"Are HMGS GM Awards tainted by financial aid to some GMs?" Topic

After reading through this thread I found only two people interested in what the HMGS BOD does. The rest are padding their post counts. From this I deduce that most TMP'ers don't care what the HMGS BOD does, did or didn't do. I certainly don't, I live on the west coast of Canada.

Instead of publicly ridiculing the HMGS BOD why don't you just attend a meeting or write them a letter or series of letters that bring forward your grievances?

Our club puts ours on our club flag, like batle streamers.
Well, they were won by others, and not me, but I am still proud of them, having helped to playtest the game.

To answer PBN's original rant, I do not think that Duke has ever won such an award. He may have in the past when he was paying for it himself, but I don't remember.
All the awards I have ever seen went to amateurs, "Pour Encourager les Autres". Pros like Duke were not considered.
However, facts like this do not generally enter into his "reasoning".

I too would like to know what GM who has won HMGS awards were paid to bring bring and play thier games at the HMGS cons?

i am one of the Battle Barn member who both GM, Co-GM, set-up and moved game stuff up to PA for many of Battle Barn games.

Many of these games won a number of HMGS game awrds in the past few years and one of our members also won the 2008 GM of the year, given out at H'con 09. I know for a fact we were not paid a thing by HMGS…

I hope Pat and PBN is NOT saying we are one of the paid games?

We were not…PERIOD!

SFC Retired

I hope Pat and PBN is NOT saying we are one of the paid games?

Unfortunately PbN isn't saying anything at the moment. His strategy seems to be to sling mud and make accusations by asking loaded questions. Then sitting back and ignoring anyone that pushes back and asks for proof.

Don't press for details because he won't be forthcoming.

Maybe he is following the underpants gnome's strategy…

1. Sling Mud and Make Accusations
2. ?
3. Profit

Well this is hardly the biggest smoking gun around. Not in any way suggesting the judging of events is influenced by paid events, if you really care about these awards (and I agree with the poster who emphasized their insignificance) paid events probably should be disqualified. Not because of tainted judging but because of uneven competitive playing field.

Give someone money to spend on terrain, money to compensate for more time put into something, and money to transport massive terrain boards and you will probably get a more impressive-looking event. The other guys who have to haul out whatever they can cram into their jeeps or cars are obviously as a disadvantage.

As to whether they should be paying anyone to run events, my opinion is no, but I'll leave that to the inevitable, "Should HMGS pay GMs to run games" thread.

>I hope Pat and PBN is NOT saying we are one of the paid games?

I have no idea who received financial aid to ship their materials. Pat, who is in a position to know, has indicated that HMGS has paid for this service. I'd like the details.

So first you say this…

Please provide the name of the game and convention where an HMGSE sponsored game won?

Sure. Give me the list of games who's shipping was paid for first.

Then you say this…

I have no idea who received financial aid to ship their materials. Pat, who is in a position to know, has indicated that HMGS has paid for this service. I'd like the details.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you making this up as you go along? You act as if you have insider info and then shrug when pressed for details.

All I know is what Pat said. So I'm looking for more details. I'd be perfectly happy if it turns out to be nothing substantial, or in the past.

>>> However, facts like this do not generally enter into his "reasoning".

>>> You act as if you have insider info and then shrug when pressed for details.

What "reasoning"? What "insider info"? Has reading comprehension flown out the window? He asked a simple question, following on from the assertion from an H'con founder that games are paid for (which should not be a shocking revelation; it's a point that has been raised before--which does not guarantee that as civildisobedience suggests, it won't be raised again).

Go back; diagram the damn sentences if you have to. It is simply a question. Not all questions are asked by those who already know the answers.

John's answer 'All the awards I have ever seen went to amateurs, "Pour Encourager les Autres". Pros like Duke were not considered.' is a useful one. Hard data to back up the personal observation would be useful, too. Unfortunately, those would not address the question that was asked, but rather the question that some readers *infer* was asked.

Allen

I seem to have been given credit for this thread because I ratted out HMGS for subsidizing some GMs. Sorry about that.

Actually,HMGS EAST has been relatively lax in these matters compared to ORIGINS and other conventions. In most cases the subsidized GMs are encumbered by lots of stuff they might not have been able to cart to the selected location.

