called a piece of feces for trying to defend myself.
You are not saving the world one boardgamer at a time or anything.
Wasn't trying to at all. What I was trying to do is at least begin the process that would end this senseless mud-slinging and name-calling. Sure, we don't all have to agree, but we certainly don't need to be bickering, either.
You are not your geek gold.
That's a relief...'cuz I don't have too much of it!
High and mighty doesn't cut it unless you are one of these "giants" you refer to.
I am not, which is why I am not being high and mighty. I really do not think lesser of any of you, and I don't know why you guys can't understand that.
For what it's worth, I really hope that we can get past the name-calling and bickering. There are some really good thoughts concerning games floating around this blog. I'd like to talk about games here every so often. Sure, I enjoy playing Euros, but I have a lot of fun with AT games, too.
Until Next Time...Sam.
So, I apologize for seeming that way. I suppose that I was trying to somewhat bridge the gap, here, but it doesn't seem like anyone really wants a bridge built. So, I apologize for assuming that one was desired or even needful.
Please forgive us for not welcoming you with open arms and tears of joy after warning some other poor schlub not to be like us. We forget sometimes we are supposed to backflip like monkeys when someone confronts us.
I don't presuppose to be any of those things of which I am accused here. I do not think myself an elitist. I view myself more like a dwarf in a large room with a great many giants.
This is the type of rubbish I'm talking about - what bloody 'giants' are you referring to? There are no 'giants' in a nerdy scene like board games. There are casual gamers and gamers who have too much time on their hands, and that's it.
I do not think myself to be an authority on anything. As for where I come off giving people advice, I think anyone, no matter their status, should warn others of danger, whether it be real or percieved, whatever kind it is, or form it may take.
Exactly what "danger" were you warning Ed Monkey about? That if he goes too far in criticizing the dice tower he may turn into a giant asshole like us? That's not bloody likely.
As far as Ed's comments are concerned, I think (that is to say, I meant to point out originally) that his argument was indeed valid (although I didn't agree with it), and I appreciated the tact with which he delivered it.
Then why not simply state that instead of your ridiculous, condescending *friendly* warning (which sounded much more like a threat.)
It's becoming clearer to me that the opposite of this statement is true in some cases. It seems that, for some people here (not all), this is much more about having their own little niche where they can say whatever it is that they'd like to say without regard for anything and without reproach.
The last part is nonsense. If it was "without reproach" then we wouldn't have a comments section, or I'd be deleting any dissenting voices. People are free (and even encouraged) to come on here and disagree and bitch at us all they want.
But by that same token don't think that just because you pop up here you are going to get a free pass with what you said. Defending yourself means coming up with a solid reasoning for your point of view, so far all I have heard are confused and feeble excuses which don't cut it for me.
But don't tell me that it's about the boardgames when I am being called a piece of feces for trying to defend myself.
The 'all about the boardgames' bit is a joke (or at least it started off as one.) You are right this site isn't all about boardgames, it's a place for like minded people to hang out, shoot the shit, engage in some silly behavior as well as interesting (to us) discussion and have fun.
Please forgive us for not welcoming you with open arms and tears of joy after warning some other poor schlub not to be like us. We forget sometimes we are supposed to backflip like monkeys when someone confronts us.
Point well taken. I shouldn't think that you, or anyone else, would do such a thing. At the same time, though, I wasn't expecting backflips...maybe just less hostility. But even then, I probably assumed too much.
This is the type of rubbish I'm talking about - what bloody 'giants' are you referring to? There are no 'giants' in a nerdy scene like board games. There are casual gamers and gamers who have too much time on their hands, and that's it.
You tell me. I haven't been touting the existence of these "giants" of the industry. Everyone is talking about them, and I really don't know who they are. All I know is that I'm not one of them. I am just a casual gamer who happens to take a few hours a month to be part of a podcast about boardgames.
Exactly what "danger" were you warning Ed Monkey about? That if he goes too far in criticizing the dice tower he may turn into a giant asshole like us? That's not bloody likely.
The "danger" of belligerence. Too much of it causes people to do what BGG did to Michael Barnes. I assume that there is more to the story than was visible, on both sides. So, I can't say that either side was right or wrong. I can say that I may have handled it differently than they, but even that is close to out of bounds, because I don't know the whole story.
Then why not simply state that instead of your ridiculous, condescending *friendly* warning (which sounded much more like a threat.)
