But then again, it's even more shameful that voting was once again restricted to only Paying BBG members as opposed to Registered BBS members of a certain duration of membership.

It's a shame that the qualifying period for games wasn't firmly defined because all too many of these games were released after Dec. 31, 2006, many within even the last several months.

Probably cuz members of BBS, regardless of duration of membership, probably don't know much about board games."

The odds that a BBS member is also a member of BBG probably aren't all that great.

Seriously, though, I do agree with this. I think the '07 awards should be for games published in '06. That way, we've had a minimum of 8-9 months to play those '06 titles, and there's no fuzziness as to what titles should or should not be included in the nominations. It's a little odd to see games like Jambo and Bang for an '07 award.

Once again, who are you people inviting to your parties? So, Tom, you're having a lovely 'church social', you got 4 couples over, and you whip out Bang!? "Hey, let's play a game, all you have to do is pay attention through 20 minutes of rules...".

Not only do I myself have some 300 strategy games to my name, but I also sponsor & moderate a weekly gaming group. Many, if not most, of the nominated games from last year and this year's Golden Geek nominations are not only already in my collection but have been played as well.

I still have no idea what the Golden Geek Award is supposed to stand for in terms of awarding achievement and excellence; but then again, why should one care about participating in the Golden Geek Awards when a BGG member of any appreciable duration of membership can't participate anyway without jumping through needless hoops and/or clearing unreasonable $$$ hurdles?

I certainly understand that there are many who can't afford the cost of donating to BGG. But its hard for me to see that you have 300+ games, and yet complain that the cost of donating to BGG is unreasonable? For the amount of usefulness that BGG is, I think it's quite reasonable indeed!

Moreover, Tom, since you, sport a crucifix in your profile, I'd be more mindful not to prejudge people or their motives without first making a private inquiry, especially before commenting publicly on them. For your information, though, at that time last year, I was unemployed. (I had to be forthcoming with that fact back then, too.) Moreover, I made numerous posts about the matter of the convoluted voting process last year which, if they haven't been censored or deleted, should still be look-uppable.

Well, I was responding to a public post you made. If that be judging, then so be it.

You being unemployed last year has nothing to do with the situation now, does it?"

I'll say this: I understand that some people don't have money to support BGG. I think those people are rare, but I'm sure that some certainly don't have the funds. I also understand that some people don't have the time to Geekmod or submit pictures/reviews to earn geekgold (although you could buy 20 geekgold for a paltry sum).

To not have time OR money is a rare case, although it certainly is possible. But people without time or money usually don't have the time to post extremely long posts on BGG, or spend money on games either.

The GG or donation requirement stops spamming, period.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. If you REALLY want to vote, then there are ways to get Geekgold - there are people who generously hand it out, and ways to earn it.

And literally thousands of people have done either/both. This is a GOOD system, and I'm glad it's in place.

I'm upset that Warrior Knights didn't make the list, but glad to see Fury of Dracula make the cut. I'm less pleased to games like Bang! on the list, mostly because of their age. I'm hoping Attactix pulls off a sneak win in the children's category.

No, that would be *prejudging* my post since you who tout your Christianity by sporting the crucifix in your profile did not even deign to contact me first by email to sound me out about the why's behind my opinion. And by weighing in as you did without having done so. you made a prejudgmental opinion.

In proper context of the events which formed my opinion about this back in 2006, yes, my being unemployed at the time was but another major factor why that turn of events offended my sensibilities altogether back then and why that feeling continues to this day. Moreover, the "Oh, by the way,..." manner in which the Paying-BGGers-Vote-Only Qualifier was belatedly introduced was egregriously off-putting, especially to an unemployed person like I was then.




Since I'm only skimming the surface of the history of this matter in reviewing it in this and my last post, I can readily understand why you're still a bit uninformed. I'm nonetheless disappointed that you didn't take some time to look up that 2006 debate.




False issue. You're making two entirely wrongheaded conclusions: 1. You're apparently inferring (wrongly) that I'm still unemployed. 2. Since you once again failed to make any advance email inquiry of me, you don't know that I'm a writer and aspiring author in one who comes from a newspaper-reporting background. Moreover, it's a telling thing indeed whenever somebody prefers to sniff about the length of a post rather than address the merits of its content, isn't it?

"Spamming"? LOL! Spin again. Uhhh, no, Aldie alleged that disqualifying all of us Registered BGG members -- without regard for our term of membership -- would prevent *voting fraud.*

But if that were true, then Aldie needn't have warned *Paying BGGers* against stuffing the ballot box. But he *did* exactly that BOTH last year AND this year.

Therefore, when it comes to potential ballot-box fraud, whether one is a Regular Registered BGG member OR a Paying Registered BGG member makes no difference. Therefore, alleging that disqualifying Regular BGG members across the board (without regard for their actual term of membership) as a supposed safeguard against voter fraud is a distinction that makes no meaningful difference since *Paying Registered BGG members* aren't exempt from committing voting fraud, either.




After last year's shut-out, I was totally turned off to Golden Geek Awards altogether. Nevertheless, as an outsider, as I pointed out, on top of the voting process, I can't help but shake my head in amazement that this award doesn't even have any game-qualifying period (like games released during calendar year Jan 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006).