Phil Viverito's spectacular but bulky masterpieces have been subsidized from Glendale CA to Orlando FL and routinely to ORIGINS in Columbus OH. Uncle Duke's multiple masterpieces have been taken to ORIGINS more often than HISTORICON, and even did a stint in Tampa Florida during HURRICANE Georges back in 1998.

The sponsorship which apparently provoked this thread probably has to do with the "DUKAPALOOSA" scheduled for the on-again off-again HISTORICON 2010 at BCC.

Duke, of course, has been known for colorful table tops and interesting games since the 1970s at the latest. I believe I first saw him at work running a Napoleonic Game circa 1972 using a set of rules based on 1-10, or a 300 figure Austrian battalion. He would later recall that I scowled when he explained that French cavalry on the flank of an huge Austrian force would get little flank benefit(something about "Battalion Mass"). He didn't know the reason, but that was it.

Anyway, Uncle Duke is getting on in years and has had some serious health problems. He is planning to retire as presenter of extravaganzas at conventions (and thus as the P.T. Barnum of the hobby.) The plan is for Duke, with an all star supporting cast of GMs to present all of his remaining scenarios at HISTORICON 2010.

The props will probably go on the auction block afterwards to convert a liability into an asset for Annette if his prognosis declines. He doesn't expect to sell much at HISTORICON though.

I don't think I'm betraying any family confidences in posting this. Duke said as much at the Membership Meeting at HISTORICON 09.

"Phil Viverito's spectacular but bulky masterpieces have been subsidized from Glendale CA…"

Was that transportation to the West Coast not because Phil sold his Troy setup to Steve V.? Seems as though I recall it being kept out here and Steve subsequently carting it up by van for at least one NorCal show?

Phil came out with it to run Troy at an HMGS-PSW mini-con, as I recall, and the layout stayed behind. But I believe the sale was personal, and did not involve the chapter. I could be wrong…

Allen

Forgive me for not basing my replies on the first post of this mis-informed thread. PBN said:

"I am positive that none of the volunteers who judge games for awards are aware of which games received this financial assistance."

Well, there you go again. Misinformed as usual, but not surprising since I suspect you rarely venture forth from tournament games to really see what is going on. Yes, judges are indeed aware of what games are sponsored and which ones are not. The control is when they turn their sheets in, they are reviewed by several individuals who scour out previous winner at same convention (games are often run more than once, but only eligible to win once), and would cross off any sponsored games too – not that there is perhaps more than one per con anyway, and everyone knows which ones those are, unless they are completely out of touch.

"I think it reasonable to believe that judges add points for their perception of the cost and effort they think it takes for the GM to present a game."

Again, you really don't know what you are talking about. Overall presentation is taken into account, but not on a cost basis. If a game looks good, and is also perhaps novel, and the players are having fun (we actually ask them on the sly), then the game is rated accordingly. But it does not have to be the most expensive game to win (I often pass on things that look to store bought).

"IMO this unfortunately taints the awards, until the HMGS offers a complete accounting of who received how much and how often."

So, in the end, what you are really after is to find out who was paid to attend. That is simple, but unfortunately for you, the answer will not be found on TMP. I suggest you email convention directors (past and present) as they are the ones who invite special games that they feel will support their convention and or theme, and determine any compensation – though in all honesty, it is rare, except for Hcon and the con run at Timonium. I know you won't as IMHO, your goal is to try to embarrass the organization.

You really could have saved a lot of time in search of an answer by posting to the official group, but somehow, I suspect that really isn't your goal.

For once I agree with everything Historygamer said.

Historygamer keeps attempting to misdirect the question by providing answers to a question not asked.

For the 3rd time, my question does not pertain to Duke's games such which are known to be sponsored by the con.

If any of Viverito's games were subsidized, THAT is what I'm talking about.

And my question was limited to shipping the stuff. If other financial aid was involved, as implied by some responses, that would be relevent as well.

No, I answered all your original questions, even quoting them. I know you get upset when facts are offered, but I didn't even mention Duke in my last post, and not sure I did in previous ones. While I understand why he is brought in, I would never have awarded him anything. Please note, that I have judged a lot of the conventions of late too.

If you have a question about a specific game at a specific con, you need to contact that convention director and ask him, as posting here is like going outside your house and yelling the question and expecting an answer. The chances are about the same the person with the answer will hear it.