In retrospect, I should've phrased it a different way, that I'll admit. And I will also admit that it did sound condescending. But I think that the warning itself (that of staying away from being too belligerent in an open forum) is sound advice in a community such as ours (the boardgame community).
Until Next Time...Sam.
Point well taken. I shouldn't think that you, or anyone else, would do such a thing. At the same time, though, I wasn't expecting backflips...maybe just less hostility. But even then, I probably assumed too much.
You can expect less hostility when you stop laying down "friendly" warnings to people who do not deserve them. You were in no position or authority to say what you did to Ed. If you wanted to mention it to him, a better worded PM to Ed would have sufficed. Instead, you came off as a condescending douchebag in my eyes. I don't care if you think I am beating a dead horse when I bring this up. Like it or not, you're associated with Vasel and the Dice Tower. Your words carry currency over at BGG and people tow that line like lemmings sometimes. It's just the way people are.
Ed's posts did not have any belligerence attached to them. I only saw his opinion that some high profile personalities could easily destroy a positive perception of boardgaming. I agreed with some of his points, but not all of them. The only thing I saw about your response to him was you shouting from your ivory tower, patronizing him.
Sam, I can give you a pass on this, primarily because you came here and defended your points. Vasel, on the other hand, has scored nothing but my contempt. His duplicitous nature in the past months has left a bad taste in my mouth that has not receded. Will I take his reviews into consideration when I am thinking about buying a new game? Absolutely not. He has shown that he can shill and brown nose like any good politician. Will I geekmod his reviews? Yes, and I will approve them, because they may not be of value to me, but to others who trust his opinion.
But, don't expect me to do backflips because he says a game is great.
Man, it's like an episode of The Young and the Restless in here. I'm waiting for the plot twist where it's revealed that MrSkeletor is actually Sam's long lost evil twin brother.
* Skeletor and Sam stare wonderingly at one another *
* Screen fades to black *
* Cheerios commercial *
Jesus Sam, what is it with you and Tom Vasel coming on here and posting all this finger-wagging bullshit and then immediately capitulating with half-hearted apologies that simultaneously indict us for being intolerant jerks? That's a pretty sorry strategy and it really speaks a lot about how weak your position is in the first place. You'd think that as a missionary you'd have learned to take a stronger stand than that.
You can play this "Oh, I'm just a poor ol' everyman" schtick all you want but you're on the highest profile podcast in the gaming hobby along with the likely the highest profile gamer in the hobby. You have "celebrity" and "status", for whatever that's worth in a hobby dominated by grown men playing with toys. And whether you choose to admit it or not, you like the celebrity, status, attention, and perks such as "review" copies that come with it. You like feeling like you're a spokesperson, an authority, and someone that people listen to. You think you're hot shit, just like Tom Vasel does...hell, I probably would too if I had game publishers lining up to kiss my ass for a good review and a legion of internet yes-men to back up my every word. You can spin it however you want, but you have a reputation and you're trying to keep it clean here by constantly backpeddling over everything you've said.
Your entire argument strikes me as the sort of protean manuevering we see politicians and other public figures attempt when they know they've said something stupid and try to re-spin what they said. You claim that you're just the little guy amongst "giants" and then you turn around and say that you have no idea who these "giants" are. Huh? Say what you mean, mean what you say. How can anything you say be trusted when it's subject to immediate revision and retroactive contextualization?
You made a very clear statement (that apparently you spent 2 hours on, which you're lying about unless you're just a really shitty writer with no grasp ofo the English language) warning a BGG user to basically watch his mouth or he'd end up like other "belligerent" people- specifically, people like me, right Sam? Oh yes, I see you actually did name names there in one of your posts here. Bravo. You'd never do that on BGG though, I guarantee.
The "danger" of belligerence. Too much of it causes people to do what BGG did to Michael Barnes.
Ha! You make it sound like they fucking executed me!
Why would I _want_ to spend any time posting in a public forum if I have the specter of "danger" over my head, foreclosing on being honest and open about things instead of hiding behind this bullshit smiley face veneer?
You tell me Sam- but I gotta tell you, your mask slipped.
In retrospect, I should've phrased it a different way, that I'll admit. And I will also admit that it did sound condescending. But I think that the warning itself (that of staying away from being too belligerent in an open forum) is sound advice in a community such as ours (the boardgame community).
I still post on BGG and thusfar I've done my level best to stay out of this whole argument about camps and attitudes and all that sort of stuff.
