The True State of Fortress Ameritrash

Somewhere between Skeletor's over the top self-serving rant and Barnes' blowing sunshine up your ass, there is the true state of this site and I am here to give you that report.

One of the advantages of not being an "insider" in the gaming world as well as here on this site is that I can give you the true scoop of how things are being seen without looking at the site through Geek glasses.

It would certainly be fascinating to read the insider e-mails from this cast of characters that run this site. The bullshit analysis that must go on must make a thesis by Octavian look like a Dick and Jane book. But in the end all the analysis of how to improve the site gets blown away like a Kleenex in a tornado due to the indecisiveness, clash of egos and lack of direction by the founders.

The conflict of personalities and the lack of leadership and vision are this site's main problem. Fortress Ameritrash is suffering from an identity crisis. The real truth is the site hasn't really decided if it is just a joke or a legitimate site on boardgames.

On one hand Skeletor talks about War 1 and War 2 and Matt Thrower says the war was just a joke. Here we have two founders of the site and they can't even agree on if there was an actual "war" that took place! Do you think they can come together on the direction this site should take? It is unlikely.

The most brilliant comment I have read recently is why don't the founders just e-mail themselves back and forth why even bother with this site if you don't want it to grow and just want to keep it a small insiders club.

I would like to see the site get as big as possible and grow but frankly it will not happen with the current thinking of the leaders of this site.

Yesterday, I asked 3 people who knew nothing about F:AT but enjoyed boardgames to take a look at the site. All 3 were not impressed. In fact, a while back I saw a comment from a first timer that looked at the site from BGG and he said he was not impressed either. Ken quickly replied,

"Everyone's a critic!"

You bet your ass they are and you are not gonna attract new membership by clinging to your hip little clique and saying "Fuck You" to those that don't get it!

Let's take a look at why these people don't like the site:

First, let's face it. The site is a clusterfuck. People will come here for one reason and one reason only, GAMES. The information is so scattered and disjointed it just doesn't work.

The Recommendations section was a nice try but with everything from Nexus Ops, to Guinness beer to Cheetoes, please....it is funny and amusing to an insider but to a new gamer looking for games it is frustrating.

You don't even have any of the classic games representing Ameritrash on the front page. What is Ameritrash? Face it, this site is an insiders club with no intention of attracting new members. I can tell you a new gamer is not going to spend his spare time trying to get up to speed to fit into this club. He would rather be playing games than look up what "Ameritrash" means.That's why you can't break 100 active users.

You may not have the time or resources to do a database but something needs to be done.
Your focus is muddy.

One of the biggest mistakes you can make is to stop talking about Boardgamegeek or stop posting on BGG. I realize the war was bitter but if you really wanted to attract new members you would actively promote this site in the forums on BGG, what better free advertising is that??

I don't think Aldie would mind because he knows there is no way you are gonna cut into his numbers especially with the current thinking here. There are literally thousands of gamers on that site everyday that are potential contributing members if you get your act together and promote the site right. It is just stupid to ignore Boardgamegeek. When Aldie starts demanding that you pay for advertising, you will know you are on the right track! I also agree with other posters here about the "TOS" nonsense. Embrace Boardgamegeek if you want to grow!

I will say that one of the things this site does right in general is keep talk about Politics, religion and other hot non gaming issues to a minimum. This is good! The internet and airwaves are flooded with political talk and all that would do here is muddy your focus further. We all come from vastly different political and religious backgrounds and nothing starts arguments faster than those subjects. A hobby site should be a refuge from those type of issues. However, debate about gaming issues should be encouraged. the Trashdome is certainly the best forum topic ever to grace the forums. If you get anything at all out of this article of mine, remember this:

CONFLICT LEADS TO HIGH MEMBERSHIP AND HIGH NUMBERS

Conflict is theatre. People want to be entertained. Conflict is good.

There is also a general forum decorum that seems to be creeping into this site. I see posters making statements like "Attention WHORE", TROLL, etc...All terms like this do is discourage participation. A new member may not want to post for fear of being called "Attention Whore"

I will agree there is such a thing as over participation and the best example of this is early Barnes on BGG. The avatar of Mark E. Smith was everywhere like snowflakes on the site. But in general these terms should be avoided and if they are used on me will only provoke more posts. Participation should NEVER be discouraged in anyway!!! This will only hurt the site.

Take these ideas under consideration if you want the site to grow or ignore them and keep the site small or better yet save yourself the time and headaches and just become a small private e-mail group.

Skeletor's rant was self serving. Skeletor wants you to provide HIM with entertaining stuff so he will stay.

Barnes rant was the work of an ad man, blowing sunshine up your ass not much different from a free game review.

My rant is the true state of things my friends!

As the knight in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" said,

"Choose wisely..."

I just know Steve is going to make me pay for this in some way... but I just read Steve's treatise over my dinner and I would encourage everyone to look at his comments objectively.... as constructive feedback.

And if I look at it objectively, I actually think Steve has some valid points that should at least be intellectually considered and discussed.

This time Steve's thoughts actually look like they were somewhat thought out and reflect a level of purpose. I don't know that I agree with so much of it. But I think his writing here shows a similar level of passion that Barnes showed today and Skeletor showed yesterday.

