Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
66 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Rage Quit -- thoughts? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: dear_abby [+] [View All]
Hans Moleman
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
I was saying boo-urns
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[I posted this on Reddit -- but I figured I'd get some thoughts here]
Warning: I do come off as defensive, but I mostly base my judgement off the rules. Granted players have different reasons to game, but ultimately a Rule-Nazi at it's finest.

Game = Letters from Whitechapel
Players = Jack vs. 5 cops; two cops of note:
- Player A -- not really into the game but plays [tag-along w/ significant other)
- Player B -- ultra-competitive, essentially me likes to play per the rules
- Jack-player -- me, rule nazi

1st 3 nights played relatively flawlessly. All tense nights, really nothing of note outside of Player A for a majority of moves asking what Player A should do. Player A occasionally will not ask and perform an action, mostly within reason with some logic. Night 4, uber tense moment, where Jack is essentially surrounded but some outs. Player A asks what they should do and all others to make an arrest, so Player A looks at the board and notes Arrest on 34 [having another, more logical spot]. Everyone shouts NO, NOT there and I respond with Jack is currently not on 34. This causes a chain reaction, where Player B yells, Player A is not even paying attention and gets up and leaves.

Player A did not ask for a take back nor did it really concern Player A. It was a bad call for sure -- as Jack was on the other number. But taking it back would of ensured a Jack loss. Game at this point was spoiled b/c either way someone was getting screwed.

Who's at fault:
- Player A -- b/c not fully invested ruining the cops chances at winning
- Player B -- for rage quitting...it's just a game, right?
- Jack -- for probably jumping the gun on arrest 34 call; but it was what I was hoping to hear, so I naturally was relieved to hear it.


I understand that it wasn't probably the best game to play nor was it technically fair to hold Player A accountable granted the lack of interest. I'm just curious on the responses...

Disclaimer: I'm definitely a by-the-books player, most won't like playing with me. To me, winning or attempting to win is the most fun -- my group understands that and mostly feel the same. The ones that play for fun or just like activity do not care.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KingD21 wrote:
Player A asks what they should do and all others to make an arrest, so Player A looks at the board and notes Arrest on 34 [having another, more logical spot]. Everyone shouts NO, NOT there and I respond with Jack is currently not on 34. This causes a chain reaction, where Player B yells, Player A is not even paying attention and gets up and leaves.


I don't know. This sequence kind of bothers me. Player A states their intention and then everyone starts shouting. At that point, I would pause and make sure Player A doesn't want to change their mind. Responding with your answer when there was clearly something left to be debated on the officers' side seems a little cheesy.

I mean, technically, you were in your right to do so. They made their decision. But personally, I prefer to know I won against the players' best decisions, not because I was able to capitalize on a mistake before I gave them a fair amount of time to reconsider their mistake. Therefore, as soon as I heard the shouts of "no" from the other players, I would have paused to let them hash it out.

That being said, rage quitting is immature.
59 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Were the other police checking for permission from their teammates before every move? Because if not, B is being a jerk. If so, I dunno, it sounds like A was being really careful most of the time (probably for fear of someone doing exactly what B did-- good job B, making A even more paralyzed for the next game night!) but one still might blame A for a moment of overconfidence.

Why do I think B is being a jerk? In a team game your teammate might make moves you wouldn't make. They might even make really bad moves. Being a good sport means ideally accepting that your teammates are imperfect, just like being a good sport in other games means accepting that you yourself are imperfect and may lose because your own focus wanders or you make a dumb move.

Anyway, never mind ideals-- of course people get feisty when they suffer a bad loss. That's human. Storming out of a game instead of saying "I'm so frustrated, I need a short break" is almost always an overreaction.

I dunno about whether it's rude to hurriedly finalize someone else's mistake. Depends what pace everybody's been playing at up until then.

But... talk it out with them, not us! Not to figure out "who's to blame", but to figure out whether there's a playstyle under which you can all have fun together. The current one isn't working.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hans Moleman
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
I was saying boo-urns
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tough to say...I'd like to say I gave some time, but I probably didn't give enough time. I would been salty, but would of taken it back, had Player A request it. Problem was, it was the very moment of the game, guess it right and cops win, guess it wrong Jack wins.