However, I have to chip in here and ask you to go back and read what you wrote in that post. Can you understand why it might come across - to almost everyone - as not just condescending but elitist and hypocritical as well? That's certainly I how I took it on the first read. Your statement of the point you were trying to get across seems a lot more reasonable - so how come you just didn't phrase it that way first time round?
I would echo the comments of others that, like it or not, because of your involvement with a high profile podcast people *do* look up to you and take note of your opinions. As a result, when you hand out advice in the manner that you did, people might be inclined to take it seriously. Maybe that's something you should consider a little more before you post next time.
Admonitions over, I'm glad to note that people from a variety of gaming tastes and background come to read this blog. Read what you will, step up and have your say - but don't expect any punches to be pulled in the comments section :)
We're dicks.
But dicks fuck assholes.
Admonitions over, I'm glad to note that people from a variety of gaming tastes and background come to read this blog. Read what you will, step up and have your say - but don't expect any punches to be pulled in the comments section.
HEAR HEAR!
Sam - I was following that thread at the time and I was 100% sure at the time, and still am now, that you were (in your very nice 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' way) giving a warning for Ed and any others with similar ideas to back off.
I decided not to say my piece as I didn't really care that much anymore (plus I already had a warning that week for replying to a bigger prat) - but when you come onto this forum with the same talk, then post later trying to back it up, and then post again conditionally retracting it (well I think you did) I'm gonna jump in and say show us some fucking backbone ... you either meant it or you didn't - stop plying the bullshit and speak straight for once in your life.
How can you expect anyone, not just this forum, take anything your say seriously ?!!!
And get over people using words you don't like man ... that makes you look the biggest dickhead of all .... actually more of a joke.
Sam,
I'm going to give you a small piece of advice. Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from someone else's eye.
Whether you like it or not, and whether you intended it or not, you have become a BNF, a public figure in a small fandom. That fandom is going to hold you to different standards from those of the average fan. Many members of board game fandom are going to see you as an expert or an authority. When you don't live up to their high expectations, they will be disappointed and some, like Ed Monkey, will voice that disappointment.
When the fans try to communicate this disappointment, you have two choices: defend yourself, or get big, listen and try to understand. You choose to defend yourself. Ed Monkey was attempting to try to communicate a concept, a feeling, an idea and cited a few examples to illustrate. Instead of trying to understand the big picture of what he was trying to say, you choose to pick apart his ideas line by line, and then end with a little lecture. It is clear that you were unable to see the forest for the trees. You picked a few leaves off Ed's trees and then warned the fans to behave, making yourself appear small, foolish, condescending, and, well frankly you looked like an ass. Now, if you weren't a BNF, your response would be judged less harshly. Regular fans are allowed to behave like asses. However, you are a BNF and you need to learn to respond like one.
It is really rather easy. Pull that wooden beam out of your eye and acknowledge the obvious. A person that owns and has played 700 games, will have different perspective than someone who owns and has played 20. A person who has spent time with game designers and publishers will have a different perspective than someone who hasn't. How much a person spends for a game often does influence their opinion of the value of the game. Thank Ed for giving you a new perspective. Say that you will try to be more self aware, and try to bridge these differences in the future, because, as Ed has pointed out, if this division, or the perception of this division continues and widens, it will undermine what you have been trying to accomplish. Invite Ed, and the other members of board game fandom, for suggestions regarding what you can do to bridge the gap. Then add something humble, like "I'm just a guy who loves games trying to do my best."
I'm really rather surprised that you and Tom haven't figured out all this for yourselves yet. Maybe you really are as paternalistic as you come across.
Now you have a choice. You can think about all the feedback you have recieved, and say something nice, or you can pick it apart and look like an ass.
Sam who? I know who Tom Vasel is, but I've never heard of this Sam. I find it amusing that there are actually people in this hobby who think that they can control the rest of us.
This is the goddamn internet!
People are free to express their opinions, and if those opinions are sufficiently intelligent and interesting, other people will read them. A single site like BGG might ban an outspoken critic like Michael Barnes, but they can't stop him from saying what he wants somewhere else, and they sure as hell can't stop the rest of us from reading those posts. That goes double for Sam, whoever the hell he is.
Maybe the average member at BGG needs a Sam or a Tom to tell them what to buy. Personally, I like to read a wider variety of reviews, especially the very positive and very negative reviews for the same games. It gives me a more balanced perspective when I am deciding what to add to my collection. And I find podcasts to be a waste of time, because I can't skim for content the way I can with text, so I just ignore podcast reviews.
