$20.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
111 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Conventions » WBC

Subject: 7Springs minimum stay requirement rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Joel Tamburo
United States
Justice
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ladue wrote:
Well, the problem wasn't people like yourself that honored all their room reservations, but other people who would drop rooms at the last minute. Some of those rooms wouldn't get filled, especially for the full length of the con. The reality is that there were more than enough people willing to commit to the full length of the con a year in advance, but were unable to do so in part because of speculative reservations. The con benefits if the hotel block is sold out to the maximum extent possible, and the old system was preventing that. To an extent, the flexibility that some people would prefer is harmful to the con itself. Unfortunate, but true. The current system is something of a compromise, maximizing the opportunity for full length attendees to reserve rooms, while not forcing people to commit to their plans a full year in advance.


Exactly Grant.

We constantly had problems at the old venue where we were "sold out" until shortly before the convention then because of people cancelling due to consolidating rooms the block suddenly opened up and we wound up not having our block full.

The new system basically opens the hotel in time bands, with the longest stays getting first dibs. However, the condos are open to all and have been for a while, with a per bedroom cost the same as the hotel but having the "get 7 nights for the price of 5" promotion.

To me this system is much more logical than the old one as it helps us fill our room block while at the same time makes sure that the people coming for longer periods are able to book properly.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Tamburo
United States
Justice
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Marty S wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:
Ward wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:
natsean wrote:
Quote:
This has become complicated.


This is the first year all of these things are in place, though. I think it is more that it is new than complicated.

Plus, as was said above, you can call and talk to a rep and they explain it all. I read all the stuff to be prepared, but when I booked, I asked a few simple questions to make sure everything was clear.

It will be a breeze next year.

Kevin


    No, I mean that you need to have an extended stay, and you need to commit earlier and you need to put non-refundable money on the table. It used to be I could come up for two days on short notice if my schedule allowed it.

             S.


So it isn't so much that it is complicated, but that it is inconvenient. I think you can probably still come up for two days on short notice, but you can't reserve a room for two days 6 months ahead of time and cancel on short notice if your schedule doesn't allow it. I'm sure it is inconvenient for many, but many others it is more convenient as the hotel rooms are available for longer stays.

Imagine wanting to book a room for the week but the rooms are unavailable for that length of stay because the rooms were snapped up by people reserving the second weekend only. The weeklong stay would have to be broken up into 4 days at the hotel and 3 days at an alternative site. Certainly not convenient for those folks.


Never camped on a reservation in Lancaster. Never needed to. There were enough rooms in walking distance to reserve a couple of weeks in advance. It's a shame the new place runs things so much tighter. Not enough resources, or has the con gotten that much bigger?



The con actually shrunk in terms of total number of unique visitors. However, the number of "gamer days" was much closer to what we had the last few years at the Lancaster petri dish. This was especially noticeable on what was originally the precon weekend , where there was definitely more people than in years past. Conversely, there wasn't a huge upswell in the back half of the con, since it was not within "commuter distance " of many who lived somewhat local to Lancaster and drove in each day.

I fully expect to see an uptick in attendance over last year as word spreads on how well the site worked out for most folks. To be sure, some will not and did not like it, but they appear to be in a pretty small minority.

And while you may have never "camped" on a reservation, others did and then cancelled shortly before the con.

And while those rooms were rented again off a waitlist, it still can be a deterrent for those attending the con if the hotel connected to the hotel sells out artificially fast. They also didn't count toward the convention room block, which can hurt the BPA.

The resource that is "scarce" is the hotel connected to the convention facility - despite having substantially more capacity than the Host ( 40% more rooms IIRC ) , it sold out very quickly last year. This year, with the new reservation procedures as well as attendees being more familiar with the layout of the overall resort and some choosing condos, there appears to be a bit more time to decide - for longer term stays. I'd be surprised if any rooms survive til the May 15th date when shorter stays than four nights will be accepted.

Long term, the convention facility has tons of unused space to allow growth. I suspect the limiting factor will be lodging. There is plenty available, but some involves a 20-30 minute drive.