Words were said. Clearly and directly. It was a sub optimal move but not an impossible guess.

Technically speaking, Jack was well in the right here. It's the social aspect, where things get a little suspect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hans Moleman
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
I was saying boo-urns
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not looking at who to blame -- if that's the case, I would say all of the above.

Just an interesting thing that happened to my game group yesterday. For the most part we are all competitive so being so close to winning minus a handful that just play to have fun.

Player B throughout the game was kind of being the alpha player. Player A probably shouldn't of been playing (tbh, Player A is just not into games but likes to be sociable and will play if the group wants too).

No doubt it was a mistake or lapse in judgement, BUT at that very point of the game it's difficult to take it back. If it happens in night 1 sure...but night 4...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Gutierrez
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
"A pilot's greatest virtue is to know when to run" -- "What's this, a joke?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, that's pretty lame of you to "exploit" Player A's decision.
I think the fair to thing to do would have been to smile, ask if he wants to change his decision, and do your best to make it sound like you want him to change it. devil

That being said, I would have been more upset at Player B than at you. What you did might make me a little upset (mostly because I "was right"), but Player B walking out would have ruined the evening.

All in all, it says a lot that you own up to your part in this and to your motivation behind it. thumbsup
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
Player A made a decision. It was sub-optimal, but these things happen.
Player A notably did not ask for a take-back.

Jack may have jumped the gun in responding so quickly, but he didn't overstep his bounds as far as the rules go. That he would have been willing to allow a take-back is generous; that nobody asked him to speaks volumes. It seems pretty clear to me that everyone except Player B was prepared to accept this outcome as it played out.

Player B is entirely in the wrong for being such a poor sport about it. I can understand why he was upset, but that's no reason to make such a big stink about it.
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So Player A is only there because of a significant other. I suspect they're not really into gaming or the game. So everyone is putting up with that person because it's the only way the other person (Player B?) can be there. Which means that when Player A makes a suboptimal move it hurts all the people who are playing in good faith. It sounds like a difficult situation, but I guess it works as long as everyone is careful not to poke at Person A too hard. So the team is probably helping A make moves so that A doesn't screw anything up too badly.

You knew this, and when A made their guess you rushed to accept A's answer because it helped you. You knew their team would have talked Person A into a better answer, but you wanted to win so badly that you took advantage of the non-gamer spouse and caused the group to have friction over Person A. So you were willing to mess with the group dynamics and risk fracturing the group just so that you could have a win.

Sounds like a jerk move to me.
28 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To the OP: If they were your regular bunch or mostly, they know you and should expect your hard style of play and warn the others. If they were mostly strangers unfamiliar with the game, be magnanimous and say, "Yes, I am at the other location. Congratulations on catching me! Next time, if someone announces a location for an arrest, be cool. Let it stand without comment and I will answer it. Grouse after!"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Jones
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Yeah it's here! Really it's right here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Without being there and not knowing the people, I'd say that player B was say out of bounds. You don't quit a game because another player will not do something you want them to do no matter how logical you think your move will be.

I personally would not want to play with them and have a real problem with co-op s (semi-co-ops). Because of stories like this. Players should be allowed to ultimately make their own choices, good or bad without some else acting like a baby.

Jack isn't in the rescission in my opinion, any deduction game is about hoping the opponent misses something or makes a mistake.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trent Boardgamer
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
KingD21 wrote:
Tough to say...I'd like to say I gave some time, but I probably didn't give enough time. I would been salty, but would of taken it back, had Player A request it. Problem was, it was the very moment of the game, guess it right and cops win, guess it wrong Jack wins.

Words were said. Clearly and directly. It was a sub optimal move but not an impossible guess.

Technically speaking, Jack was well in the right here. It's the social aspect, where things get a little suspect.


So there was a chance you could have been there? Hmm seems a lot of whooha over nothing. It's fine for players to strategize in games like this, but ultimately the decision is up to the player.

I can understand getting upset if he made a move that was obviously incorrect, but taking a legitimate guess, even if the less likely one is still a valid move. In fact I've lost Fury of Dracula because someone ignored the rest of the team and went to the less likely spot and found me.

I do wonder whether your perspective is a little tainted because you knew where you were?