To my overall knowledge, not many games are paid to attend. Money at conventions goes into other programs, and rarely into specific games. I don't even know who you are talking about.

But again, I more than answered your question on judging and games winning. I can't help it if you don't like the answer, but that was the point of your original post.

Regarding the overall program, I think it is a great idea. I personally like the recognition awards, and not just the few handed out now. GMs do a lot of work, and the better games should be recognized for their extra efforts.

… but I didn't even mention Duke in my last post…

Thats ok because PbN didn't mention Viverito in any of his previous posts either.

If any of Viverito's games were subsidized, THAT is what I'm talking about.

Then maybe you should have mentioned that in your first post.

IMO this unfortunately taints the awards, until the HMGS offers a complete accounting of who received how much and how often.

1. Sling Mud and Make Accusations
2. ?
3. Profit

>To my overall knowledge, not many games are paid to attend.

Well if you have knowledge then where's the itemized list of such expenses? At least the sum total spent at some particular cons?

Hi Ho guys…just got out of the big house for mentioning some odd event down in Texas…I view it as a badge of honor and frankly I needed the time off…just like a vacation at Getmo. But now this…

"The plan is for Duke, with an all star supporting cast of GMs to present all of his remaining scenarios at HISTORICON 2010."

As if the Historicon 2010 convention isn't bloated enough now we have that the Duke's swansong will be paid for by the membership. Just what will Duke and his supporting cast cost East? If the East BoD wants to regain some semblance of credability they will cancel that obscene scheme. Of course its a moot point if the who house of cards collapses.

db

Just another note on GM awards. I was amused to see that a 54mm AWI game got best of show for Fall In. I won't comment on the merits of the game, based on the photo's or the statement that the GM painted it all…even the figures I'm assuming.

Compare that game to this game, 28mm Talavera. I'm not sure anyone even showed up to look at the game but if they did I'd challenge their judgement that this disn't deserve some level of award if not best of show.

link

link

db

I have to agree with pancerni2. Duke's game scheduled for 2010 is a huge mistake for East to take on now. In light of the nature of the finances ANY cost to put this on is not a very bright an idea. East should be considering cutting costs and not spending on fluff.

The AWI game might have had rules that created the Best Game Ever, compared to pretty stuff but Worst Game Ever for the other.

Duke asked me to GM one of his games during Historicon '10, mainly due to my familiarity with the rule set used. He indicated to me that I would receive some subsidization for my hotel room and some other GM benefits. I told him thanks, but no thanks. I'm going anyway and had already booked my room.

It was a honor to be asked to help him out at his last Extravaganza. But judging from some of the vitriol directed at him, I'm beginning to wonder, why bother?

Ralph

Duke's games provide an enormous amount of player time, and their cost is peanuts compared to some other proposed extravagances which, I hope, will be shot down before we officially hear of them.

As for the 2010 Duke show, if nothing else it has the virtue of being unlikely to repeat.

Pancerni, I can understand your frustration with subsidized GMs. Pound for pound, your games are as good as they come. Better in fact. They don't quite have the novelty and architectural appeal of Phil's, or the showmanship (which at times has proven excessive) of uncle Duke's. But the figures and basic geomorphic terrain are unequalled.

Since I'm several years your senior I probably won't be around to lobby for a subsidy when your swan song is in the offing. But If it comes to that I'll recommend such a subsidy.

And frankly, I didn't see the (probably unsubsidized) 54mm prize winners mentioned above and can't comment on the relative merits of those prizes.

Since my props for games have to share my relatively small van with the stock for two small companies I don't consider myself in the running. But think of how much I save the management by running games when I already get in for my vendor table fees!

But leave off agonizing over Uncle Duke's farewell extravaganza. It will be worth seeing, probably worth subsidizing, and only drop in the bucket when it comes to making BCC (or Plan B)come across like Timonium on Steroids.

Pat Condray (WKPP)

PBN,

Based on my experience with the GM judging process, unless the judges hang around for some extended period of time they are in no position to determine the quality of the rules or how well the game plays. Since they tend to drop in for a couple of minutes at the most my guess is that 99% of their evaluation if based on the visual aspects of the game. While I agree that the rules and overall player experience should matter to some degree getting that assessment is very difficult and by default they end up deciding based on eye candy…which is not bad.

db

Pancerni, I cannot speak to current practice, but when
last I judged (H'con 2005, four sessions), it was
more than 'a couple of minutes' per game.

