I think a thing that keeps us all on different pages is, to a degree, how we talk about games and, to another degree, how much we invest in the idea that success is a zero sum game.

I want people, including those who hate me (exempting people who spread actively dangerous ideas), to succeed, separate from me, a build a more diverse (in the sense of system, intended players, genre/style, etc.) scene which will grow and last longer than a cult of personality

The means of doing that are:
• buying/supporting/talking about games outside of our area of expertise
• suspending the belief that we, as individuals, are the ultimate arbiter of good and bad content rather than making a subjective description
• developing better critique*

* better critique would entail describing *why* I find something uncomfortable and *how* it is worked into the text and *why* I think the author did such a thing without immediately assuming the author, save existence of a pattern, are intentionally malevolent.

The assumption of malevolence is part of a zero sum game that divides us into winning and losing teams around the only measure we can then use: sales. Which are a metric of buying and system popularity not necessarily quality—games are neither good nor bad because of sales

I... don’t wanna play this game anymore and invite others to join the refusal to play this game. I promise, to that end, I will forward questions to designers before review, not speak with absolute certainty and review my assumptions in light of responses.

I wanna provide a model for how we can do things that involves honesty, transparency, reflection and candid discussion with a sincere commitment to stated personal ideals. So long as I pretend selling copies of my work is at the expense of other designers, I’m part of the problem

I realize my Twitter isn’t very active these days, I tapered off joke hot takes and stopped really talking about politics. It isn’t because I don’t care so much as I don’t see myself as aiding anyone coming to a better consensus by lecturing them—it’s a teaching model I quit over

So, I can’t promise I’ll be fast or review the most cutting edge or even most recent or on KS work, but I promise to talk about what I do with care. With the understanding that my participation in the scene, even minorly, influences what is available and considered viable

I can promise if I criticize someone it is either because I think their business practices are harmful (and I’ll spell out why) or they’re promoting ideas I am wary of (which I’ll explain) rather than assuming malice on their part. I’m also going to cease using personal attacks

The physical appearance, sales numbers, social popularity, notability and provance of a creator has nothing to do with their work, they’re considerations for marketing departments not for reviewers, if not utterly irrelevant.

I’m ashamed in the past I’ve attacked people for their physical appearance, it’s a truly ugly habit and one I feel an abiding shame over that I see as one of the most pernicious was lasting influences of the Stricken One on the gaming scene: attractiveness doesnt measure worth

Recently I’ve been most excited talking to creators about their visions for their project, what they wanna say and the sorts of games they wanna promote. I wanna review more and idk to not have review writing feel like it has to have a strong take so people care?

So... this is the state of my union. There will be announcements prolly about changing things I’m doing as I try to work more one facilitating creation than in self promotion. I’m happy people follow me, it’s not why I do this and constant anxiety I’ll say something “wrong” sucks