I don't know how many total rooms are available at the resort overall counting condos and chalets with the hotel. Based on the number of condos just at the top of the mtn I saw while biking, I think there is still a lot of untapped capacity. What the site does lack in comparison to Lancaster is the cheap places like Motel 8 within walking distance. But as has been discussed here and elsewhere at great length, the Board had to make compromises . I think 7S was the best choice given the relative dearth of other options out there.

Historicon ( miniatures ) went through a similar site selection process recently as their contract with a facility in Fredericksburg VA is about to expire. Their needs are quite similar to WBC with cost being a primary concern . They chose a location in Somerset NJ for a 2018 date. Shortly after they had agreed last month , the facility was sold and now they are back to the drawing board. They might end up back at the Host, but at an unknown increase in price .


Hi!

IIRC the Hotel is 414 Guest Rooms with the Chalets and Condos adding a LOT more "rooms" to that. Don said this facility can easily accommodate the largest guest count we ever had in Lancaster.

As to attendance, we also had a drop when we moved from Hunt Valley to Lancaster then in succeeding years made it up and grew from there. So I agree that we should do the same here. I also thought it interesting that while unique attendees suffered a mild drop overall attendee days was either even or VERY close to even with the prior year. That basically showed that the drop in unique attendees was predominantly in "daytrippers".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:


Hey, don't say people didn't try to offer advice on how to work in the reality of 2017.




Of course.

I just thought it should be unnecessary.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ladue wrote:
Well, the problem wasn't people like yourself that honored all their room reservations, but other people who would drop rooms at the last minute. Some of those rooms wouldn't get filled, especially for the full length of the con. The reality is that there were more than enough people willing to commit to the full length of the con a year in advance, but were unable to do so in part because of speculative reservations. The con benefits if the hotel block is sold out to the maximum extent possible, and the old system was preventing that. To an extent, the flexibility that some people would prefer is harmful to the con itself. Unfortunate, but true. The current system is something of a compromise, maximizing the opportunity for full length attendees to reserve rooms, while not forcing people to commit to their plans a full year in advance.




And yet, *all* gets swept into one broad sweeping policy.

One of my "rules of business" is: There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all policy.

It does appear there is a pretty clear fix here (based on your quote "To an extent, the flexibility that some people would prefer is harmful to the con itself. Unfortunate, but true.")

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)

So, based on that very clear breakdown, I guess I'm still perplexed as to why both canceling *and* transferring would result in the loss of your entire deposit. It's hard for me to consider such a policy anything but capricious (especially when so many have said, "Oh, well, transferring wasn't the issue).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
And yet, *all* gets swept into one broad sweeping policy.


But what is the "all" here?

In other words, how many people handled it like you did (above board) and how many gamed the system?

My impression is there were a lot of people playing with the reservation system.

So, if a ton of members were trying to game the system at the Host by screwing around with reservations, then it seems logical to cast the biggest net to catch them all.

I could see your point if it were just a few bad apples, but again, my impression was that instead of Transamerica, the real last game of the convention was multiplayer "Reservation Shenanigans" for the next year.

This puts a stop to that with the least amount of administrative headache.

Kevin

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd McMurray

Chickopee
Massachusetts
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
ladue wrote:
Well, the problem wasn't people like yourself that honored all their room reservations, but other people who would drop rooms at the last minute. Some of those rooms wouldn't get filled, especially for the full length of the con. The reality is that there were more than enough people willing to commit to the full length of the con a year in advance, but were unable to do so in part because of speculative reservations. The con benefits if the hotel block is sold out to the maximum extent possible, and the old system was preventing that. To an extent, the flexibility that some people would prefer is harmful to the con itself. Unfortunate, but true. The current system is something of a compromise, maximizing the opportunity for full length attendees to reserve rooms, while not forcing people to commit to their plans a full year in advance.




And yet, *all* gets swept into one broad sweeping policy.

One of my "rules of business" is: There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all policy.

It does appear there is a pretty clear fix here (based on your quote "To an extent, the flexibility that some people would prefer is harmful to the con itself. Unfortunate, but true.")

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)

So, based on that very clear breakdown, I guess I'm still perplexed as to why both canceling *and* transferring would result in the loss of your entire deposit. It's hard for me to consider such a policy anything but capricious (especially when so many have said, "Oh, well, transferring wasn't the issue).


