Report To The Stakeholders

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by robkelk

I can also see POD being done at the customer's end rather than at the publisher's end, at boutique shops that do nothing but POD and copy shops that offer a less-expensive but less-customizable service.

I've got no problem with POD as actual POD - I order it; someone prints it and mails it out; I receive it. If SJG goes that route instead of just limited print runs of successful books, I'd be happy.

I think part of the issue is finding a company you can partner with that prints well - some of my Lulu stuff is great, some of it is so-so, and it's varied by individual copies of identical items . . . which is something I expect would annoy SJG.

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Wow, some people sure don't like Munchkin. That I don't get at all. I mean, I can see not playing it, but actively disliking it?

You're telling me there is NOTHING out there you actively dislike? I have an awful lot of active dislikes, both in gaming and in general. Everyone else I know does as well...

It's easy to dislike Munchkin, for a LOT of reasons.
It's very random, actively defies any kind of long term strategy, filled with spite and backstabbing, prone to kingmaking and is reliant on crude, low-brow humour. Any of these things is enough to turn someone off the game. All of them together is pretty much anathema to BGG.

Munchkin is fun... but some people don't like that kind of fun. I don't like baseball, opera or alcohol, but there are millions of people who say these things are fun.
BGG is predominantly populated by the types who don't enjoy Munchkin. They want deep strategy, non-random games that reward careful gameplay, and the winner is decided by player skill, not the draw of a single card.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Palmer

You're telling me there is NOTHING out there you actively dislike? I have an awful lot of active dislikes, both in gaming and in general. Everyone else I know does as well...

not liking is not the same as an active dislike. Not liking something you simply avoid it. Active disliking is something you actively prevent.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

not liking is not the same as an active dislike. Not liking something you simply avoid it. Active disliking is something you actively prevent.

Exactly. A pet peeve of mine is the misuse of "actively" as an intensifier for "dislike" equivalent to "very much" or "greatly." Active dislike means you take action against the object of your dislike – not only do you not engage or partake, but you object to others engaging or partaking, and move to deny them that opportunity. In the context of this thread, that would mean not merely "not playing Munchkin," but also discouraging others from playing Munchkin, writing letters to stores and distributors asking them not to carry Munchkin, and possibly writing "attack reviews" aimed at damaging Munchkin sales, even trumping up moral or legal charges against Munchkin.

There are very few things that I actively dislike, and just about all of them are criminal activities. I greatly dislike lots of stuff that others like, but I think it's a jerk move to go around actively attacking others' enjoyment of those things.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Kromm

There are very few things that I actively dislike, and just about all of them are criminal activities. I greatly dislike lots of stuff that others like, but I think it's a jerk move to go around actively attacking others' enjoyment of those things.

This, pretty much.

[Mister Ed]

So would things that I try to discourage others from doing in my presence reach the level of "active dislike" or does it have to be something I object to, and actively oppose, in general?

For instance, smoking. I STRONGLY object to people smoking around me, would never consider doing it myself, and likely would be moved to ask them to please stop even in some cases where they had every legal right to do so (though I would acknowledge that right). I also feel like the world would be better off without cigarettes, but wouldn't support outlawing them entirely. Does that mean I actively dislike smoking, or would that require me to campaign against it, and try to stop people from doing so even in circumstances where it doesn't hurt anybody but willing smokers?

How much effort do you need to put in for it to be an "active" dislike?

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by Palmer

It's easy to dislike Munchkin, for a LOT of reasons.
It's very random, actively defies any kind of long term strategy, filled with spite and backstabbing, prone to kingmaking and is reliant on crude, low-brow humor. Any of these things is enough to turn someone off the game.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up for me.

...of course I don't think Settlers of Catan is fun either so my opinion might be meaningless :-)

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Exactly. A pet peeve of mine is the misuse of "actively" as an intensifier for "dislike" equivalent to "very much" or "greatly." Active dislike means you take action against the object of your dislike – not only do you not engage or partake, but you object to others engaging or partaking, and move to deny them that opportunity.

Point taken, but - as Mister Ed says - how active does the activity have to be?

Most people who write reviews - for money or as fairly casual blog posts or whatever - would quite like to think that other people value their opinions. Some of us try for a neutral, analytical sort of voice, but even then, there's a certain sense of encouraging cool analysis, which in itself can modify other people's opinions. And some reviewers get so annoyed by some of their subjects that they go onto quite visible crusades, working to discourage people from giving money to works they find offensively bad, or which they think are driving better work out of the market.

And it doesn't even have to involve written reviews. If someone at a convention or club says "Honestly, X is not that good a game - have you tried Y?", are they showing an active dislike of X? After all, they may want shift other players from X to Y in order to get more partners and opponents for their preferred game. There's a whole issue of semi-spoken group cultures, too; if someone is hanging out with a bunch of people they like and respect, and want to be part of the in-crowd, a very slight hint that the group regards X as un-cool can cause them drop X like a hot brick. Is that "active dislike"?

The fact that games are, generally, very much group activities probably amplifies such effects. Though heaven knows I've seen them with books and movies too.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Point taken, but - as Mister Ed says - how active does the activity have to be?

that is a function of how strong the dislike is. But activity doesn't have to be that onerous, simply happen more often than not whenever you encounter the thing.

if you only rag on the game when you are asked your opinion then it not an active dislike. if you see a thread talking about it, and you feel compiled to posted to rag on it rather than ignore the thread, then you have an active dislike.

If you go out you way to find such threads then you you are both activinly and greatly disliking, or perhaps even actively hating

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

if you only rag on the game when you are asked your opinion then it not an active dislike. if you see a thread talking about it, and you feel compiled to posted to rag on it rather than ignore the thread, then you have an active dislike.

That's pretty much what I was talking about in my post - the folks who dislike munchkin enough to see a thread on SJG's stakeholders report, and then go post on it about how Munchkin sucks. That's active enough for me. And I just don't see the point of doing so.