Wow....I haven't even read through the final few posts...but seriously...is all of that really necessary?
Do you guys honestly think Sam is trying to be a "self righteous" ass? Come on. Its fine to be against "the man," if that is how you look at him and Tom, but this is just plain ridiculous.
So he comes on and defends himself...and you guys tear him down. Then he apologizes if he came off sounding bad, cause that wasn't his intention. And you bash him again.
Jesus Sam, what is it with you and Tom Vasel coming on here and posting all this finger-wagging bullshit and then immediately capitulating with half-hearted apologies that simultaneously indict us for being intolerant jerks?
It seems to me that you want it to be half-hearted so you have something to bitch about. Maybe not inolerant, but yes...you are jerks. And this entire thread shows just that.
No, "hey Sam, kewl of you to come on here. We didn't like that comment you posted. Seemed kind of asshole-ish. If that isn't what you intended, can you go into some further detail? As it stands, we kind of think you are a prick because of it."
Nope...straight to being little bitches.
Ken b. is one of the few here who posted so far that has been at least civil to him.
Its fine to have a I don't give a fuck attitude. Quite another when you are just being a fuck.
Elite? Michael you are one. I like most of your posts, but don't tell me I should automatically be against someone because he is a "personality."
I'm not for or against anyone, but I know disrespect when I see it.
Ubarose nailed it when she said we took it a different way because Sam is, to some degree a "boardgame celebrity". So more weight was put behind what he said, perhaps injustly.
Sam answered my complaints just fine. I still think "warning" people comes across badly no matter how you slice it.
I personally could care less about any 'perceived celebrity status'; it's crap for people who need someone to tell them what games to buy next. I do take issue however with people making statements, being called on to justify and elaborate and being called to task on what WAS pretty condescending statements, intentionally or not. Then doing an almost complete U-Turn. I say almost cause I'm still not sure that even Sam knows what the hell he means. I do think this 'Sam' guy( i don't know who he is either but it doesn't matter) didn't mean it to come across like that, well I hope not, but don't backtrack over what you said especially if it's stuff you obviously put a lot of effort into, Sam's admitted 2 hour composition time. If you say some stupid stuff then pony up and say yeah sorry my mistake. Don;t go looking for _me_ though to kiss anyones ass and enquire " what did you mean by that? can you elaborate further". Say what you mean.
Basically Hugh is right. This is a little over the top.
After Barnes was banned I wrote a really nasty email to Tom Vasel, and I've regretted it ever since, because it put me in the wrong, and I hate that. This is over the top, like the email I wrote.
I don't mean to imply that Sam Healey hasn't done anything out of line. I think part of the reason the emotional reaction was so strong is because of the widely held suspicion that Tom Vasel had a hand in the banning, so Sam Healey's "warning" looked like it could be a threat with teeth.
I'm not a fan of the Dice Tower (or Tom Vasel's reviews) and Ed's blog post cleared up for me exactly what was wrong with them. They think they are catering to everyone, but in fact they cater only to rapid collectors: people who consider a game a success if you play it three times. There is no understanding of value for money. Also I found both Mr. Vasel and Mr. Healey to have a patronising manner. Finally, they really don't get the points that people make in criticising them and so always respond to irrelevancies.
But those sins don't justify this response. It's an overreaction to minor character failings. I'm speaking as someone who has overreacted in the past.
Do you guys honestly think Sam is trying to be a "self righteous" ass?
No, I don't think he's trying to at all. He's a natural.
Come on Jeremy, you can see it in every other thing he says...to come on here and presume to have some sort of moral authority to "warn" us, just as he did Eddie, about being belligerent? Unreal.
The thing is, he didn't defend himself...he came on here and spun everything he said, backpeddled, and made retractions. He said nothing that made me say "alright, I see where he's coming from". And honestly, I'm predisposed to disagree with anyone who starts with the assumption that we're in need of "warning" or lessons in "common courtesy".
I said from the start- at least Sam had the balls to come and try to give his position. But in the end, he didn't. He just came off as more of an ass than he was when he walked through the door.
Elite? Michael you are one. I like most of your posts, but don't tell me I should automatically be against someone because he is a "personality."
Not because I'm trying to be, want to be, or ought to be. I'm not telling you who to be for or against and I wouldn't presume to do so. Make up your own damn mind about it. I know you like Tom and the Dice Tower and that's cool with me- I'm glad you get something out of it and it enriches your experience in the hobby.
