BGA yesterday, now and tomorrow

[Cullich]

Well I joined BGA Sunday I believe and have been quite impressed with it in general. Seems like a lot of people are really worried about Asmodee and some people are super angry about it and canceling their subscription out of spite even though nothing has changed as a user. Normally when I pay for a product I do it for what I get not "supporting a company". For $2 a month I can play some of my favorite games like Res Arcana and Dice Forge which is a great deal no matter who is in charge.

Maybe it is just me but right now BGA is pretty much the best way to play board games that I have found not on Steam and $24 a YEAR is quite amazing to play 200+ board games at anytime.

Everyone here seems to hate Asmodee but they have brought SO many board games to digital adaptations it has been great. Without them I am sure the amount of digital board games would be a lot lower... Of course this is just going from a digital perspective.

Just a different perspective. I would say, first, that if you are new that it's difficult to judge a lot of things or how a lot of people feel.
Also, some people prefer to speak with their money. Very often if there's a problem with a company, people just speak with their money and don't support the company, and I see the suggestion to do that all the time. It's not always about what they get for the money. A lot of the people here who are premium members do so to support the site, not because of what they get from it. (You do know you don't have to pay, right? You get a bit extra, but you get an awful lot for free as well.)

And, there are people like me who don't play the digital stuff put out by those publishers. I play browser-based games at (mostly) two sites, and I also have a tablet version of Ascension, which is Asmodee but that's it. So all of their other stuff means nothing to me, and maybe for a lot of people, that doesn't make up for other things they've done.

[Cullich]

Finally, I am deeply concerned with how leadership responded to the criticism from a developer on this thread. Specifically, it seems like they have accused a developer of "spreading lies" about them. They have every right to feel disrespected by the reaction, even if most of the community feel hurt by some of their choices. But accusing someone of lying to the community without specifically saying what you are calling a lie is troublesome, to say the least. I have not been on these communications: perhaps an explicit lie has been told; perhaps one has not. But in this context, accusing someone of lying without citing the exact statement you are calling a lie feels disastrously harmful to community trust at a time when trust has never been more important. I would kindly like to ask leadership to explicitly say what statement is unambiguously untrue.

To be fair, those were private emails between publisher and BGA. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by saying this, but rather just pointing out that BGA owes us the users no explanation for what was said privately to a publisher. We don't have all the detail about that and there may be things we know nothing about, so that's a bit difficult to judge. That someone chose to post private emails here on the forums doesn't change that.

[compte obelète]

Finally, I am deeply concerned with how leadership responded to the criticism from a developer on this thread. Specifically, it seems like they have accused a developer of "spreading lies" about them. They have every right to feel disrespected by the reaction, even if most of the community feel hurt by some of their choices. But accusing someone of lying to the community without specifically saying what you are calling a lie is troublesome, to say the least. I have not been on these communications: perhaps an explicit lie has been told; perhaps one has not. But in this context, accusing someone of lying without citing the exact statement you are calling a lie feels disastrously harmful to community trust at a time when trust has never been more important. I would kindly like to ask leadership to explicitly say what statement is unambiguously untrue.

To be fair, those were private emails between publisher and BGA. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by saying this, but rather just pointing out that BGA owes us the users no explanation for what was said privately to a publisher. We don't have all the detail about that and there may be things we know nothing about, so that's a bit difficult to judge. That someone chose to post private emails here on the forums doesn't change that.

hum, it's because his game was deleted from BGA so that why he said that. And the company said that as we known about him.

[Smeg]

The Stir Fry game is still there.

[paramesis]

Finally, I am deeply concerned with how leadership responded to the criticism from a developer on this thread. Specifically, it seems like they have accused a developer of "spreading lies" about them. They have every right to feel disrespected by the reaction, even if most of the community feel hurt by some of their choices. But accusing someone of lying to the community without specifically saying what you are calling a lie is troublesome, to say the least. I have not been on these communications: perhaps an explicit lie has been told; perhaps one has not. But in this context, accusing someone of lying without citing the exact statement you are calling a lie feels disastrously harmful to community trust at a time when trust has never been more important. I would kindly like to ask leadership to explicitly say what statement is unambiguously untrue.

To be fair, those were private emails between publisher and BGA. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by saying this, but rather just pointing out that BGA owes us the users no explanation for what was said privately to a publisher. We don't have all the detail about that and there may be things we know nothing about, so that's a bit difficult to judge. That someone chose to post private emails here on the forums doesn't change that.

The designer/publisher has told different versions of this story in at least 6 different places. Even after an agreement has been reached to keep the game on the platform as a premium offering (for a second time), people are still referencing versions of this story that leave out key details or misconstrue BGA's reason for temporarily removing the game.

