next »

[Stegersaurus]

I think he's just very good at distraction techniques myself.

I think we might be reading a bit too much into Tom. I think Tom's just a guy who tends to mouth off a bit, which often results in foot-in-mouth syndrome. He's not deviously bringing up points to make the rest of the community chase after it. I think you'd be giving too much credit to someone who doesn't even take the time to spell check.

What he does do is exhibit common behavior of a "defense" state. Most of us, when we're in a discussion/argument tend to latch on to the points in the argument that we can reliably defend, and ignore the ones we can't or don't have an opinion on. This is just how our mind focuses on things so that when we see something we don't agree with, we keep that fact in our minds when it comes to the response. If Tom has already made his mind about what he thinks of the situation, then it stands to reason that if people are giving false or at least refutable information, that's something he can latch onto in a response. We just happen to be the majority in this instance so we see his arguments as not relevant or as a distraction tactic. Sometimes there are small points here and there that are relevant, and when WE respond, we tend to ignore those on our side, unless someone has actually convinced us to concede our own points.

[John Nesky]

I think that is a fantastic explanation of what's going on here.

[Ninomojo]

Casey, from the Jeff and Casey Show, wrote a piano love song called:
You Are Even More Beautiful Than Tim Langdell is Grotesque

http://mollyrocket.com/11411

Too bad there's no lyrics though.

[MorganRamsay]

i think the fact that he has never made a game is a bigger issue to me.

If you view a board of directors as simply a body of representatives, then an argument could be made that directors should possess credentials that fully represent the members who they serve; however, such a board would, for the most part, be useless.

A board of directors is responsible for corporate governance, performs duties that keep afloat the organization, and carries a legal burden that makes board members liable for wrongdoing, hence the need for Directors & Officers (D&O) Liability insurance. Also, a board of directors is the authority to whom the chief executive (chief staff officer) reports, is usually comprised of volunteers, and is normally first to answer to members.

As boards are not exclusively representative -- many boards are self-perpetuating, which means that directors are appointed and not elected -- effective boards include people with varied backgrounds. (Attorneys, investors, and marketing professionals are a few of the people who can offer core expertise.) That an individual has never been credited with implementing a physics engine or modelling a creature should have no bearing on whether they are qualified to serve on the board of an industry organization.

[Stegersaurus]

Morgan's post was more in relation to the stipulation that Paul implied that Tom should be a game developer if he's going to be a representative in the IGDA. Which in this case I agree with Morgan that you need a variety of disciplines to run a large organization and Tom being a lawyer is a useful attribute, whether Tom has made games or not. Where as you, mona seem to be thinking that this is Tim we're referring to. When talking about Tim I think it's perfectly fine to say "yes, Tim's position should be in question because he was lying about his industry experience". While on the other hand, Tom isn't necessarily lying about his experience, he just hasn't developed a game himself, which I think is fine.

[Ninomojo]

i think the fact that he has never made a game is a bigger issue to me.

If you view a board of directors as simply a body of representatives, then an argument could be made that directors should possess credentials that fully represent the members who they serve; however, such a board would, for the most part, be useless.

The thing is, Tom Buscaglia was asking himself for credentials to people urging him to answer relevant questions, with an unprecedented level of condescendence and douchebaggery.

[Ness Kain]

The problems I have with it are these:


1. There are certainly lawyers out there who have made games or contributed in some way to making games. But not many of them seem to hold high positions in the IGDA. Obviously they should have lawyers on the board, but can't they get one who knows a bit more about making games?
So far I haven't seen any real reason Tom supports game developers instead of some other group. As far as I can tell he hasn't really shown any kind of passion for game development itself... even if he cares about the industry. (And to me that's a very different thing; maybe he only cares about the electronic game industry because there's money in it.) If he had worked on one game (even if it was terrible), that would at least show that he actually cares.
This is the IGDA. Game developers are a diverse lot; there are plenty of lawyers who make games in their spare time. They should be representing us, not Tom.

2. On the IGDA forums he has posted some things that heavily implied the opinions of non-developers were less valid. He refused to respond to people until they provided information about whether they had made any games, how long they had been making games, how many titles they had released, etc.
What a hypocrite!

[Shade Jackrabbit]

To add a point I find relevant:

He asked people to post extensive information about themselves, their careers, and their experience, with the claim that he would answer questions from them. His follow-up post was then basically a re-hash of everything he said before, with responding to maybe one or two questions. Questions, mind you, that weren't even the most frequently asked.

So basically he lied about why he wanted the information, then he didn't even care about the information, and then he didn't even stick to his word.

See, he's basically being an ass. And as Dacke said, I also don't think that's appropriate for a representative of people. Regardless of whether they're in the games industry or not.

[Eric McQuiggan]

i think the fact that he has never made a game is a bigger issue to me.

If you view a board of directors as simply a body of representatives, then an argument could be made that directors should possess credentials that fully represent the members who they serve; however, such a board would, for the most part, be useless.