To the best of my knowledge, voters aren't even required to affirm in any genuine way that they've actually played most, if not all, the finalist game entries, either.




Having created and directed two song contests myself, in my opinion, some of the standards of the Golden Geek Awards leave a lot to be desired and definitely merit consideration of revision *if* the award is ever to be taken seriously and *if* it's ever to genuinely mean anything.

As to earning Geek Gold, I myself don't write Lists and cannot think of anything original worth listing that hasn't been done before. I write posts, not lists, anyway. Nonetheless, that hasn't earned me any Geek Gold, so go figure.

As to doing reviews, I'm reluctant to review a game until I've played it at least 5 times. Given the size of my game collection, I'm still working toward 3rd and 4th plays of some of the more played games.

Well, consider the possibilities: Isn't it more likely that "Warrior Knights" would have stood a better chance of being nominated in the first place *IF* the qualifying period for game releases were designated as games released from Jan. 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006?

Maybe there also needs to be a special category (maybe something like "Best Revised/Updated Edition") for games like "Warrior Knights" which have been revamped and updated. If there were such an award, it ought to made applicable to three subcategories: card games, light-to-mid-weight board games and mega strategy games.

Maybe a "Best Repackaged Special Edition" category would be appropriate too for games whose packaging is redesigned and revamped (but whose rules sets are relatively untouched) for either or both better thematic delivery and/or to house the game and its components and expansions more efficiently.

I don't really see the issue here, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that someone responding to a public post should research every post you have made concering the 'Geekies' or take the time and effort to contact you personally to see why you might have the opinion you have expressed publicly here.

See my above response, Tom's religion is irrelevent to this debate, as is his choice of displaying it through his microbadges.

When I respond to a publically stated opinion I have to admit that I don't often PM the OP to discover their situation/context/basis is. Coat me in feathers and beat me soundly!! I don't think it is reasonable to respond to the posts in this way or with that assumption.

In proper context of the events which formed my opinion about this back in 2006, yes, my being unemployed at the time was but another major factor why that turn of events offended my sensibilities altogether back then and why that feeling continues to this day. Moreover, the "Oh, by the way,..." manner in which the Paying-BGGers-Vote-Only Qualifier was belatedly introduced was egregriously off-putting, especially to an unemployed person like I was then.

Since I'm only skimming the surface of the history of this matter in reviewing it in this and my last post, I can readily understand why you're still a bit uninformed. I'm nonetheless disappointed that you didn't take some time to look up that 2006 debate.

Mate...I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion! Point 1???? I didn't see that in Tom's post!

Tom has referred to the [game] collection [of yours that] you pointed out earlier, I would have thought the implication was quite the opposite!

I also think you go beyond the pale with the 'sniffing' - I caught none of that in the posts responding to yours.

Just because Aldie makes the threat that anyone caught 'stuffing the ballot boxes' will suffer consequences doesn't automatically mean that there is some dark conspiricy theory behind allowing only people that are supporters or pay the 20GG fee! There are ways of accessing the voting if you really feel the need to.

This could indeed be the case - although living here in Australia I can attest that many games don't arrive on our shores until well after the release date. Especially the case if the games come from smaller publishers.

This might be worth investigating, although you want to draw the line at so many categories I think.

Tom's religion is irrelevent to this debate, as is his choice of displaying it through his microbadges.

If someone with a Duel of Ages microbadge started telling me where to donate my hard earned money, then I'd fill this room with uppercuts.

James is simply prejudging Tom. That is to say, he is doing exactly what he accuses Tom of doing.

In that sense it's relevant, because irony is always worth a few eye-rolling chuckles.

Knowingly or unknowingly, Tom made some rather unfortunate remarks that displayed utmost unfamiliarity with the subject matter; but in doing so, he made those unfortunate remarks in a post with a profile badge touting his Christian affiliation. For that reason, I as a non-badge-touting Christian am all the more taken aback by that sort of affrontery which smacks of in-your-face hypocrisy.

It's pretty clear to most everyone I know here at the Geek... The Golden Geeks are the People's choice awards of boardgaming.

Aldie set what I believe to be an extremely minimal requirement on entry for your right to vote.

So as I see it anyone and everyone that feels passionate about games has it within thier ability to vote. We're talking about 48 cents a week. Come on... I lose more cash than that.

I don't agree with everything about how the Awards are setup, but I have no complaint. The Awards are what they are. Fill in a list, view the nominations, vote, view the winners. Simple, and good fun to discuss the results.

Now that's just a tad bid over dramatic... Are you that dude that they tazered at the Kerry speech?

Moreover, I hold anybody to a higher standard through both word and deed who touts his religion by wearing or displaying its icons openly.

Me too. You know who I don't hold to any standards? Athiests. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

And while we are talking about hypocrites, look at me. I have five contest microbadges, and I do not own any of the games that I tout!

That's as ludicrous a blanket statement as they come. Moreover, allthough this isn't strictly a matter of the spirit, I would think that anybody who sported a crucifix badge in his/her profile wouldn't be so predisposed to making such unqualified and biased prejudgements in the first place.