Hmm, not quite sure how to respond to this. But I don't like it, so I'll just try to describe how I feel.
This friday I was sick. Saturday morning still at home I wanted to do something and although I knew I wouldn't play great I ended up playing Dominion. Becuase, well, I like playing Dominion. I was matched against WanderingWinder, and I played this game really very very badly. After the game I said something like "gg. Very nicely played. I sort of bought random cards and had really no clue what I was doing."
Now you can respond to that in several different ways. First of all, I would appreciate it if you said something back at all in the chat. It kind of a feels awkward when I type 4 different lines in the chat (including the 'hi, good luck') and don't get anything back. If you don't feel like that, you could go and post something like "Hey, you can get to the #1 spot even though you play terrible from time to time" or maybe something like "I played against Stef and won by a mile and I'm very happy about it". Those would be ok with me for sure; I mean it's me who decided to play anyway and then I have to live with the consequences.
But to turn it into an annotated game?
Those are for great games, where both players play good and maybe make very few mistakes that can be analyzed.
That said, I really like the idea of annotating games, just please pick a different one. This might have been an interesting set, it definitely wasn't an interesting game.
We all play bad sometimes. Good players get a lot of crap when they lose. I don't know why people do that, bu it happens. I'm pretty sure it has happened more to me than anyone in this game. And I'm not doing that here. I'm not saying 'man, this is the best this guy can play, he must suck.' I think we all know that you DON'T in fact suck, that you're one of the handful of very best players there is.
Sometimes, I am just playing a lot and not saying anything to my opponent. In fact, that happens a LOT nowadays. I don't chat so much. Man, I could complain about these guys annoying me all the time by trying to talk to me during the game. But I don't, you know, it's okay. They do things differently from me, and I can live with that - it just doesn't matter that much, you should let some stuff slide.
You don't have the right to tell me I can't annotate one of my own games. It's an unrealistic request. I firmly disagree that annotated games are for 'great games, where both players play good and maybe make very few mistakes that can be analyzed.' Man, that just doesn't happen. If you had such a strict requirement, no games would make it. If you let opponent have right of refusal, and if everyone were as uptight as you, again, no annotated games. So I'm going to post this anyway. Look at the games which have been annotated on the blog, and there were big errors in all of them.
To me, the great thing about the annotated games is you get big debates as to how to best play 'interesting' sets, and then you get a breakdown of how one game played out with a couple of those strategies. And how you can get into those strategies, how games progress, and whatnot.
Anyway, they won't all be against you. But I did know that I would likely annotate this one before we played it - the set was interesting.