Granted your point about rules, absolutely. Not enough
time to make an assessment there.

However, the 'eye candy' aspect could easily be assessed,
but more importantly the 'players engaged and enjoying
the game' aspect could be assessed, although it took more
than a couple of minutes.

Finally, GM preparation (which I always thought was
important) could also be assessed, but again in > 'a
couple of minutes'.

Usually, my teams (3 people) would circulate, picking a
few games to re-visit, linger by, and solidify our
impressions.

Jim, not to bicker, but I don't recall being told, as a
judge, what GM's might have been subsidized (of course,
as I said, it was 'back when' and things can change).

>they end up deciding based on eye candy…which is not bad.

Its bad if it tends to shift the GM's priorities towards eye candy and away from designing a great scenario to play.

Subsidizing GMs has always been a problem with HMGS, at least as long as I've known it, since the individuals in charge compensate some, but not all, GMs. This is generally unheard of at other conventions – all GMs who meet certain hourly requirements are subsidized with room discounts, etc… or not at all. There are occasionally "show games", but I'm not aware of anyone being paid the amounts being claimed here, and in other places. The most I was ever offered was money to cover shipment of my materials to another state, and I ended up declining that anyway.

As for Duke's show, I can only comment that he puts on a show. Not a game. In the experiences I've had, most participants are instructed about where they are to move their troops, what they are supposed to do, etc. Seems to me money would be better spent on a participation game.

A few years ago when our group offered to put on a large, elaborate participation game (we only requested space in which to do it – no other compensation) we were basically told that the space was held for "big name" GMs. When I asked who big names were, Duke was one of the people whose name came up.

As a personal note, I've won GM awards at Historicon, but have yet to recieve a single one of them (streamers, certificates, whatever they are). Apparently my name wasn't "big enough" to justify recieving a single bloomin' ribbon.

-A.

The charge has been leveled at Uncle Duke that he lectured excessively before turning the gamers loose. I lectured him at almost equal length, quoting General Patton repeatedly ("No soul was ever saved by the second fifteen minutes of preaching.") It must have taken, because the next extravaganza was his Babylon epic at HISTORICON 2000 using a take off from the DBA series. He had them fighting unsupervised in minutes after which he spend quite some time talking to a cute Chinese American girl from the HISTORY Channel.

Pancerni, you should not cast aspersions on "Eye Candy" since you've pretty well got that sewed up.

Don't know about the other issues.

However, almost since HMGS EAST stopped renting that overpriced portable A/C unit for HISTORICON we've admitted GMs free. It was a Pete Panzeri initiative supported by his GM union (GMSN.)

However, enough people have subsidized Uncle Duke and Phil Viverito outside of HMGS EAST that it is hardly a unique situation.

Pat

Pancerni2 Id like to know why it's "ammusing" for you to see that a 54mm won a best of show award?

"Its bad if it tends to shift the GM's priorities towards eye candy and away from designing a great scenario to play."

Do you really think ANYBODY is putting a game on at any HMGS con just to get a 97 cent battle streamer as a prize? GMs are going to design whatever they will design regardless of prizes or "official" accolades. Some will be beautiful games with excellent scenarios which have been carefully playtested, and others will just be pretty.

But you know that and are just stirring the pot, as per usual. Keep up the "good" work…

>As for Duke's show, I can only comment that he puts on a show. Not a game.

Which is fine; they are highly educational (new gamers are coached in the how to play aspect, history is present).

> Do you really think ANYBODY is putting a game on at any HMGS con just to get a 97 cent battle streamer
>

More likely to get the free admission…

JohnnyU,

Well, first 54mm is not one of the standard scales, which I define as a range from 10mm up to 40mm. Most, not all but most of the 54mm figures come prepainted to one degree or another. I suppose that's not too different from sending off a batch of 28's to Sri Lanka but the 54's are, in my mind a rather narrow niche scale.

Actually it wasn't the scale that I found amusing as much as the figures plus the terrain…it certainly looked acceptable but nowhere near best of show material, which is why I posted the links to the game that I thought clearly was a better bet for best of show, everything being equal…

And to Pat, don't get me wrong, I wasn't criticizing "eye candy" only pointing out that most of the time that is the main reason games are rewarded with awards…

As far as the argument that a bad scenario trumps a good looking game, a great scenario won't make a cheesy game a better expereince for the participant but I've heard plenty of gamers exclaim, "well the rules and scenario sucked but it looked great."

db

More likely to get the free admission…

What brings you to that assumption?

