BGG: Guilt by association

Sagrilarus wrote: Perma-banning a designer is a significant escalation of potential consequences in both directions. Perm-banning a publisher is something I can't imagine BGG would be so bold to do. Were I publishing the game I likely would send a polite email to BGG's admins, indicating the nature of their misunderstanding and hoping that it doesn't happen again.

S.

That was my advice, almost word for word.

Msample wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: Perma-banning a designer is a significant escalation of potential consequences in both directions. Perm-banning a publisher is something I can't imagine BGG would be so bold to do.
S.

Didn't that happen with Winsome Games? Of course, he's pretty small potatoes. I don't think they'll be banning say FFG.

But yeah, I'd agree.

Pete, do you have a link?

I'd also be curious to see where in their policy its against site rules to post exterior links to certain things.

The link to the article was left in the links section, but the article was removed.

This is definitely Octavian as he is the only person of authority there who I have had anything but kind interactions with, and the only one who seems to have a hard on for me.

It boggles the mind.

They banned that guy that was suing Valley Games and INVITED Radiant Games to make a statement on their news feed in which Radiant ensured everyone that they couldn't be associated with Valley Games. BGG's interests are pretty clear, if you're giving them money they have your back.

Apparently, unless you are a designer who works with an advertising publisher, because then, if you associate with rabble like me, your money doesn't buy you Jack, nor shit.

www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1209314/pub...-reviewerspodcasters

And then this comes out today. The irony!!

Note that Nate, Matt, Michael, and even MartinQWERTY are left off. Just goes to show how insular and "good old boys" it is there.

Bill Abner had a little dust-up with them about posting my reviews in the links sections...but this was like five years ago. Which was like three years after I had been banned.

You know I can't even edit my address in my profile?

Anyway, there are undoubtedly politics and dollars involved in how BGG operates, it ain't like some little site like F:AT here. And paid hall monitors (complete with sashes of office, practically) don't help.

Bull Nakano wrote: They banned that guy that was suing Valley Games and INVITED Radiant Games to make a statement on their news feed in which Radiant ensured everyone that they couldn't be associated with Valley Games. BGG's interests are pretty clear, if you're giving them money they have your back.

To make matters worse, the thread I originally started that blew up to 200+ pages, which was intended to warn people to research the situation before backing Up Front, was moved from the Up Front forum to the Radiant gaming forum. At that point, no one even knew who Radiant gaming really was (the shell company Valley games was using) and no one would see the warning in the deep bowels of the publisher sub-forums. This was done during the campaign, at the same time Valley/Radiant/whoever had that news piece go up.

I can see why they'd not want people to copy and paste a non-member's writing onto their site. Especially if the person has a strained relationship with a mod / the mods. But a threat of banning is an over-reaction.

SuperflyTNT wrote: www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1209314/pub...-reviewerspodcasters

And then this comes out today. The irony!!

Note that Nate, Matt, Michael, and even MartinQWERTY are left off. Just goes to show how insular and "good old boys" it is there.

That's just some dude from Sweden thanking a handful of reviewers that he likes. I don't see any connection whatsoever between that and the other thing.

I would agree with bfkiller about the list you posted, Pete. This site is well outside of the mainstream in boardgaming culture. That's not just because we don't have a ton of cross-pollination with BGG in terms of critical voices, but also because the written review is falling out of favor in general. We aren't all over podcasts and videos, and that's where the hobby is right now.

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Msample wrote:
I'd also be curious to see where in their policy its against site rules to post exterior links to certain things.

The link to the article was left in the links section, but the article was removed.

This is definitely Octavian as he is the only person of authority there who I have had anything but kind interactions with, and the only one who seems to have a hard on for me.

It boggles the mind.

So is there written anywhere in the holy BGG coda of law what rule you broke? Or is this Cocktavian living up to his name?