Ethics and Reviews Revisited – my personal stance (Topic Discussion)

Most of us have heard of situations in our hobby where someone has behaved in a toxic way. Some of us have even experienced this directly. We can often name at least one bad actor who is still around in our community. We may have also seen publishers releasing games with an IP that is linked to a person whose behaviour has been widely condemned. As a reviewer, my instinct has always been not to review games linked to toxic people. Yet over time, I have realised that things are rarely that simple.

Defining the Dilemma

I think we all agree that giving money to a toxic person is wrong. We probably also agree that supporting them is bad. I see reviewing a game as not simply about sharing my thoughts on a game, but also as an act of promotion, and maybe even an endorsement. I am helping a game find an audience. So by reviewing a game that has links to a toxic person, because they are the game’s designer, for example, I am supporting that person, even if only indirectly.

It doesn’t even have to be a toxic person. There have been occasions when a publisher decided to release a game based on a well-known IP created by a toxic person. The publisher will have had to acquire a licence for the IP, requiring a portion of the profits or a fixed amount to be paid to the IP’s creator. So the publisher is, at least indirectly, supporting that person financially. Now the question becomes whether I should stop reviewing that publisher’s games, because they have made an active decision to support the toxic creator.

The problem gets even more complicated when a toxic person works on a game or a publisher that supports a toxic person releases a game that had contributions from a number of diverse creators from marginalised groups. For example, designers, illustrators, and developers who are women, people of colour, or otherwise marginalised may play significant roles in the game’s release. Ignoring these contributions risks silencing voices that deserve recognition, yet reviewing the game also provides support to the toxic person.

The decision isn’t easy, and I have previously wrestled with it in my Topic Discussion article “Reviews, Bad Actors and Consequentialism – reviewing games from controversial publishers“. In this article, I’m revisiting my stance from almost two years ago.

The Problem of Financial Support

I feel that financial implications make ethical decisions about whether to review a game concrete and unavoidable. Every review potentially leads to sales, which in turn leads to a toxic person receiving money, either directly through their work or indirectly through royalties or licensing. So my review becomes ethically entangled. Even if the majority of contributors are well-intentioned, the presence of harmful actors changes the moral landscape.

This problem becomes bigger when a publisher works with a widely recognised property. People often buy an IP-based game out of enthusiasm for the IP itself, even when that generates income for the property’s creator and even if that creator actively works against the rights of marginalised groups. Each new board game release contributes to sustaining their influence. Financial support becomes inseparable from ethical responsibility, and therefore, a review cannot be neutral in my view.

Yet, my decision not to review a game, or your decision not to buy a game, because of its link to a toxic individual, might negatively impact the important contributions of creators from diverse backgrounds who worked on the game. They may not share the toxic views of the publisher or property holder, and they and their work deserve to be shouted about. At the same time, promoting a game that benefits harmful actors carries a moral cost.

Balancing the recognition for positive contributions while avoiding the support of toxic actors is a difficult, but hugely important challenge for every reviewer. As reviewers, we need to navigate these complex scenarios. It is this careful weighing of consequences, visibility, and responsibility that I think requires an ethical framework to guide our decisions.

So let’s look at some of these ethical frameworks.

Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

Consequentialism holds that “consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct” [1]. According to consequentialism, an action is considered morally acceptable if it produces a good outcome, regardless of intentions. So when applied to reviewing board games, the question is whether the benefits of the review outweigh the harms associated with the game’s links to a toxic person.

As a subset of consequentialism, utilitarianism emphasises that “the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number” [2]. Utilitarianism encourages attention to collective well-being, aiming to maximise the positive impact and to reduce harm overall. Applying this to the review of a board game means that if a review uplifts marginalised creators, thereby bringing recognition to many, that positive benefit may outweigh the indirect support the review gives to a toxic person linked to the game.

These frameworks demonstrate that outcomes are rarely simple. Any review can amplify both good and bad. It can draw attention to marginalised groups, while also leading to the financial support of a toxic person. However, consequentialism and utilitarianism together offer a helpful guide for evaluating the trade-offs, reminding us as reviewers that every choice has consequences. We need to look at the overall impact of our reviews on the board game community, publishers, and individuals. Consequentialism and utilitarianism allow us to evaluate these dilemmas in a structured way. They encourage us to consider the benefits and the harm while keeping sight of the wider picture in a hobby where our influence may be small, but it is still important what decisions we make.

Deontological and Virtue Ethics

Let’s look at two more ethical frameworks.

Deontological ethics emphasises that “the inherent rightfulness of actions is considered more important than their consequences” [3]. It means that we should always act according to moral rules and obligations, rather than focusing solely on outcomes. In the context of reviewing board games, deontological reasoning asks whether talking about a game upholds our duties to fairness, justice, and respect for the board game community, irrespective of any benefits or harms that may arise.

Virtue ethics shifts the focus from outcomes to the character of the reviewer. It says that “virtues are not everyday habits; they are character traits” [4]. It makes it clear that acting in ways that reflect honesty, fairness, compassion, and integrity are important. Ethical decisions depend on whether they reflect the type of person one aspires to be, rather than simply measuring consequences or rules.

In practice, deontological and virtue ethics require constant self-reflection. Reviewing games that celebrate marginalised voices demonstrates fairness and encouragement, whereas avoiding games tied to toxic figures demonstrates integrity.

Deontology can lead to conclusions that differ from the consequentialist framework. Even if highlighting a game produces good outcomes, deontological ethics may advise against it if it breaches moral duties, such as avoiding promotion of harmful actors or upholding principles of equity and inclusion.

Virtue ethics make reviewing about what kind of person the reviewer wants to be. It complements consequentialist and deontological ethics, clarifying situations where it is hard to measure the balance of good and bad. Virtue ethics wants reviewers to contribute positively to the culture and ethical standards of the board game community, beyond the individual board game review.

Where I Landed

Looking at all of these different ethical frameworks seems to make things even harder to decide. So, after a long time of weighing up the options, I have come to an approach that I think is very clear, as follows.

• I will not review any board games where a toxic individual was directly involved.
• I will also not review games from publishers who support toxic individuals, whether directly by employing them or indirectly by supporting their work, as in the case of licensing an IP owned by a toxic person.
• However, I will review games from publishers who have previously supported toxic individuals, provided the specific game has no involvement from the toxic individual and features many more contributions from women, people of colour, or other marginalised groups in roles such as designer, developer, or illustrator.

I feel that this approach balances ethical frameworks with pragmatism. It recognises the importance of supporting underrepresented voices while greatly reducing the support of harmful actors. The approach recognises that reviewing board games is not just about evaluating the gameplay experience, but also about navigating the moral complexities of support and ethical responsibility. The decisions we, as reviewers, make are important, and I believe that my stance ensures that I engage in the board game hobby thoughtfully, ethically, and consistently.

However, that’s just the outcome I arrived at. I want to know what you think. What is your stance on supporting toxic people? How does your stance balance the potential negative impact on other, probably innocent, people who get caught up in these issues? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. I would love to hear what you think.