I'm an architect in Las Vegas, with my wife and one year old daughter.
I used to think I was a hardcore gamer, which I guess I still am relative to the population at large but I've come to realize I'm also out of step with the BGG community at large. Actually I'm just out of step with the community that Rates games, not so much as the commnity that plays games. The contrasting examples are of course the Monthly BGG Rankings list vs the Monthly BGG Played lists.
I consider myself a medium-medium gamer. Or neatly summed up in the life of one designer, a fan of Early Uwe Rosenberg, but not of Late Rosenberg. More specificially here are a few categories of games that I find myself liking quite a bit.
I am a total sucker for "national game of X" types of traditional games. I find they hit a perfect sweet spot of having an element of luck but generally rewarding skill, with meaningful decisions but not too many. Tien Len, Mahjong, Oware, Cribbage, etc. all fit this perfectly.
As a "designer gamer" I think the SDJ is the best indicator of what I like. I've never hated an SDJ winner, though I don't love them all. I do fully intend to play all of them at some point. I've definitely read the rules to all of them.
Along that line, I really enjoy the late 90's, early 00's german games. Schaact's China and Hansa, and huge chunks of Reiner's Oeuvre are of course standard bearers of this school of boardgaming. It certainly doesn't hurt that Auctions are a primary mechanic that I enjoy. For me Elegance is something I deeply respect.
The other E that I always seek out in gaming is Emergence. I am always excited to see simple components turn into something complex. Acquire, Container, Manhattan, and Alien City are my prime examples of such a dynamic. Elegance+Emergence=High Art in gaming.
I am always curious about small cardgames with a big gameplay. Hanabi, Schottentotten, Verrater, Coloretto, Mamma Mia!, Khmer, Bohnanza, Pax Porfiriana are all great examples of this design ethos. Some of these are fun silly fillers, some of them are hard thinky games, but I've always appreciated the big things come in small packages thing.
Chudyk is a minor diety.
What I really love is controlled chaos, instead of pure strategy, I like directed improvisation. That said however, I feel the need to add just a minor footnote. If you need to randomize something, please use dice. I hate counting cards. Even more than that, I hate special power cards that require draws. I also seem to hate technology trees.
I also dislike games with long strategic look ahead where micromanaging the present will pay off long term. For example, I can't handle chess. But I actually do like simpler abstract games. Morris, Go-moku, small format Go, Don't Catch the Lion, and any variety of mancala games all hit this sweet spot. I think it goes back to simple components without too tough gameplay.
As for BGG, I am part of the GCL meatballs, my favorite podcast is Boardgames to Go with Mark E Johnson, and the most useful tool on the site is the little comments button up there at the top of each game...well that and logging my own database and plays. As for rating my games, I pretty much follow the standard BGG suggestions, though I focus only on the subjective side of the ratings. As such you may see a lot of very well designed games with low scores. I might respect these designs, but if I don't enjoy playing them then I'm not interested.
The only difference is for expansions, which are judged in how well then enhance the base game -- which means I am kind of liberal with high scores for expansions, even if I might not like playing the game/expansion all that much in general. But in general I don't like expansions. If the base game isn't interesting enough to play, I don't see how adding more crap to the turd makes it better.
And that's about it. I thought I'd shorten up my profile and I think I still ended up pretty long winded again!