---

How this commentary by Steve Weeks is handled (I think) will prove or disprove one of his salient points, (just based on his past posting history alone):

Can Ameritrash handle feedback and criticism in the manner it says it can and that it is encouraging its membership to provide?

or will they prejudge the messenger (a thing that I have seen with reference to Octavian's posts many a time...) without examining or giving fair weight to the message.

I won't make you pay Ryan.

I have come to accept you as a groupie of mine.

The Fortress is indeed in a sort of identity crisis, but I don't know that your suggestions really address what the identity crisis is about, because I don't think either of the two options represented by Barnes and Skeletor are really interested in attracting new members; they are rather interested in providing certain perspectives on the hobby. You are right to point to things like the Recommendations as mistakes--that at least was certainly born out of the vision of an anti-BGG--but your suggestions also seem to want to model the Fortress as something of a massive, social site like BGG. To my view this is not a good goal.

For me BGG has always, and probably will always be the site I go to for boardgame information, rules, news, etc. The Fortress has always been the site I go to for real, meaty, and often theoretical discussion and criticism of boardgames. For me this is the true strength of the site, and what really binds the various types here together. I was never drawn to this site because it presented an alternate culture of the same type as BGG, but because it presented an altogether different way of thinking about games. As such I have never paid too much attention to the wanker thread and I have found the last few trashdomes a bit less satisfying than some of the earlier ones.

I am thus in agreement with you about the heart of this identity crisis, however: is the Fortress ready to take itself seriously? Is it ready to mature? Is it ready to hold its in-jokes and puerilities in tension with very serious and often high-flown theorizing about boardgames, or will it feel ashamed of one or the other?

I think a key moment in this identity crisis, which no one has mentioned, was the release of Android. Android, as advertised, looked like it could very well be the vindication of the entire critical mindset of the Barnes school, and his review of it was riveting because you could see in almost every sentence a critic of the first order coming to grips with a work of art that seemed to embrace all his principles and yet fail as art. Since then, we have seen Barnes and others really searching deep into the foundations of the Fortress' critical ideology to address the discrepancies which a release like Android really brought out. Along with these heavy articles has come an almost inevitable anti-intellectual reaction, and we have yet to see which impulse will prevail.

Already making me pay, huh Steve? (LOL) At any rate, I think "arch-enemy" is a better word. : )

I like that MUCH better.

Steve, I actually think you make a lot of valid points, although I disagree with your criticism of the leadership. I think Uba, Ken, Michael, Matt and others contribute a great deal to the site and probably just need more assistance. It must be a MASSIVE task keeping this site ticking over.

And it's ok if the founders hold differing opinions on a subject or have different recollections of the past. That doesn't rule out forming a single-minded direction for the future, assuming that is the goal.

The Recommendations section was a nice try but with everything from Nexus Ops, to Guinness beer to Cheetoes, please....it is funny and amusing to an insider but to a new gamer looking for games it is frustrating.

You may not have the time or resources to do a database but something needs to be done.
Your focus is muddy.

Agreed. I haven't been in there for ages. Perhaps a separate thread could be set up for suggestions for improvement and Uba could take a look and tell us what's feasible from a technical standpoint.

I will say that one of the things this site does right in general is keep talk about Politics, religion and other hot non gaming issues to a minimum. This is good! The internet and airwaves are flooded with political talk and all that would do here is muddy your focus further. We all come from vastly different political and religious backgrounds and nothing starts arguments faster than those subjects.

Agreed. The Danny Choo episode is probably a good example of some unnecessary ill-feeling creeping into the site.

Skeletor's rant was self serving. Skeletor wants you to provide HIM with entertaining stuff so he will stay.

Isn't that what we all want? To be provided with entertaining stuff to read?

Overall, some valid points made, but I'm left wondering what your preferred leadership structure would look like? You don't seem to like the current arrangement with several leaders/founders leaving the direction to be determined largely by the members. Would you prefer a more dominant persona such as that found at BGG, i.e. Aldie's site - Aldie's rules.

Tamburlaine wrote:

The Fortress is indeed in a sort of identity crisis, but I don't know that your suggestions really address what the identity crisis is about, because I don't think either of the two options represented by Barnes and Skeletor are really interested in attracting new members; they are rather interested in providing certain perspectives on the hobby. You are right to point to things like the Recommendations as mistakes--that at least was certainly born out of the vision of an anti-BGG--but your suggestions also seem to want to model the Fortress as something of a massive, social site like BGG. To my view this is not a good goal.

For me BGG has always, and probably will always be the site I go to for boardgame information, rules, news, etc. The Fortress has always been the site I go to for real, meaty, and often theoretical discussion and criticism of boardgames. For me this is the true strength of the site, and what really binds the various types here together. I was never drawn to this site because it presented an alternate culture of the same type as BGG, but because it presented an altogether different way of thinking about games. As such I have never paid too much attention to the wanker thread and I have found the last few trashdomes a bit less satisfying than some of the earlier ones.

