Links: Charlie Theel Digs into High Society, Tom Felber Burns Bridges, and Hong Kong Suspends Trading in CMON Limited

Some of you may have read about our public announcement where we have a legal requirement to report on any issues we face as a public company. We are aware that there are articles incorrectly attributing meaning to "going concern" that may not be wholly accurate.

"Going concern" is a highly technical accounting term referring to a situation where net current liabilities are greater than net current assets. This happens for CMON from time to time since we record funds received from Kickstarter as both a liability and an asset - the money is an asset we received from our backers, but it is also a liability we owe to them that is not fulfilled until we ship our products. Since we use the funds to pay for molds, production and development of those products, and some of these are considered "Non-Current assets", the asset column goes down as we use the money to fulfill the development of the game. Once we ship the game, the project goes back into the black because we can take the liability for the Kickstarter funds off the books.

The tricky part is when this crosses a financial reporting year, which happens often for Kickstarter projects, and if that happens it automatically triggers this technical nomenclature, and if you review our prospectus you will see we have reported this in the past.

This accounting treatment has nothing to do with the underlying strength of the company or our ability to make games and deliver them to you. Please rest assured that despite the current state of the world, CMON is and will be in the business of making great games for many years to come.

It's called Insurgent Uprising, and it was created by Jeremy Arias and Chad Klay, U.S. Army officers attending the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

The game requires four players, one player is the state or counterinsurgent player, who is also the regional power and occupying government force. The other three are rebel groups working to build their combat power and influence.

It's played on a board that may seem familiar to many gamers and starts with a revolution.

All this rules nonsense doesn't matter.

What really matters is the theme at the heart of High Society. This is a piece of game design that's morose in its perspective. It's unabashedly critical of consumerism and by proxy, Western culture.

To "win" at this game one needs to adopt the conflicted worldview that actual wealth is not tied to financial responsibility, but to shedding money in favor of appearing affluent. But be careful and don't spend too much or you'll end up on the street and eating out of a dumpster. These two ideals clash ruthlessly and on the surface don't make philosophical sense within the terms the game lays out. This is with purpose.

You need to be the best at living a certain lifestyle and maintaining proper optics. It's all about keeping up with the Joneses and the rot at the center of our society. The game's not even subtle in its warped position and the rules it forces us to operate under. On one hand it's intensely clever, and on the other it's inherently horrific.

Deconstructing that win condition of having the best "stuff" and how this dovetails with the auction is at the heart of truly understanding this game.

Almost every evening, completely different compositions of people played at two tables. All generations were represented.

Because every participant is actively involved in shaping a game, the end result as a game critic is not to find out whether a game is good for me and my friends, but above all for whom and for which target groups it could be suitable....

That's why I don't think much of bloggers and influencers who judge games based on a "first impression" or who only try games with two players that are actually made for four or five. Many who publish on the Internet about board games always try their games with the same three or four noses, which of course have their firm preferences.