BTW I don't consider it rage quitting if someone leaves after the game is over and doesn't want to put up with the rudeness of another player.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P Santos
United States
LAS VEGAS
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmb
Most rulebooks don't say that the most important part of the game is to have "FUN". When players forget this cardinal rule, players should take a hard look at themselves and ask why they are playing the game.

It looks like PLayer A didn't ask for a take back because A wanted to just end the game and be done with it, not having fun anymore. Which brings us to the question why A was in the game in the first place? A 'tags along w/ SO). Did A really wanted to play the game or was just 'egged on' to play by the others?

Wanting to win is good but let's not forget that it falls on the group to have collective fun. What happened in the game was not fun, hence, the group failed in that regard.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Bonet
United States
Larchmont
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The unasked question in this thread is what do you do once information has been made public? Player A can't ask for a do over because you revealed that his guess was wrong. I think that's the crux of this issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Probst
Germany
Kiel
Schleswig Holstein
flag msg tools
If Player A is a meat drone and not a player, why are its handlers being vague ("make an arrest") instead of precise ("arrest on space x") when it asks for instructions?

Was a polite fiction of not-meat-droneness in place? No fault on Jack's part in accepting the call then imo, maintaining the fiction is their job in such an arrangement as well.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin V
United States
Victorville
California
flag msg tools
badge
Fan of Cartoonist Phil Foglio
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearhug78 wrote:
KingD21 wrote:
Tough to say...I'd like to say I gave some time, but I probably didn't give enough time. I would been salty, but would of taken it back, had Player A request it. Problem was, it was the very moment of the game, guess it right and cops win, guess it wrong Jack wins.

Words were said. Clearly and directly. It was a sub optimal move but not an impossible guess.

Technically speaking, Jack was well in the right here. It's the social aspect, where things get a little suspect.


So there was a chance you could have been there? Hmm seems a lot of whooha over nothing. It's fine for players to strategize in games like this, but ultimately the decision is up to the player.

I can understand getting upset if he made a move that was obviously incorrect, but taking a legitimate guess, even if the less likely one is still a valid move. In fact I've lost Fury of Dracula because someone ignored the rest of the team and went to the less likely spot and found me.

I do wonder whether your perspective is a little tainted because you knew where you were?

BTW I don't consider it rage quitting if someone leaves after the game is over and doesn't want to put up with the rudeness of another player.


Bearhug78: Wanted to say that I'm in agreement with your post. I ESPECIALLY agree with the last statement.

The player did NOT rage quit. The game was done. He likely had a miserable time and was quite finished. I don't blame him, and may have done the same. I've also gotten up and have left right after a poor experience gaming at a convention. I didn't rage quit. I was done with the players at the table are ready to move on as soon as the game was done.

In the end, it's really hard to make a call in this situation without hearing all sides, and in this case there are a few. The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that I would NOT be a good fit in that gaming group.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikeNvP wrote:
The unasked question in this thread is what do you do once information has been made public? Player A can't ask for a do over because you revealed that his guess was wrong. I think that's the crux of this issue.

I think once Jack reveals that he is not there, it's too late. There are no takebacks at that point, unless Jack is just super generous.

This is why it seems to me he responded too quickly. From what I gather, the players knew they were close to his location. When the game gets that close to the finale, you need to make sure everyone is getting the move they truly want before revealing game changing information. Especially with Whitechapel. There's a lot of footwork and information gathering leading up to those final decisions and you don't want all that work to go to waste over one uninterested player's hasty decision. Once the other players started protesting Player A's choice, Jack should have double verified Player A's choice. If Player A still wanted it, so be it, but in the multi-hour game that is Whitechapel, another minute or two of deliberation on the final night and final turns of the night won't hurt anything and will get everyone on the same page.

As far as player B, rage quit or not, getting angry, yelling and leaving immediately because of a loss is ridiculous and infantile. I would have no problem playing with the OP, despite his hasty response. Playing Jack in Whitechapel is tense and I can understand that slip-up. Player B wouldn't be invited to one of my games again.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PA
Canada
Rouyn-noranda
Qc
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The mistake, and that happened in my playgroup in the past, was to take player A in the game.

