IdahoEv

Forgot one:

11) Social Deduction: Two Rooms and a Boom

By category:

1) Heavy Strategy: Eclipse and Terra Mystica (tie)

2) Strategy Cardgame: Race for the Galaxy & expansions

3) Abstract: Arimaa. Runner up: tie between Go and Hive.

4) Real-Time Co-op: Damage Report. Runner up: Space Alert

5) Co-Op: Mysterium

6) Wargame: War of the Ring. Runner up: Twilight Struggle

7) CCG or LCG: Lord of the Rings LCG

8) Party Game: Time's Up Title Recall Runner up: Concept

9) Reaction time: Jungle Speed.

10) Most disliked game: Catan or any spinoff thereof

Yeah, the name's a coincidence ... no connection to the German social network.

Fantastic! Feel free to reach out when you give it a stab. We're looking for feedback and happy to provide help to our testers.

As a project manager, I've used this in two projects over the last year (of four done through our company). If you have questions or thoughts I'm here to help.

What I really want to see is Gigster's contract. What terms do they make their clients sign?

To do any kind of fixed-price work, you need absolutely ironclad protection against scope creep. Said protection against scope creep usually must start with an extremely detailed specification - the kind of thing that takes weeks to develop, not a 10-minute phone call.

I would imagine Gigster's terms looks something like: • Client gets no input beyond the 10-minute phone call • Interpretation of the specifications given in that phone call is 100% up to Gigster • Any revision of specifications whatsoever results in a change order

I've built or managed the teams that built over 50 software projects, ranging from small up to about half a million dollars.

With all that experience, my estimate process is now extremely honed. It takes me, quite consistently, 4 to 8 hours for a typical web startup MVP. And that's assuming I can build the product completely with technologies my team has used before.

... and predictably, the first comment proves her point.

You see two or three examples of comments in the article, and feel comfortable dismissing her point entirely as a result. But of course a written article has only room for two or three examples.

She wouldn't have written it if there weren't an absolute nonstop stream of this sort of crap over the course of years. A point she made abundantly clear, and an experience that would be oppressive to anyone.

(Not to mention the numerous things that can't possibly be read as "nice or funny", like having all your contributions ignored in favor of equivalent contributions from men. That makes me wonder if you actually read most of the article, or just skimmed and cherry picked a couple things that left you feeling justified in dismissing her.)

When you learn to listen to people who are struggling instead of dismissing them, your life will be better. I promise.

Oh my god, I did not need to know that existed. I need brain bleach now.

Get out of my profession, you repugnant sexist asshole. This kind of rhetoric is not acceptable.