I am thus in agreement with you about the heart of this identity crisis, however: is the Fortress ready to take itself seriously? Is it ready to mature? Is it ready to hold its in-jokes and puerilities in tension with very serious and often high-flown theorizing about boardgames, or will it feel ashamed of one or the other?

I think a key moment in this identity crisis, which no one has mentioned, was the release of Android. Android, as advertised, looked like it could very well be the vindication of the entire critical mindset of the Barnes school, and his review of it was riveting because you could see in almost every sentence a critic of the first order coming to grips with a work of art that seemed to embrace all his principles and yet fail as art. Since then, we have seen Barnes and others really searching deep into the foundations of the Fortress' critical ideology to address the discrepancies which a release like Android really brought out. Along with these heavy articles has come an almost inevitable anti-intellectual reaction, and we have yet to see which impulse will prevail.

Wow, that was VERY well articulated. And only your 9th post. Please absolutely feel free to stay around awhile.

I think Tamburlaine's added many more comments to articles and blogs than actual posts in trashtalk.
Yes, always deeply thoughtful and articulate.

Overall, some valid points made, but I'm left wondering what your preferred leadership structure would look like? You don't seem to like the current arrangement with several leaders/founders leaving the direction to be determined largely by the members. Would you prefer a more dominant persona such as that found at BGG, i.e. Aldie's site - Aldie's rules.

Yes, I would. I can tell you for a fact that works. My many years of playing in bands taught me that valuable lesson. If you want to talk about egos, play in a band sometime. The ego of the musician is unsurpassed! Most bands break up because of ego clashes. The best bands I have been in and the one's that work are when one strong leader takes control. Feedback is welcome and listened to but in the end the direction of the band is decided by him. Rule by committee does not work.

The founders are also clueless about promotion. I will give you one idea right here and now that will bring thousands and thousands of hits to this site. At first the idea will disgust them but if they think about it they will realize how brilliant it is. All the founders need to go to the BGG convention and promote their site and games.

They need to work with Aldie to talk about their philosophy of gaming. The pictures and dialogue from that experience alone would generate enough hits to shut the site down and bring aboard new members as the folks at BGG Con get to know these people and possibly even like them! I myself would even volunteer to go and cover the event in video and podcasting forums.

It may seem crazy but just try it and watch what happens and then branch out to Kublacon and other Cons as well. You need to organize and conquer not hide in a cave and be bitter!

the*mad*gamer wrote:

Yes, I would. I can tell you for a fact that works. My many years of playing in bands taught me that valuable lesson. If you want to talk about egos, play in a band sometime. The ego of the musician is unsurpassed! Most bands break up because of ego clashes. The best bands I have been in and the one's that work are when one strong leader takes control. Feedback is welcome and listened to but in the end the direction of the band is decided by him. Rule by committee does not work.

I agree with you here. I have worked in management and used to say the same thing all the time. Do you have anyone in mind? One of the current leader/founders?

The founders are also clueless about promotion. I will give you one idea right here and now that will bring thousands and thousands of hits to this site. At first the idea will disgust them but if they think about it they will realize how brilliant it is. All the founders need to go to the BGG convention and promote their site and games.

They need to work with Aldie to talk about their philosophy of gaming. The pictures and dialogue from that experience alone would generate enough hits to shut the site down and bring aboard new members as the folks at BGG Con get to know these people and possibly even like them! I myself would even volunteer to go and cover the event in video and podcasting forums.

The idea of promoting at conventions is worth exploring further, but BGG con? If certain members aren't welcome on BGG, why would they want to attend the BGG convention?

It may seem crazy but just try it and watch what happens and then branch out to Kublacon and other Cons as well. You need to organize and conquer not hide in a cave and be bitter!

Why not organise a F:At convention?

Why not organise a F:At convention?

Because a certain mad gamer will probably show up.

mjl1783 wrote:

Why not organise a F:At convention?

Because a certain mad gamer will probably show up.

Then put him in stocks. Might increase attendance.

The idea of promoting at conventions is worth exploring further, but BGG con? If certain members aren't welcome on BGG, why would they want to attend the BGG convention?

Again the concept of conflict is key. Aldie's attendance would skyrocket and he would love it. Of course, nothing bad would happen but the idea is that the anticipation of these two factions meeting would be too juicy for anyone to miss.

The founders are totally wrong about how to handle BGG. They need to use BGG and develop a synergy to propel their site to higher levels.

The ignore BGG mantra is being presented as a mature idea but it is just the opposite. A childish Barney Fife "Big Freeze" approach. It is the wrong approach.

Little Richard once said he was mad at Pat Boone for recording "Tutti Fruiti" but later said,

"When I got older , I got bolder, and starting rubbing shoulders" HA!

Think about it!

Another point I want to make has to do with welcoming new members.

I can tell you most people are generally pretty shy about posting on an internet forum. They don't want to make a fool of themselves. ( I am an exception! HA!)

If a new member posts something in a forum and nobody responds, he figures nobody likes his posts and he won't post again. This is where Barnes can help Big Time and he is good at this.

Barnes is a good conversationalist and can usually find something in the post to talk about. This is good. I have seen Ken do this as well. This is good!

Try to talk to new members and get to know them!

Yes, this is a great point and can't be stressed enough.