The most recent post that I could find before the admins temporarily removed the game was in this thread. After having agreed to keep his game as premium, he said "Greg and Emmanuel sold the BGA user data and product of volunteer efforts to a megacorp." and that they had betrayed the trust of publishers and developers.
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... =60#p79701

This would be understandably frustrating for BGA admins after they had reached an initial agreement. The statements of fact in this post are damaging and not supported by evidence. We don't know exactly what is in the deal between Asmodee and BGA, but selling user data without notice would be a violation of BGA's own privacy policy and the GDPR. In the OP of this thread, Greg says that BGA remains its own legal entity. In followup posts on BGA and other sites, he said that BGA removed his game "in response to pointing out the inequity of their volunteer development program while selling to a giant investment firm"

As someone who has spent a majority of his free time developing BGA adaptations as a volunteer and under contract with publishers, it has been frustrating seeing these posts referenced as representative of the feelings of the developer community. Everybody has their own thoughts and feelings about the situation, but I object to people making demands of BGA supposedly on my behalf.

[Cullich]

Finally, I am deeply concerned with how leadership responded to the criticism from a developer on this thread. Specifically, it seems like they have accused a developer of "spreading lies" about them. They have every right to feel disrespected by the reaction, even if most of the community feel hurt by some of their choices. But accusing someone of lying to the community without specifically saying what you are calling a lie is troublesome, to say the least. I have not been on these communications: perhaps an explicit lie has been told; perhaps one has not. But in this context, accusing someone of lying without citing the exact statement you are calling a lie feels disastrously harmful to community trust at a time when trust has never been more important. I would kindly like to ask leadership to explicitly say what statement is unambiguously untrue.

To be fair, those were private emails between publisher and BGA. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by saying this, but rather just pointing out that BGA owes us the users no explanation for what was said privately to a publisher. We don't have all the detail about that and there may be things we know nothing about, so that's a bit difficult to judge. That someone chose to post private emails here on the forums doesn't change that.

The designer/publisher has told different versions of this story in at least 6 different places. Even after an agreement has been reached to keep the game on the platform as a premium offering (for a second time), people are still referencing versions of this story that leave out key details or misconstrue BGA's reason for temporarily removing the game.

The most recent post that I could find before the admins temporarily removed the game was in this thread. After having agreed to keep his game as premium, he said "Greg and Emmanuel sold the BGA user data and product of volunteer efforts to a megacorp." and that they had betrayed the trust of publishers and developers.
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... =60#p79701

This would be understandably frustrating for BGA admins after they had reached an initial agreement. The statements of fact in this post are damaging and not supported by evidence. We don't know exactly what is in the deal between Asmodee and BGA, but selling user data without notice would be a violation of BGA's own privacy policy and the GDPR. In the OP of this thread, Greg says that BGA remains its own legal entity. In followup posts on BGA and other sites, he said that BGA removed his game "in response to pointing out the inequity of their volunteer development program while selling to a giant investment firm"

As someone who has spent a majority of his free time developing BGA adaptations as a volunteer and under contract with publishers, it has been frustrating seeing these posts referenced as representative of the feelings of the developer community. Everybody has their own thoughts and feelings about the situation, but I object to people making demands of BGA supposedly on my behalf.

Not getting your point as related to what I said. I was not commenting on what the guy from the publisher said, agreeing or disagreeing with it, or stating my feelings on the matter. Nor was I stating any feelings on the matter between BGA and Asmodee (not yet). I do not have one argument about anything you just said.

I was merely pointing out that I do not think BGA owes us an explanation for what they said in private emails. After 10 pages and a lot of time reading, I might be incorrect, but I do not recall anyone from BGA calling the publisher a liar in public on this forum. In fact, they were very quiet until Greg posted that he would be posting a FAQs. If they said he was spreading lies privately in an email, without knowing all the facts in the case, I don't think it's our business to request an explanation for something they never posted here in public. Yes, it might be nice if someone would come on and simply say that the publisher (whatever his name is) is just posting a lot of things because he is angry and ask that we please ignore unsubstantiated statements; however, in the end, I don't see why they owe us an explanation because someone chose to post a private email in public. It's just that a lot of people don't comprehend "private" anymore - emails should've never been posted and I don't think BGA is responsible for explaining what was in private emails. But everyone wants to make everything their personal business when it's not.

It sounds like you object to the publisher. Fine. And I totally get where you're coming from. I just don't see the relationship to what I posted.