People who are not interested, who don't pay attention need not to play with competitive players in a coop game. Had this been a regular free for all game, then no fault.

I've been on the other side, I played with people who don't care, who play on their phone and don't pay attention. I stormed out and i'll never play with them again.

Know who you play with, pick the game accordingly.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Don't be humble... you're not that great."
Avatar
mb
If I am moderating a co-op game where I am playing the antagonist and the players are playing co-cooperatively, I always preface "Is that your final answer?" before executing that action. That give them time to discuss it amongest themselves. It sounds like you didn't even give the player a chance to react to the other players in the game.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Hyland

Waterville
Maine
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Congratulations on your win by technicality and the destruction of the game group.

I take it you were mathematically figured out, or that the number this person called was already known not to be you. I personally would have waited and let the rest of the team explain why that number was wrong and things would have ended better, not for you getting a win but for this person being willing to play a game again in the future. I tend to be more sensitive to new players and their experiences.

Those kinds of empty victories kinda do that. Reminds me of when I beat a couple 4th graders in a Baseball Highlight tournament to win a copy of the game. It wasn't a fist pumping kind of feeling. I gave the kids the copy of the game after because they were good sports and seemed to like the game. Maybe I gave it to them because I felt guilty like taking candy from a baby or something too but I prefer the first explanation. I didn't really feel like a winner defeating them. I imagine your win through a mistake by a noobie felt equally empty and you didn't even get a prize for doing it. In the future save those types of wins for games with prizes! At least you get something out of it!
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hans Moleman
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
I was saying boo-urns
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some additional details and comments...

- All regulars, no novices. Player A was the least experience, not too much into board-gaming but no stranger to them either. 1st time playing Letters with Player A -- grasped the game quickly.

- Definite rage quit. Game was not over after that move. Plenty of chances to still catch Jack. Though you could argue the game was won at that very moment. We finish the game with the cop running the players pawn.

- Player A plays simply b/c their significant other plays. Not ideal as Player A hates most games but Dixit.

- What I would probably would of done was suggest that instead of arresting, Player A instead searched for clues.

- Group dynamic not affected -- though I'd suspect player B not wanting to play with player A anytime soon [doesn't matter much as Player A rarely comes]
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trent Boardgamer
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
KingD21 wrote:
Some additional details and comments...

- All regulars, no novices. Player A was the least experience, not too much into board-gaming but no stranger to them either. 1st time playing Letters with Player A -- grasped the game quickly.

- Definite rage quit. Game was not over after that move. Plenty of chances to still catch Jack. Though you could argue the game was won at that very moment. We finish the game with the cop running the players pawn.

- Player A plays simply b/c their significant other plays. Not ideal as Player A hates most games but Dixit.

- What I would probably would of done was suggest that instead of arresting, Player A instead searched for clues.

- Group dynamic not affected -- though I'd suspect player B not wanting to play with player A anytime soon [doesn't matter much as Player A rarely comes]


Other issues aside, I've learnt not to play these types of games with disinterested players. One of my groups still won't play Battlestar Galactica again after we allowed two of the un-interested girlfriends to play who totally derailed the game after a couple of hours.

That one bad experience has the members of that group strongly refuse to even give it another try with “the right type of players” this time.

Game selection needs to consider the people that will be playing. Otherwise expect some players to get frustrated at others.
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandre P.
France
Strasbourg
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearhug78 wrote:


Other issues aside, I've learnt not to play these types of games with disinterested players.


Hum ... I would say "I've learnt not to play these types of games with disinterested players.".

When you play with disinterested persons, they get bored, they can break the game/the fun, other players get frustrated/bored and as a result everyone as a bad time.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
Netherlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
So Player A is only there because of a significant other. I suspect they're not really into gaming or the game. So everyone is putting up with that person because it's the only way the other person (Player B?) can be there. Which means that when Player A makes a suboptimal move it hurts all the people who are playing in good faith. It sounds like a difficult situation, but I guess it works as long as everyone is careful not to poke at Person A too hard. So the team is probably helping A make moves so that A doesn't screw anything up too badly.

You knew this, and when A made their guess you rushed to accept A's answer because it helped you. You knew their team would have talked Person A into a better answer, but you wanted to win so badly that you took advantage of the non-gamer spouse and caused the group to have friction over Person A. So you were willing to mess with the group dynamics and risk fracturing the group just so that you could have a win.

