Regarding the insularity problem, I think this is mainly due to the lack of resources, since we’ve had to concentrate the efforts on yearly conferences, which historically have game studies as their primary audience. This makes the effort strictly tied to a specific research tradition, and at the same time too general to offer in-depth discussions within a more narrow body of research, which is needed for “outsiders” to properly make use of their own field of expertise.
In my experience, organization is to a large extent about putting the right people together, and then build on that. I’m still traumatized that we didn’t manage to get Thi over when he was PC-leader in Copenhagen – it could have significantly aided integration. To repeat myself: with some travel funding and properly staged research contexts, we could reach out to many interesting individuals and groups, and then use these as assets moving forward.
Regarding having a self-standing organization: I think this is an attractive idea, however, it would be really helpful if we could draw on professional resources of an institution. We haven’t got the time between us to handle infrastructure, economy, reporting, auditing etc. At the project I’ve worked on this spring, the uni even had professional proposal-consultants and financial incentives to work on the project. Pure heaven, compared to the ragtag nature of a volunteer effort. With the right environment, it might be possible to tap into internal budgets for joint projects or to work on proposals and connections made possible because of the stature of the institution. I suspect any major funding source will affect how it is to be organized, since a stakeholder will need to have certain requirements satisfied. Still, it is certainly possible to have both a self-standing organization and an affiliation (perhaps indeed more than one). Anita, who ran the Norwegian Kant Society, can tell more about that.
Regarding the technical problems: just did a bunch of updates. Perhaps they worked in the end.