Sam hasn't done anything to earn my "respect"- Jeremy, you've been able to hold debates, make interesting comments, and even disgree vehemently about things without coming across as a moralistic ass. I respect that, and I respect your opinions because of it. I don't respect someone who positions themselves as a spokesperson for a larger community and makes moral and ethical declarations including vague, laughable "warnings" and suggestions that their are right and wrong opinions.
I don't have any respect for people that say "I'm sorry" and then turn around and make comments that reverse the apology with high-horse patronizing, I don't have any respect for people who hide their real feelings and opinions behind "courtesy" and "friendliness"- both on the internet and in day to day life.
You know, I'd love to talk about board games...it's too bad that once again this idiotic notion of "the board game community" and its attendant politics has to spoil it.
I think part of the reason the emotional reaction was so strong is because of the widely held suspicion that Tom Vasel had a hand in the banning
You know what's funny? I didn't even consider this scenario until the "Let's Donate" post.
Did Tom Post? I didn't see any comment from him. Where is he? Hiding behind that cheap radio Shack microphone?
Ah, this is great! Reminds me of the Glory days on BGG! The simple fact is Tom and Sam are NOT selling any games. Actually the worst thing a game company can do these days is send Tom a review copy. Once I exposed the scam Tom was running (Free games for reviews) I believe his credibility , what little he had to begin with, is now totally gone. Tom is simply a sellout, and Sam is nothing more than an invisible sidekick to one of the biggest sellouts in the history of the boardgaming hobby!
Your post responding to mine...that is the shit I love from you Barnes. Your game stuff is pure awesome.
I think this would have gone a lot better if you guys posted to him like that instead of the out right attacking. I believe everyone could have gotten to heart of the matter, and we might have learned a little where everyone was coming from.
Personally, I don't know Sam. I also haven't listened to their podcast in a while, but that has been due to time. I just didn't get anything out of his posts HERE, that deserved the kind of attitude he was getting. And not just from you Michael (do you prefer Michael or Mike? just curious cause everytime I type Michael, I have to think how to spell it).
On a side note, I don't believe Tom had anything to do with your banning. I don't think he has THAT much clout. However, I do find the timing of that thread about donating to be in bad form. That didn't show him in the light I think he was expecting. NOTE: Timing, not intent.
Actually the worst thing a game company can do these days is send Tom a review copy. Once I exposed the scam Tom was running (Free games for reviews) I believe his credibility , what little he had to begin with, is now totally gone.
Steve, you really are mad if you believe that you ruined anything. You just made everyone publicly announce what side of the fence they were on. A better show of rabble rousing, I've never seen.
And who are you to talk about ruined credibility?
The fact is nobdoy was really talking about the free games thing before me. The real credit for bringing up the issue belongs to Derk. In one of th early BGG podcasts Derk was laughing about Tom walking around at some convention was a large haul of games and also about how "positive" Tom's reviews were. This sparked an interest in me and I did a little digging. The free games thing to me was always the unspoken secret of BGG and when I talked about was when I was first banned from making geeklists. Many, many people were upset and I got many e-mails on the topic. Publishers will still send Tom free copies under the assumtion (which I believe in this case to be false) that any publicity is good publicity. However, good marketing requires an exceptional personality(Bartles and James guys were the exception!) not a bump on a log like Tom.
Basically Hugh is right. This is a little over the top.
I tend to agree. We're supposed to be the guys with the sense of humor, remember?
Well, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt...
Over the top? Never!
Tom and Sam have just been itching to argue and now that Barnes is gone from BGG they can show their cowardly asses! HA! By the way who is that airhead girl on the Dice Tower? Did you see her in that catfight on BGG? HA!
He gets games for free. So what?
He rates them higher than people think he should...So what?
If there are people that were pissed off by this, all I have to ask is why? Don't read his review.
I don't buy a game based on what 1 person says. But Tom's reviews are good info, regardless if you agree with his ratings.
Steve...all you did was tattle on someone. About something a lot of us already knew, or didn't care.
No one likes a finger pointer...especially about something as stupid as this. I never understood why outing Tom was so important to you.
We don't "tattle" in Texas Hugh. You can try to frame my behavior as sissy as you want but the fact is TOM IS A SELLOUT!
However, you do make a good point Hugh. Barnes has turned elitist. No doubt about it. I laughed out loud reading some his lofty comments about games. It is sad we have lost him. He had such promise.
Hugh: I don't buy a game based on what 1 person says. But Tom's reviews are good info, regardless if you agree with his ratings.