Look, I feel for you. This just means that the ruleset has changed. You and your fellow participants will have to plan better for the following years, take some risks in booking fees, which if spread out among the many you indicate are in your group, should be a small price to pay to secure a satisfying middle ground. I took a $160 gamble on two rooms that my group may gel properly before the 60 day deadline.

Things have changed. The rules have changed. Trying to make an outlier case that does nothing to address the core issue of some gaming the system that has real negative effects just is a waste of precious life moments.

Of course, some live by this "fight", and never learn or change. And if so, well then best of luck to you.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, by this logic, since we *know* drinking and driving is dangerous, we should simply re-institute prohibition.

I get the logic now.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd McMurray

Chickopee
Massachusetts
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
Yes, by this logic, since we *know* drinking and driving is dangerous, we should simply re-institute prohibition.

I get the logic now.


I can see how you deservedly earn the name portion of your ID.

Well, if you do decide to don some shoes that haven't been stomped to dust, and attend WBC, then perhaps we will see each other in July.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marty Sample
United States
MILFORD
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


What do you think the reasons are ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Marty S wrote:
Lemur wrote:
I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


What do you think the reasons are ?



Capriciousness.

I don't fit the target audience any longer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd McMurray

Chickopee
Massachusetts
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


People change. Things change.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marty Sample
United States
MILFORD
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
Lemur wrote:
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


People change. Things change.



And some don't adapt well to change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
Lemur wrote:
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


People change. Things change.




So .... No answer. Ok.

I guess I'm offended that the change was made under the presumption that it was gaming the bpa, when in fact, that wasn't true.

But, certainly, if it doesn't directly impact you, why be concerned with the truth.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To get back on topic, I'm not coming this year, but I also know of a few people ... Long time attendees (like I was) that won't be coming this year, either, simply because they found this new policy to be amazingly punishing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd McMurray

Chickopee
Massachusetts
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
darthhugo wrote:
Lemur wrote:
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


People change. Things change.




So .... No answer. Ok.

I guess I'm offended that the change was made under the presumption that it was gaming the bpa, when in fact, that wasn't true.

But, certainly, if it doesn't directly impact you, why be concerned with the truth.


Life has enough challenges without having to create some that don't have any basis in truth. Then again, some people need these artificial constructs, which is just so GD interesting to watch.

I wish you the best on your path. Try not to get dashed on the rocks.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd McMurray

Chickopee
Massachusetts
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lemur wrote:
To get back on topic, I'm not coming this year, but I also know of a few people ... Long time attendees (like I was) that won't be coming this year, either, simply because they found this new policy to be amazingly punishing.


and I know many that are coming, that never came before.

Methinks, like any dynamic system, there is always death, and rebirth right behind it.

And so it goes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Marty S wrote:
darthhugo wrote:
Lemur wrote:
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


People change. Things change.



And some don't adapt well to change.



Well, as someone who functionally works in change management, there are steps to take to ensure successful adaptation.

Transparency about the reason (based in fact)
Benefits to gain buy in

What's not recommended is making things up and then enforcing an overly punishing policy.

These are only best practices. I'm sure Fortune 50 companies can learn a lot from the BPA.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Flawd
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Now you know how often I post here....very rarely.....but just because I have some time to kill before lunch and was perusing this thread (yes, I used a 3 syllable word) ....I'm thinking this:

Maybe people were "transferring" their rooms that they booked and didn't need to friends or the highest bidder....circumventing the list of people who had been on the waiting list...kinda like the movie line guy who is standing in front of you and then his 3 friends show up....taking 3 tickets away from the 3 people who had been standing in line all along.....

just my .02

1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
Lemur wrote:
darthhugo wrote:
Lemur wrote:
I should probably update it to "the realist"

But seriously, if anyone can simply answer the question (as compared to disparaging and during the practice because it doesn't affect them, please do).

Since we know

Lemur wrote:

If the room is CANCELED - the BPA suffers (it's harmful to the con)
If the room is TRANSFERRED - the BPA doesn't suffer (it's not harmful to the con)


Why wouldn't the new policy only affect cancellations? What is the benefit of alienating attendees that actually followed the rules with practices that had no negative impact on the con?