Do you run games to get the free admission, did someone directly tell you they did, or are you guessing at the intent of others?

db – your definitions are somewhat narrow then aren't they? 54mm (1/32 & the closely related 1/35) might be a niche scale for wargaming but it is a major scale for military modelling & there are several ranges of plastic figures in that size, quite apart from the vast range of metal figures. HG Wells wrote Little Wars for the then common 54mm (actually 2 inch) sized soldiers. 54mm is no more of a niche than 40mm or 10mm (& since when wasn't 6mm (1/300) a standard wargames scale?)

>54mm is not one of the standard scale

Probably doesn't like it when people who cast their own 54s from the Prince August molds either.

"the argument that a GOOD scenario trumps a good looking game"

typo? An eye candy award is fine, but a "GM" award should be for the net overall experience.

Perhaps each badge could have one tear-off "vote" per day of the con; the ID of the game written on it & turned in to the game registration desk. This would be for a "player's choice" award, and the top 10% or whatever games win it.

"More likely to get the free admission…"

You're kidding, right? Yeah, I spend hundreds of hours and even more dollars to build the scenery, paint the models, work out the scenario, and play test it many times just to save ten dollars. And I'm sure most GMs do much the same. Stir that pot, Painty!

Paintbynumbers:

Please tell us all the games you have run at conventions. I'd be interested, and retain all the old program books, so I can look them up. I promise not to use your name. But somehow, I am betting you don't run games, so prove me wrong.

And, I have told you repeatedly (are you reading the replies?), if you have questions, ask either the convention directors or the treasurer, as other than Duke, I am not aware of GM's being paid to attend (other than some games at Timonium, and perhaps whoever this other guy is you all keep mentioning), and no one outside of them knows the answers, as I have stated over, and over, and over, and…

I doubt anyone would haul all that stuff to a con just to save $10. USD I know my time is more valuable that than. Free admission (which db's BoD took away and Pete restored) is a nice thank you that cost the organization relatively little, especially for what it gets in return. Many GMs run multiple games too, in fact, I believe a majority do, but you can look at any program and see that for yourself.

And just FYI, I put on a WWII pick up game at FI for 9 players. Didn't get free admission, and my game looked pretty darned good (but I don't think was eligible because it was not in the program book. That and the rules sucked, but that is another story). I hauled in about 10 boxes of stuff, just for a pick up game. The hotel luggage cart was stacked to the top.

db:

In large part you are right about judging, though Ed really nailed it. As a frequent judge (who has awarded you a couple of times I might add), I usually look for an eye catching games (rules out all the tournament stuff, eh paintbynumbers?). I can narrow it down to a handful in any given shift of gaming. I then go back to those games, look more closely, and then question the players on the sly (I am sneaky). I make no judgements on the rules, as that is not part of the judging criteria, but the players having fun is. So I do spend more time at certain games than others, as overall effort (figures, terrain, player enjoyment) are the big ones.

For the record, I did not judge games at FI (I took a break after doing two shifts each at CW and Hcon), but I didn't see many show stoppers – though I did not walk around as much as I usually do either.

db, if you have specific concerns about costs, then email the CD or the Prez, and or the Treasurer. But you should note that since there is uncertainty where the convention will be held, it kind of makes it difficult at this moment to understand con costs and other costs as well. You know as well as I do that CD's create a budget and it goes before review of the BoD.

Ed:

You may be right that not all judges are told, but as you know, the sheets are turned in and a final review is done to ensure that there are no repeat winners and any organizaton sponsored games are stripped out – which to my knowledge would only be Duke, and we all know that. As a judge, it is also your duty to look in the book at previous winner sheets as a double check as well.

Funny, but using the GM Award criteria, no tournament game would ever win. Other than the figures usually looking nice, the three trees and one hill deal is kind of lame, but then again, not my cup of tea, as it looks dull, or as one of my friends said gazing at the tournaments at FI, "Looks like playing chess on a felt."

