This space intentionally left blank.
I'm a freelance web developer who fits in quite a bit of long-term travel between projects. On average I've been travelling 3 months out of each year for the better part of my adult life now.
I set up a boardgame group in 2007, and we've been playing games regularly since (at its maximum the group consists of 8 people, but most days there'll only be 4 or 5 of us).
I tend to prefer medium-weight eurogames for my collection, with quite a few lighter ones slipping in to fill up the gaps during a full day of games. Personally I love many (abstract) direct confrontation brainburner games (could play project GIPF games all day long), but don't get to play these very often with my regular gaming partners. Since I do still very much enjoy those games from my collection which are friendlier and lighter on interaction, I don't grumble about this too much.
I don't see the appeal in war games, nor in train games. I love elegant game systems, with complexity resolving out of simple rules. Once a rulebook needs more than a dozen or so pages, I start to consider the game flawed; ameritrash is thus (mostly) not for me.
I rate games once I suspect I have a feeling for what playing the game well will be like. Usually this comes after one game, but there are notable exceptions. (Go!) If I give a rating based on a single play, I'll note so explicitly, and I'll update the rating once I have played the game a few more times.
Expansions which improve a game are rated as I'd rate the base game if the expansion had been integrated in it from the start; this usually means a fractional increase from the base game rating. Expansions which make the base game "worse" (make me want to play the game less if the expansion is integrated; e.g. Agricola: Farmers of the Moor) are rated much more harshly, depending on just how wasted an effort I judge the expansion.
I've logged all games I've played since I started logging in August 2010, but haven't bothered estimating plays for games before then (lots of Agricola, Carcassonne, Medina, Yinsh; some Bohnanza, Dominion, Dvonn, OotS, Powergrid, Puerto Rico, Shadows over Camelot, TTR: Europe and Tzaar). I only log the base game (noting expansions in a comment), except if an expansion comes with a new board which significantly alters the gameplay (e.g. "Keltis: Neue Wege, Neue Ziele" or "Hansa Teutonica: The East Expansion"), in which case I log the play under the expansion.
I give out thumbs sparingly, as I frequently use them as a lightweight-bookmark system to find back specific interactions. As such, I mostly stick to thumbing direct replies to my posts/comments, contributions I directly derive value from (posts or photos directing my attention to a game I end up putting on my wishlist, cover photos of games I own, ...), and random other stuff I just find superbly awesome and want to be able to find again.
I did not consciously intend to be quite so self-centered as to start every paragraph here with "I", but once the pattern was created, breaking it just felt wrong.