This space intentionally left blank.
I'm a freelance web developer who fits in quite a bit of long-term travel between projects. On average I've been travelling 3 months out of each year for the better part of my adult life now.
I set up a boardgame group in 2007, and we've been playing games regularly since (at its maximum the group consists of 8 people, but most days there'll only be 4 or 5 of us).
I tend to prefer medium-weight eurogames for my collection, with quite a few lighter ones slipping in to fill up the gaps during a full day of games. Personally I love many (abstract) direct confrontation brainburner games (could play project GIPF games all day long), but don't get to play these very often with my regular gaming partners. Since I do still very much enjoy those games from my collection which are friendlier and lighter on interaction, I don't grumble about this too much.
I don't see the appeal in war games, nor in train games. I love elegant game systems, with complexity resolving out of simple rules. Once a rulebook needs more than a dozen or so pages, I start to consider the game flawed; ameritrash is thus (mostly) not for me.
I rate games once I suspect I have a feeling for what playing the game well will be like. Usually this comes after one game, but there are notable exceptions. (Go!) If I give a rating based on a single play, I'll note so explicitly, and I'll update the rating once I have played the game a few more times.
Expansions which improve a game are rated as I'd rate the base game if the expansion had been integrated in it from the start; this usually means a fractional increase from the base game rating. Expansions which make the base game "worse" (make me want to play the game less if the expansion is integrated; e.g. Agricola: Farmers of the Moor) are rated much more harshly, depending on just how wasted an effort I judge the expansion.
I've logged all games I've played since I started logging in August 2010, but haven't bothered estimating plays for games before then (lots of Agricola, Carcassonne, Medina, Yinsh; some Bohnanza, Dominion, Dvonn, OotS, Powergrid, Puerto Rico, Shadows over Camelot, TTR: Europe and Tzaar). I only log the base game (noting expansions in a comment), except if an expansion comes with a new board which significantly alters the gameplay (e.g. "Keltis: Neue Wege, Neue Ziele" or "Hansa Teutonica: The East Expansion"), in which case I log the play under the expansion.
I give out thumbs sparingly, as I frequently use them as a lightweight-bookmark system to find back specific interactions. As such, I mostly stick to thumbing direct replies to my posts/comments, contributions I directly derive value from (posts or photos directing my attention to a game I end up putting on my wishlist, cover photos of games I own, ...), and random other stuff I just find superbly awesome and want to be able to find again. (The number of thumbs I've given out in the forums has lately grown to the point where it's no longer useful as a bookmarking tool, meaning I'll give out thumbs more liberally there.)
I did not consciously intend to be quite so self-centered as to start every paragraph here with "I", but once the pattern was created, breaking it just felt wrong.