Sounds like a jerk move to me.

Funny. This is exactly what I'd expect a Go player to say. And I agree, though I wouldn't call it a jerk move from the TS. When I play, I want to play against my opponent's best moves, not against their oversights.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KingD21 wrote:


I understand that it wasn't probably the best game to play nor was it technically fair to hold Player A accountable granted the lack of interest. I'm just curious on the responses...

Disclaimer: I'm definitely a by-the-books player, most won't like playing with me. To me, winning or attempting to win is the most fun -- my group understands that and mostly feel the same. The ones that play for fun or just like activity do not care.
If player A did not really like the game maybe you should have played another game (assuming this is the case, and he did not have other more important things on his mind)?

If I was player A the moment I got shouted at I would have walked, he should be allowed to make his move with out badgering. If he makes a mistake, well guess what maybe the other players should have positioned themselves better.
It does seem to reacted too quickly in announcing you were not there. You did not seem to give then a chance to discus the move.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wormaap wrote:
Thunkd wrote:
So Player A is only there because of a significant other. I suspect they're not really into gaming or the game. So everyone is putting up with that person because it's the only way the other person (Player B?) can be there. Which means that when Player A makes a suboptimal move it hurts all the people who are playing in good faith. It sounds like a difficult situation, but I guess it works as long as everyone is careful not to poke at Person A too hard. So the team is probably helping A make moves so that A doesn't screw anything up too badly.

You knew this, and when A made their guess you rushed to accept A's answer because it helped you. You knew their team would have talked Person A into a better answer, but you wanted to win so badly that you took advantage of the non-gamer spouse and caused the group to have friction over Person A. So you were willing to mess with the group dynamics and risk fracturing the group just so that you could have a win.

Sounds like a jerk move to me.

Funny. This is exactly what I'd expect a Go player to say. And I agree, though I wouldn't call it a jerk move from the TS. When I play, I want to play against my opponent's best moves, not against their oversights.
Personally, I would rather lose to the best move than win against a mistake. But that has nothing to do with my objection here. What bothers me is the group dynamics involving Player A.

Player A sounds like someone who isn't a very good gamer and is only there because of their spouse/partner. Which raises a whole host of issues. Like if you trounce Player A or deliberately target them they may get very upset which may mean they refuse to come back. And that may mean that their spouse/partner may not be able to come as often. Or it may mean their spouse gets mad at the person picking on them and causes friction in the group.

Playing with a "spouse only gamer" (someone who only plays games because their spouse does) kinda sucks. They differ from your typical gamer in a lot of ways. They tend to be disinterested and bored. They don't play well. They are more likely to get upset by things regular gamers accept, like being targeted when you're doing well.

In my opinion they shouldn't be playing the game if they're not into it. If the only reason they are there is to spend time with their spouse, or they don't have anything else to do, that's the wrong motivation to be in that game. But the fact that you continue to let them play says something about the way your group works. Given that you're letting that player continue to play, you have to make concessions to the fact that they are a "spouse only gamer" (if you're not willing to do that then you should have asked them ask them not to play the game). Part of that includes confirming their moves with them, and letting someone help them when they're making obviously bad moves.

The OP treated this player like a real gamer, when he knows they're a "spouse only gamer", so that he could win. Instead of letting the group help Player A, he rushed to make sure the move couldn't be taken back. And he knew that the gamers who are putting up with the "spouse only gamer" would be upset at Player A for making a bad move, and that it would acerbate the issue of playing with a "spouse only gamer". But he wanted the win, even if that makes the group more upset at being forced to play with a gamer who's only there as a tag along. The group is likely unhappy at being forced to play with Player A, but it's manageable when Player A gets help. When the OP takes advantage of player A's mistake, he's forcing the issue of putting up with Player A to be worse than it normally would be.

KingD21 wrote:
Group dynamic not affected -- though I'd suspect player B not wanting to play with player A anytime soon [doesn't matter much as Player A rarely comes]
The second half of the sentence argues against the first half.

I suspect that Player A will come less frequently now. Which may not be a bad thing except that it is likely to affect the spouse's ability to come.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.