My take is that PBN is an angery tournament guy trying to tarnish the organization and underhandedly slander the rest of the GMs there. Perhaps he is jealous of the better looking games at the con. Of course, he can always join in the fun, and I hope he does. He just needs to take that WAB 1500 point army, expand it a little more, and make some good looking terrain. Who knows, he might even win an award. Wouldn' it be ironic I gave it to him? I surely would if he deserved it. Go for it PBN! :-)

I'm a bit disappointed that PBN has responded to other points but declined to answer my simple query on why he feels it's most likely that GMs run their games to get into the HMGS conventions for free.

Edit- Of course he could have just been being facetious…but given all the other hyperbole and drama, the actual answer would have been nice.

It probably won't ever happen, Mike-- he'll ask yet another question which has little to do with his original query and then misread (or not read at all) any comments back to him, then start the whole thing over with yet another fatuous question or statement.

"your definitions are somewhat narrow then aren't they? 54mm (1/32 & the closely related 1/35) might be a niche scale for wargaming but it is a major scale for military modelling"

Exactly…a great modeling scale but not a standard wargaming scale

"& there are several ranges of plastic figures in that size, quite apart from the vast range of metal figures."

Yes there are.

"HG Wells wrote Little Wars for the then common 54mm (actually 2 inch) sized soldiers."

Key concept is that 54 was the common scale 100 years ago but not now.

"54mm is no more of a niche than 40mm or 10mm (& since when wasn't 6mm (1/300) a standard wargames scale?)"

Compare the number of 40mm lines now available and marketed for wargaming compared to 54mm and there is no comparison between the two. I know next to nothing about 6mm so you win that one.

db

@Nazrat- You're right. He's being consistent at the very least.

6mm is HARDLY the niche scale that 54mm is. GHQ, a very well-established company has been making 1:285th WWII and Modern models for wargaming for many, many years. The U.S. Army had a tabletop simulation that used their models 30 years ago. For larger-than-tactical modern warfare, it is the way to go.

Oh, and getting back to the topic at hand, I would only GM if I got free admission. Right. I mean, the cost of hundreds of figures, the time it takes to paint them, and the time and expense of acquiring all of the necessary terrain, to say nothing of the time taken to do research into the battle being re-fought is nothing in comparison to the $20 USD or so it costs to get in!

DB

I got my start with 54mm wargaming. And I'm somewhat less than 100 years old.

Curiously, I follow a plastic 1/72nd thread (though I'm a lead monger) and while you can get almost anything in plastic these days, I've found that there seem to be more 1/32nd plastic games at HMGS EAST conventions than 1/72nd.

Not all are plastics, and not all are painted by Sri Lankans or Chinese Communists. ALL THE KINGS MEN runs dandy 54mm games with genuine white metal figures painted, so far as I know by the owners.

For all that, I suspect the game that got the award got it for novelty.

But 54mm toy soldiers should not be automatically ruled out in competition.

Pat

"history is present"

Oh yeah? I haven't seen Duke run a historical game yet. A lot of fantasy based upon history, but not a historical game yet….

-A.

What is surprising is that during the cake cutting at Historicon 2009 I thought the Duke stated it would be his last as his doctor's indicated he did not have long to live. He would either be in a hospital or gone by mid 2010

*Snicker* 6mm isn't the niche scale that 54mm is? 54mm isn't a niche scale at all, never has been. In fact, lately I've been seeing ay least one 54mm game at every Recruits, the only show I hit regularly. Seems like there's some 'it's a niche scale because I don't game it' going on…

Hi Kyoteblue.

What is surprising is that during the cake cutting at Historicon 2009 I thought the Duke stated it would be his last as his doctor's indicated he did not have long to live. He would either be in a hospital or gone by mid 2010

as his Napoleonic game concluded, IIRC, he mentioned he was interested in starting to sell off his collections. I thought he mentioned it was due to health considerations.

But I have seen nor heard no more about it so perhaps…not?

I guess we'll have to take a peek at the last Historicon convention book to see what scales were common and uncommon. Without even looking, I'll have to venture that 25/28mm was the most common followed by 15/18mm. There were probably a decent number of 20mm/1:72nd scale games and a few various scale ship games. I didn't see too many 6mm games (not counting the Battletech games) and I only saw a few 54mm games. I'd have to consider, at least for that convention, the last two scales as niche scales that only a few people partake in.