. wrote:Promote a site is fine, and this is the place to discuss it.But to front a site like BGG and elude to the fact that you're contributing to RPGG and would like to name names, but won't, and then not be willing to answer questions, and try to defend the current abortion of a regime with exclamations like 'less than 0.1% of people give a fuck if it's correct or not is just 'asshole' in my books.And to level that sort of attitude at Acaeum members and what we represent is only going to get the same sort of response straight back.I know I'm not the only one who feels the same way.I'm just willing to say it.
JasonZavoda wrote:Yeah but I just like calling you Bobbing Head Cat Piss Man more than the acaeum member formerly known as Mbassoc.
. wrote:But to front a site like BGG and elude to the fact that you're contributing to RPGG and would like to name names, but won't, and then not be willing to answer questions, and try to defend the current abortion of a regime with exclamations like 'less than 0.1% of people give a f"ck if it's correct or not is just 'a55hole' in my books.
Xaxaxe wrote:Not true. Not even close.It might be true for the general public as a whole, but it is certainly nowhere near true for the sub-set of people who take the time to search for gaming information on the internet. Many, many people from that second group care about the details, as evidenced by the flame-wars that erupt over at BGG whenever the tiniest of details gets changed.
Xaxaxe wrote:But I think it's very interesting how often I see negative reactions to BGG outside of BGG. From the top down, that place is horribly mis-managed. The level of resentment toward the management there is a very real thing; these aren't made-up feelings.
Eryops wrote:Okay, when the head Cat Piss Man has made his feelings clear to me, I know when I should go away... I hope you think your cock feels a little bit bigger now . ...One more story before I'm driven off with sticks - I first heard of the Acaeum through a thread on another site showing how rude and assholeish everyone was here. I thought to myself, "These guys aren't really rude, and hey, they *really* know their stuff!" So I decided to give it a try. For the next year and a half I've learned more about D&D and it's history, collectability, and didn't really detect levels of antagonism that were above your average board. But wow, thank you for making me see the true colours of the Acaeum, despite my best efforts not to. I'll be sure to pass on my experiences with anyone who asks in the future...
Mars wrote:Does there really need to be 737 images for this game? For some people it really has just devolved into a place where you can put pictures of yourself playing the game instead of relevant pictures of the game itself.
Badmike wrote:Our focus here is far different than the new site will be. I (and others I bet) feel like the new site will simply steal all our research and data, without any sort of nod to us, and present it as their own. More pissiness.
Eryops wrote:To make it more clear, I am referring to the subset of people in the most general sense, not the subset that you are referring to. I would guess (and for fuck's sake people, this is my personal guess, disagree if you want to but no need to crucify me for it) that 80+% of active roleplayers play games that are in print, only own games that are in print or since they started roleplaying, and are only looking to the future to satisfy their gaming itch. That's the target audience of RPGG.
Badmike wrote:I know the comparison is completely whacked, but people here really feel like they are historians of the hobby, and for a new site to basically give them the finger, it hurts.
Badmike wrote:Not to mention disseminates a lot of what will undoubtedly be wrong information.
FormCritic wrote:I have the feeling that I've missed something here. IS Boardgame Geek some stort of power-mad vehicle for game domination? I went there once...checked out the Yaquinto game Beastmaster. Interesting.
Eryops wrote:I don't think it's any different from other boards I've been to, albeit it's quite a large one. It has the usual personalities, and alphas who have worked their way to the top of the food chain. I don't see it being more heavy-handed moderation-wise than some boards I've been to (certainly not to the degree that RPG.net is moderated). I think a lot of the grief it gets is that the admin (Aldie) earns his living off of the site. It's been alluded to in this thread that decisions that have been made are a direct consequence of that fact. And rightly so! If I was making decisions that directly affected my livelihood, damn right a lot of them would be working in the direction that put more $$ in my pocket. I don't fault him for that in the least. Of course, people will disagree on that, and spew the 'sold out' or 'commercial' adages, but people say a lot of things on the Internet. Same as if the creator of the Acaeum decided to earn some money from this site, there would be a LOT of changes, and not everyone would agree with the new direction it would take.
Badmike wrote:My problem with this is that he doesn't have an interest in making the best or even a very good site; all the owner has to do is put up a functional site, one that attracts hits and advertisers, and their job is done.
Badmike wrote:I'll wait to see what kind of website is generated, but so far I have nothing to point to that fills me with confidence.
Eryops wrote:Badmike wrote: My problem with this is that he doesn't have an interest in making the best or even a very good site; all the owner has to do is put up a functional site, one that attracts hits and advertisers, and their job is done. From how I read this, you would rate BGG 'below average' in terms of board game sites on the internet. For what they've set out to do, I believe that BGG is THE best board game site. I'll state a few reasons why I think so:
faro wrote: Badmike wrote: I know the comparison is completely whacked, but people here really feel like they are historians of the hobby, and for a new site to basically give them the finger, it hurts. Well, that's happened in reverse for long enough, so fair game IMO. Who have we pissed on? Did I miss something? Badmike wrote: Not to mention disseminates a lot of what will undoubtedly be wrong information. There's still a fair amount of "wrong information" over here (core site), Mike, with no interest in changing/updating that. I honestly couldn't say which model to run things is actually the best but there will inevitably be a large number of active contributors to the front-end content over at RPGG. There's very little wrong information here of IMPORTANCE, unless it's VERY specific in nature (I wouldn't even try to get into the middle of POTVQ's various printings for fear of suffering a mental breakdown). At that, unless the "active contributors" know their stuff and aren't just desperate to collect "Geek Gold" ("Hey, I'll scan B2 again so I can collect some more booty!"), there is no way this new site will come within a 100 miles of what has already been done here, ToT, and the Acaeum wiki. Faro, I'd love to see a list of all the "wrong" information here, if nothing else then for my own benefit. Otherwise it's all smoke blowing in the breeze....So far I'm seeing that content over there will have to be changed by Mods, many of whom admit they don't know anything about RPGs. I think the best model by far is the Acaeum Wiki, which allows users to edit their own additions. Badmike wrote: Our focus here is far different than the new site will be. I (and others I bet) feel like the new site will simply steal all our research and data, without any sort of nod to us, and present it as their own. More pissiness. Heh... well at least they've stomped (in principle) the idea of ripping images from other sites so that's one better than rpg.net, no?
faro wrote: Badmike wrote: I know the comparison is completely whacked, but people here really feel like they are historians of the hobby, and for a new site to basically give them the finger, it hurts. Well, that's happened in reverse for long enough, so fair game IMO.
Badmike wrote: Not to mention disseminates a lot of what will undoubtedly be wrong information. There's still a fair amount of "wrong information" over here (core site), Mike, with no interest in changing/updating that. I honestly couldn't say which model to run things is actually the best but there will inevitably be a large number of active contributors to the front-end content over at RPGG.
Badmike wrote: Our focus here is far different than the new site will be. I (and others I bet) feel like the new site will simply steal all our research and data, without any sort of nod to us, and present it as their own. More pissiness. Heh... well at least they've stomped (in principle) the idea of ripping images from other sites so that's one better than rpg.net, no?
FormCritic wrote:I'm pretty impressed with a site admin that can earn a living off of his website.That would mean caveat emptor for the visitor, but I can't see where running a game site for money is necessarily bad. I wish I were clever enough to make money off a game collecting site