At first, I liked Vasel's reviews when I encountered them at BGDF (Board Game Designer's Forum). When I learned that Vasel was getting his games for free, I didn't care, because it's not unusual for a reviewer to get free samples for reviews.
But when I learned that Vasel doesn't do negative reviews, I completely lost interest in his opinion. I want to know if a boardgame is good or bad, so a reviewer that only does good reviews is useless to me.
I'm not wasting any more time here. I'm going to go write an elitist article about gaming. Bye.
Summary
---------------------
- Sam posts on BGG:
So, I guess I’m trying to say that there are a lot of mean-spirited people out there (in our hobby), of which neither I nor Tom are a part. Be careful not to put yourself into that group of people. You’ve not done so…just a *friendly* warning,
No one causes further upset over there by calling him on it (I was following this thread at the time).
- His comment is mentioned here.
- People openly state what they think of it on this Blog.
- Sam responds supporting his comment and advises us that we shouldn't swear anymore as people will stop conversing with us.
- People on this Blog again tell Sam their opinions on his remarks.
- Sam has another couple of posts 'spinning' so much I'm not sure if he retracted/apologised/surrendered or just bamboozled me.
- More opinions for Sam.
--------------------------
I have no problems with what has been said to/about Sam as, in my opinion, it has all been in direct response to his posts.
And I don't care a shit if Sam gets offended with the language used here, he knows people in the world are different and he knows what to expect here ... christ, it's not as if anyone threatened him. We follow (as best we can) the expected behaviour over there so Sam should accept the culture of this site.
I don't even know who he is, I don't listen to podcasts, and commented purely because I saw his 'warning' and had immediate disdain for the guy.
well, you guys must feel real good getting all that out of your system.
I agree with Michael you'd better get back to writing game stuff. That's more of a challenge.
And I mean that in the elitist possible way, of course.
Pretty empty bag this week. I feel unloved.
Aw, see Skeletor, doesn't take much to get 62 comments. It's kept me amused, however.
You think you're hot shit, just like Tom Vasel does...hell, I probably would too if I had game publishers lining up to kiss my ass for a good review and a legion of internet yes-men to back up my every word.
Hey, I think I'm hot shit and I don't have any of that.
Hugh,
We may be harsh towards Sam but the thing is (in my case anyway) I'd be just as harsh if it was anyone posting bullshit like that. Sam isn't getting special treatment either way, and if it was Barnes writing rubbish like that I'd be just as much on his case too.
I don't see why we should be treating Sam any nicer than we treat ourselves.
Also someone needs to give Mad Gamer a sedative.
Mr Skeletor said...
I don't see why we should be treating Sam any nicer than we treat ourselves.
Absolutely true. Just today Toro called Rob an "ignornant jerkface."
I wish you all the very best.
Sam Healey.
To be honest, if someone you don't respect and who's opinion you have very little regard for posts something you don't agree with why don't you just ignore it instead of writing a post about it?
Or maybe I'm just bitter as my letter generated absolutely no comments in the fact of this blitzkrieg on the Sam fella!
Panzer-Attack
Or maybe I'm just bitter as my letter generated absolutely no comments in the fact of this blitzkrieg on the Sam fella!
Panzer-Attack
Yeah sorry about that. Hopefully Ken will make good on his promise and write a whole article about your letter (I give him permission as long as I get paid any royalties.)
Pre -Comment Interlude
I thought that might help.
---
You know one of my funny things is that I totally didn't notice Barnes being antagonistic on BGG until he was gone. I don't know what the hell I was drinking at the time, but he just seemed like an awesome guy. Then, bam, gone. Nothing could have drawn attention to his work more than martyrdom.
And to a certain extent I felt he was just raising a point, starting a dialogue, but it was one that the other side didn't want to engage in out of ... decorum? tact? not having a leg to stand on? Things are never perfect. Putting light on the negatives is an opportunity for growth.
I'm just making a lot of noise since my name has been tossed around this thread. I felt I should say SOMETHING, but I feel like by the time I wrote my blog post I'd already pulled back from the fandom considerably. That feeling persists and drives me towards self identified irrelevance.
But in the end I'm just bitter nobody throws cons near where I live.
Eddie, you'll always be "Jr. Monkeyman" to me. (Sorry, Chapel's avatar is of a much bigger gorilla, so "Monkeyman" is taken.)
Not a one of us is criticizing your blog or view; I found it rather insightful, actually. Sometimes, fandom is its own worst enemy.
Post a Comment