Looking at that website for 5 minutes, I can already see its a circle jerk. "Based on intrinsic, complex design and a use of ASCII art" that is not a Roguelike. Dungeons of Dreadmore is a Roguelike, it is quite simple, uses 2D art, and is based on long runs over constant replay-ability.
Erm.. The way you use the term "circle jerk" is pretty much meaningless. The term "roguelike" could be used to describe any game that has certain key features of rogue, two of which were ASCII art and high complexity(compared to its graphics, as well as other games of its time). The key point is that making these kinds of games works pretty well for a hobby project, so yeah, there exists a community that has reshaped the word roguelike to mean "game that's simple to make for non-artsy people due to ASCII graphics, yet still fun to play"(for instance, some people actually consider Dwarf Fortress a roguelike). Sure, that might not be how you define the word, but it's definitely caught on within a certain demographic.
I'm fine calling a game like Dungeons of Dreadmore or even FTL a roguelike, but it's definitely a different "direction". For instance, unlike the original rogue, such games rely on an actual artist to contribute to the project. They're also aimed at a different market, as they rely on people who are used to modern gaming conventions to actually go ahead and buy the game. Personally, I find this direction much less interesting, because despite these titles calling themselves "indie", they really lack the kind of innovation and experimentation that games like DF, Cataclysm, DCSS, ToME4 etc. can afford due to their cheap graphics and non-profit-oriented nature.