[N_Faker]

I was merely pointing out that I do not think BGA owes us an explanation for what they said in private emails. After 10 pages and a lot of time reading, I might be incorrect, but I do not recall anyone from BGA calling the publisher a liar in public on this forum. In fact, they were very quiet until Greg posted that he would be posting a FAQs. If they said he was spreading lies privately in an email, without knowing all the facts in the case, I don't think it's our business to request an explanation for something they never posted here in public. Yes, it might be nice if someone would come on and simply say that the publisher (whatever his name is) is just posting a lot of things because he is angry and ask that we please ignore unsubstantiated statements; however, in the end, I don't see why they owe us an explanation because someone chose to post a private email in public. It's just that a lot of people don't comprehend "private" anymore - emails should've never been posted and I don't think BGA is responsible for explaining what was in private emails. But everyone wants to make everything their personal business when it's not.

Dear all,

For the first time in 11 years, we are unfortunately forced to removed a game (temporarily) at our own initiative.

We totally understand that some people may disagree with BGA decisions, and especially the last one concerning the alliance with Asmodee group. We don't ask every publisher to be happy or to support our decision: this is how businesses work, and sometimes you just have to conclude that you disagree as a gentleman.

Unfortunately, the publisher of Stir Fry 18 decided to attack our persons and to spread lies about our exchanges. We offer him to move the game to Premium so he can get money from it, and he agreed to do it, but continue to attack us and to lie about what we offer.

In such condition, we took the sad decision to temporarily hold our partnership. We hope that this situation will be sorted out quickly so we can make this wonderful game available again.

I hope you understand that we've no choice here.

This wasn't an e-mail. It was posted to the "Stri Fry 18 players' " group wall.
There were additional posts following it, but it has since been deleted.

[Cullich]

I was merely pointing out that I do not think BGA owes us an explanation for what they said in private emails. After 10 pages and a lot of time reading, I might be incorrect, but I do not recall anyone from BGA calling the publisher a liar in public on this forum. In fact, they were very quiet until Greg posted that he would be posting a FAQs. If they said he was spreading lies privately in an email, without knowing all the facts in the case, I don't think it's our business to request an explanation for something they never posted here in public. Yes, it might be nice if someone would come on and simply say that the publisher (whatever his name is) is just posting a lot of things because he is angry and ask that we please ignore unsubstantiated statements; however, in the end, I don't see why they owe us an explanation because someone chose to post a private email in public. It's just that a lot of people don't comprehend "private" anymore - emails should've never been posted and I don't think BGA is responsible for explaining what was in private emails. But everyone wants to make everything their personal business when it's not.

Dear all,

For the first time in 11 years, we are unfortunately forced to removed a game (temporarily) at our own initiative.

We totally understand that some people may disagree with BGA decisions, and especially the last one concerning the alliance with Asmodee group. We don't ask every publisher to be happy or to support our decision: this is how businesses work, and sometimes you just have to conclude that you disagree as a gentleman.

Unfortunately, the publisher of Stir Fry 18 decided to attack our persons and to spread lies about our exchanges. We offer him to move the game to Premium so he can get money from it, and he agreed to do it, but continue to attack us and to lie about what we offer.

In such condition, we took the sad decision to temporarily hold our partnership. We hope that this situation will be sorted out quickly so we can make this wonderful game available again.

I hope you understand that we've no choice here.

This wasn't an e-mail. It was posted to the "Stri Fry 18 players' " group wall.
There were additional posts following it, but it has since been deleted.

Ah, well thank you for getting what I was saying and explaining. I did see private emails on here though.

Although I think I'd still say I don't know why they owe an explanation to the entire community. Hmm, makes my opinion a bit more difficult to decide. lol

[N_Faker]

Although I think I'd still say I don't know why they owe an explanation to the entire community.

Public/official posts by the site administrators carry far more weight than any other for one. The claims were never recanted or addressed again, at least not publicly. So as it stands, aren't these claims the 'truth' of the matter? If not, it should probably be cleared up in at least the same public setting.

The accusations aren't light either. By the post, Stir Fry 18's publisher attacked their persons and lied to such a degree that the administrators felt forced to hold their partnership and remove the game from the site! ... then a few days later it is back as a premium game.

[paramesis]

It has been a few days since the agreement was worked out between BGA and the publisher of Stir Fry 18 to keep the game as a premium offering after removing it. I think it would be appropriate for the publisher to address and take responsibility for the widespread misinformation caused by his public posts.

The developer of Eminent Domain: Microcosm posted private emails with BGA admins around page 8, and also on BGG. The admin's email seemed appropriate and diplomatic, and contained no accusations of dishonesty. https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... =70#p79720

I would agree that the admins don't owe a public explanation for the content of private correspondence posted in public, at least in this instance. My response didn't directly relate to that point, so it didn't make sense for it to be a quote response. Sorry about that.