A board of directors is responsible for corporate governance, performs duties that keep afloat the organization, and carries a legal burden that makes board members liable for wrongdoing, hence the need for Directors & Officers (D&O) Liability insurance. Also, a board of directors is the authority to whom the chief executive (chief staff officer) reports, is usually comprised of volunteers, and is normally first to answer to members.

As boards are not exclusively representative -- many boards are self-perpetuating, which means that directors are appointed and not elected -- effective boards include people with varied backgrounds. (Attorneys, investors, and marketing professionals are a few of the people who can offer core expertise.) That an individual has never been credited with implementing a physics engine or modelling a creature should have no bearing on whether they are qualified to serve on the board of an industry organization.

I disagree, A board of directors for a Non-profit like IGDA, should be entirely representative of the membership, things like financial, legal, marketing and other day to day considerations are not the board's job, they should be looked after or delegated by the General Manager. The board, with their limited time together, should focus on much broader issues effecting the organization. Who better to represent Game Developers then a board of Game Developers with support from a strong organization? I fail to see how an investor would be a benefit on a board of a non-profit membership organization.

[Ninomojo]

i think the fact that he has never made a game is a bigger issue to me.

If you view a board of directors as simply a body of representatives, then an argument could be made that directors should possess credentials that fully represent the members who they serve; however, such a board would, for the most part, be useless.

A board of directors is responsible for corporate governance, performs duties that keep afloat the organization, and carries a legal burden that makes board members liable for wrongdoing, hence the need for Directors & Officers (D&O) Liability insurance. Also, a board of directors is the authority to whom the chief executive (chief staff officer) reports, is usually comprised of volunteers, and is normally first to answer to members.

As boards are not exclusively representative -- many boards are self-perpetuating, which means that directors are appointed and not elected -- effective boards include people with varied backgrounds. (Attorneys, investors, and marketing professionals are a few of the people who can offer core expertise.) That an individual has never been credited with implementing a physics engine or modelling a creature should have no bearing on whether they are qualified to serve on the board of an industry organization.

I disagree, A board of directors for a Non-profit like IGDA, should be entirely representative of the membership, things like financial, legal, marketing and other day to day considerations are not the board's job, they should be looked after or delegated by the General Manager. The board, with their limited time together, should focus on much broader issues effecting the organization. Who better to represent Game Developers then a board of Game Developers with support from a strong organization? I fail to see how an investor would be a benefit on a board of a non-profit membership organization.

100% agree here.

IGDA is not a game company, thus it doesn't need legal/business people on the board. I understand where it should be able to contract those people for them to offer legal/business advice to members, but I don't see why they should be on the board. It's pretty much like everything that resembles a union, the board should be 100% representative of the people whose very quality of life it is supposed to enhance.

[MorganRamsay]

The board, with their limited time together, should focus on much broader issues effecting the organization.

You are correct that, ideally, boards ought to focus on strategic issues. In small organizations, and especially in organizations that cannot afford to hire staff, boards often assume a "working" role (in addition to their other responsibilities) to ensure that what needs doing gets done.

... they should be looked after or delegated by the General Manager.

IGDA no longer employs an executive director. (Jason Della Rocca recently left the association to found Perimeter Partners.) Jason's departure undoubtedly alleviated the association's $93,938 deficit.

IGDA is not a game company, thus it doesn't need legal/business people on the board.

Let me know how that goes in your nonprofit corporation.

[Wysefool]

I looked up one of his games, Quo Vadis, on Wikipedia:

One curious sidenote about this game was that various "riddles" were hidden throughout the caverns. When the game was first released the publishers offered a prize to the first person who could complete the game and find and correctly answer all the riddles.

The prize, a gold sceptre evidently worth £35,000, was apparently never claimed. Some people did mail answers in but were told they had answered the riddles incorrectly.

 
Hello Mr. Langdell.

[Eric McQuiggan]

The board, with their limited time together, should focus on much broader issues effecting the organization.

You are correct that, ideally, boards ought to focus on strategic issues. In small organizations, and especially in organizations that cannot afford to hire staff, boards often assume a "working" role (in addition to their other responsibilities) to ensure that what needs doing gets done.

... they should be looked after or delegated by the General Manager.

IGDA no longer employs an executive director. (Jason Della Rocca recently left the association to found Perimeter Partners.) Jason's departure undoubtedly alleviated the association's $93,938 deficit.

It appears that that deficit was primarily the result of an increase in membership Programs & Meetings, which brought in 2x the amount of money, but cost 4x as much. The non profit I was involved in had a much larger budget, so I suppose that I don't have as much experience at this scale.

[Ninomojo]

Back on topic: the game seems to be finally back on the App Store.

[Paul Eres]

now if only i had an iphone

oh, and i agree that you don't need lawyers on the board of the igda and that it can be contracted out. most of the problems of the board is that they are not representational of their membership: most of them are people who haven't made games in 10-20 years, and some haven't ever made games. most don't work in the industry, but teach at game design colleges and so on

there's a rule about organizations that says that those least concerned with the goals of the organization but most concerned with organization qua organization (being authoritarians, keeping order) are those who eventually rise to the top of any organization. the rule was formulated by a sci-fi author and computer magazine reviewer named named jerry pournelle. i think this igda board a perfect example of that rule