|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Updates and reports of any errors with the Additional Resources will go here.
What can I report here?
What shouldn't I report here?
Any comments posted that don't adhere to the above will be removed.
The assumption that "cis" (shortened for "cisgender") is a derogatory term is an issue here—we do not consider it to be an insult on our forums. However, the term "cis scum" is absolutely not appropriate for use on our site in reference to another individual/community member. The premise of this thread has flaws because of the suggestion that both of these terms have the same connotation. Additionally, tacking on "but not *all* of these people" doesn't absolve an argument that is inherently defaming of multiple groups. A more fruitful discussion (and one in the spirit of learning more about other groups), may be narrowing down specific instances you can think of to discuss, or discussing specific terms and their connotations (framed in a way like "what does this mean to you?" or "how do you feel about this?" or "hey, does anyone know the history behind this?"). After reviewing this thread, we've made the decision to lock it for now.
Removed some posts and locking. It's absolutely fine to start a discussion about how you feel a group is being discriminated against and start a dialog about what that group faces. However, the premise here is very broad, pits different kinds of groups against each other to determine who's got it "worse," and doesn't have a clear direction. It may be more appropriate to hone in on specific aspects of the original topic if you're after a more productive discussion.
I've put through another update to correct some directory renaming issues.
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
It looks like the unclosed strong tag on the fortification Universal Monster Rule that Peet reported is still an issue. Persists when clearing my browser cache and still appears when pulling the raw HTML outside of a browser.
Reference: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/universalMonsterRules.html. We renamed this directory and I'll see what we can do to set up some rewrite rules to correct this. Our search engine/links within the PRD should be updating/have been updated.
At least since the new Bestiary Index (since I don't look at this spell very often), the links from the Summon Monster spell description get a golem screen saying "The requested URL was not found on this server, or you do not have permission to access this area." This happened with dire rat, viper, etc.
This has been fixed :)
I've just pushed through fixes for the issues above, except for:
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
In the new Bestiary index, if I filter by size and uncheck all sizes, the clockwork mage (Medium), tojanida (Medium), xanthos (Huge), and human zombie and fast human zombie (all sizes) still show up. If I filter by creature type and uncheck all types, the tojanida (outsider) still shows up, and the vegepygmy's russet mold (a hazard) shows up.
September 30, 2015 Update
This update included the latest content from the second printing of the Advanced Class Guide. We've also corrected all bugs indicated up to this post. You'll also find that our Bestiary Index has gotten much more robust (thanks, Liz!), and we'll have more details on that soon. Our next update should include both Unchained and Occult Adventures.
captain yesterday wrote:
This would really tip the scale of our on-going "Overheard at the Paizo office" favorites hoards... >.>
Hey guys, I just wanted to pop in real quick because our staff can envision this thread going awry:
We don't advocate gossip or drama from other online communities on paizo.com. However, we acknowledge the subset of fans here who enjoy other editions and participating in those communities, and are OK with giving them a space to discuss this news. We ask that the discussion stay civil and respectful, free of edition warring, and of purposefully inflammatory comments from this point forward. If it starts getting heated in here, or we see baiting/personal attacks/et cetera, we will be locking the thread.
EDIT: Also moved this into the D&D subforum and merged with the other thread.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but I assure you that this statement is one of our highest goals and something our community team works to bring about daily. Our community is larger and more fast paced these days, and that goal is a really tough one to achieve. We rely on the help of our community to report issues and have patience while we deal with them. What isn't helpful to us and our intentions with this goal (and the rest of our Community Guidelines), is lack of communication about on-going issues. We try to address every message we get through our Website Feedback forum, our inbox (email@example.com), and our flag queue. If you see that we're consistently missing something or making a mis-step, the only way to correct this is to tell us what's going on.
Removed some posts and locking. While we're fine with members of our community seeking further information and knowledge, flouncing isn't an acceptable behavior. If you'd like to have a conversation regarding cultural appropriation in RPGs, it may be better to reframe this with specific concerns. As it is, this topic is floundering and not appearing to be going anywhere productive.
Locking this. We strive to create a welcoming space for gamers from all walks of life, and posts like this are counter that goal (you can find this detailed further in our Community Guidelines). There are also more appropriate websites for posting lengthy personal rants or articles than paizo.com.
Removed some posts. Not everyone is privy to the goings-on within the Paizo office, and not everyone has the knowledge of how a company like ours works either. We don't expect everyone within our community to have that knowledge. The frustration is understandable, and we're okay with addressing these concerns and criticisms. There's no reason to escalate this conversation.
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
The map rounds of the contest ran well without a strict ppi requirement in the past
This isn't wholly true from a logistics standpoint. Last year was the first year that we asked a larger pool to submit images to our contests (prior to that, it was limited to the Top 16 or fewer), and it was necessary to provide graphics requirements because they need to be handled by a human being to be added through our contest system. In those previous contests, because we didn't provide limitations on the image format, there was last minute scrambling to resize/correct images so they would be acceptable to present to an audience for voting (some of these would be giant 600 ppi images, for instance). We also wanted to take our hand out of manipulating the images we were sent to provide the audience with the truest representation of the contestants work. I'll agree that the line regarding image size/resolution could have been worded better to simply specify the dimensions, but we do need a line in our rules addressing acceptable image requirements for submissions.