I'm left with the perception that I'm simply not the target audience any longer (last year was my first miss after 20 straight years of attendance). Again, without transparency (and, you know, an actual factual reason for the policy), I can only surmise the reasons. They're not positive.


People change. Things change.




So .... No answer. Ok.

I guess I'm offended that the change was made under the presumption that it was gaming the bpa, when in fact, that wasn't true.

But, certainly, if it doesn't directly impact you, why be concerned with the truth.


Life has enough challenges without having to create some that don't have any basis in truth. Then again, some people need these artificial constructs, which is just so GD interesting to watch.

I wish you the best on your path. Try not to get dashed on the rocks.




You're still not answering the question. The only thing without a basis in truth is that transfers affected the BPA. That was verified by the hotel.

I'm glad it doesn't affect you, but it's offensive that the policy was put forward to make that seem untrue, and it's especially insulting when others dismiss the concern.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hef333 wrote:
Now you know how often I post here....very rarely.....but just because I have some time to kill before lunch and was perusing this thread (yes, I used a 3 syllable word) ....I'm thinking this:

Maybe people were "transferring" their rooms that they booked and didn't need to friends or the highest bidder....circumventing the list of people who had been on the waiting list...kinda like the movie line guy who is standing in front of you and then his 3 friends show up....taking 3 tickets away from the 3 people who had been standing in line all along.....

just my .02



Then, the very existence of a waiting list was harmful to the BPA (since that would require a cancellation of a room, which we know *did* negatively impact the organization).

So ... Was the waiting list eliminated as part of this policy?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant LaDue
United States
Tonawanda
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
How many people *need* the flexibility of reserving a block of rooms and then transferring the reservations around later on, especially when the rooms can not be reserved until 6 months before the con? Is it worth it for the hotel to accommodate such requests or for the con to ask them to when the hotel sells out without such accommodations? Is it actually unreasonable to ask people to have their plans reasonably firmed up 6 months before the event (especially when we were previously asking people to guess a year in advance before)? I don't know, but it seems to me that this is an issue only for a very small section of the attendees and a critical problem for even fewer. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Capriciousness.

I don't fit the target audience any longer.


These two ideas seem mutually exclusive to me. Either it was capricious or they did it specifically to exclude YOU and yours from the convention.

Or did you mean it as two possible reasons?

From other threads and discussions, it is clear you weren't in favor of the move. I wasn't thrilled (extra 3 hour drive and much more money) but I went last year to give it a chance and it was awesome.

I'm spending more money this year for a condo and staying longer.

I honestly think if you gave it a chance and didn't look for every negative to blast the board and the move, you would find the gaming and camaraderie to still be top notch.

Most of us had to make adjustments to continue to go. You just seem to still be so resentful of the move that you don't let yourself see the possibility of going to see for yourself how the changes would really affect you.

I think it ridiculous to think after all the board went through for the move that they just wily-nily came up with this policy. If you want to say that there is a conscious change from day-trippers to full-con attendees, I would agree.

But this isn't nearly as personal a policy as you are making it out to be, I don't think.

If you want to maintain your indignation, come under a false name with a disguise and see how great the WBC still is. This way, nobody will see it is you similing and laughing your ass off and forgetting all about board politics.

Kevin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Jamelli
United States
Chambersburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:


People change. Things change.






Palermo is an Italian name, so he can be Rocky here.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Pariah
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ladue wrote:
How many people *need* the flexibility of reserving a block of rooms and then transferring the reservations around later on, especially when the rooms can not be reserved until 6 months before the con? Is it worth it for the hotel to accommodate such requests or for the con to ask them to when the hotel sells out without such accommodations? Is it actually unreasonable to ask people to have their plans reasonably firmed up 6 months before the event (especially when we were previously asking people to guess a year in advance before)? I don't know, but it seems to me that this is an issue only for a very small section of the attendees and a critical problem for even fewer. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.



For the hotel, this was already standard operating procedure. There was nothing to "ask."

Remember, this was asked of the Host, and the Host repeatedly said "no."

The hotel apparently already considered it "worth it," because they did it, as part of their normal operations.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  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.