Android

Shaudius's page

Goblin Squad Member. Starfinder Charter Superscriber. Starfinder Society GM. 616 posts (725 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 44 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have played AL but I no longer do because it's not a system I enjoy, some because of the restrictive +1 PHB restriction some because I don't like 5e as much (although still enough to play it) some because my group that I played encounters with in a store became a home group where we play the hardcovers (Which we could do for AL credit like you can do APs and modules for PFS credit but for which I choose not to.)

I didn't intend for this to be a discussion on the relative merits of AL versus PFS, as I consider Paizo's OP to be superior to anything WotC has put out since Living Greyhawk (Which I consider the pinnacle of OP).

I will say that AL does have more leeway with regard to run as written which does mitigate some of the concern with metagaming but the scenarios still have an overarching plot and they have overarching seasonal plotlines much as PFS does. They also have convention created content that can span years and are huge draws where they are offered.

Now it could be a fair point that perhaps the crowd that is attracted to PFS would react more negatively to more open replay than the crowd that is attracted to AL, and that's potentially worth exploring but I was more using AL as an example to show that unlimited replay doesn t have to kill campaigns, it may be best to not adopt it but those reasons should be supportable on their own.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tallow wrote:
I see, so you asked the guy and chose to ignore his response because it didn't fit your narrative. I know enough now.

I'm happy to hear and evaluate for myself evidence that is presented to me. But that's not what I got from my exchange with Drogon.

Here's what I wrote to him, "Hey, your name has come up in connection to a replay thread and I'm wondering if you have read it. We're talking about how replay killed LFR at your store and am wondering what your experience has been with AL with similar replay rules."

To which he responded that he hadn't read it, that replay is bad, linked me to a bunch of the same threads linked to here and finished by telling me that "Replay is death. Don't give in. Seriously."

Perhaps I should have followed up and asked again about his experience with AL since it appears to be run weekly in his store but it didn't seem like a good use of time in response to someone telling me that replay is death.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tallow wrote:
Either that, or people are continually tired of providing the same information over and over and over again, and so have excised the specific information from their brain.

Is the argument here really that people provided the same underlying facts about an issue so many times in a row that they forgot it?

Tallow wrote:
I mean this only comes up every 3 months or so, and the same conversation happens every time.

Yes, with the same people saying one thing to new people saying the opposite thing, yet somehow the former people are given more weight than those new people arguing for the opposite. Do you not see the issue there?

Tallow wrote:
But if you can't take Drogon's word for it, with a very passionate first hand recounting of what happened, then of course nothing will convince you, so I'm going to stop trying. Suffice it to say, that the leaders of PFS firmly believe that unlimited replay is bad for organized play, and will most likely not entertain any ideas that creates such.

I asked Drogon specifically to describe how AL is doing at his store since it also has unlimited replay, he ignored my question and railed against replay in his reply, so I didn't bother to follow up.

If unlimited replay is a campaign killer why is AL thriving in many areas, no one has been able give me reason that just doesn't invalidate the whole unlimited replay kills campaigns invariably narrative. I continue to wait.

If you have two campaigns both with unlimited replay and one dies and the other doesn't you try to figure out what was different to cause one to fail and one to succeed you don't declare "well this just shows unlimited replay kills campaigns"

Look, I'm not asking anyone to support unlimited replay, I personally don't support unlimited replay as the only path forward, what I am asking that we make actual arguments that aren't completely contravened by contemporary evidence of another campaign that has it and shows no sign of dying any time soon.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hmm wrote:

Shaudius, come! I’d love to meet you!

Hmm

You met me! cries I was playing in Kate Baker's Sanctuary game when your 5-star game was going on. Morlamaw shirt.

I actually did price out flights because it sounds like a great time, but between PaizoCon, Origins, Gen Con, and a local con at the end of August (which is being stood up for the first time), I'm not

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tallow wrote:
You do realize that just because you claim there is little to no support for those suppositions doesn't actually make it true, right? Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.

Yes, I realize this, but considering it took at least a dozen posts to get people to even state what campaign they were talking about replay ruining and provided scant evidence of replay being the reason that a majority or even a strong minority stopped playing the campaign I'm fairly confident that my claim of little to support the supposition is accurate. Never mind the fact that the word "campaigns" is used and not the phrase "a previous campaign" and upon further examination people have only been able to cite one campaign.

Basically, this was used as a boogeyman for years and never challenged, is what it looks like to me.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
jon dehning wrote:
The Masked Ferret wrote:
Thanks for the information!
cough cough

Because Thursty (and Jenkins) are my heroes, I got the chance to play this at PaizoCon, otherwise I totally would have made the trip to SkalCon just for this.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Calling me out in spoiler takes and claiming its directed at someone else is not very becoming.

nosig wrote:

Quote from post above: "How did my post about replay not ruining other organized play campaigns ..." ?

so. If replays do not ruin other OP campaigns, why restrict it at all?

Umm because there might be other good reasons to not allow it? Which was my whole point many pages ago and continues to be my point, you can argue against replay of any stripe, unlimited, certain scenarios, refresh with whatever, but make an actual argument. An argument regarding history that isn't actually supported by the historical record isn't an argument, its a way to prevent arguments.

That's why I get so frustrated by that particular argument because:
a) its not historical accurate as the reason the campaign that's cited for support died had very little to do with replay based on the historical record;
b) its used to shut down debate on the issue by linking to other threads where it was stated as fact, even though the supporting evidence for the argument has not been given in those threads and was simply taken at face value; and
c) its empirically denied as there is a campaign out there that is as, if not more, successful that allows unlimited replay.

I'm not asking people to change their minds, I'm asking them to make better arguments.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So this one is fun but not something I think most people will catch.

In subtier 3-4(which is what I'm prepping), The Dark Apprentice has stellar alignment (graviton) which means he can never attune photon, so while he has supernova because of his solarian graft, he can never use it.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There's the manticore, its not a loaned ship but it is out there, there's also a super rare boon the Berky Mark IV.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
First, in separate discussions I have had with other VOs, I have talked about the need for policies related to conflicts of interest, a formal investigation/disciplinary process, etc. Let us not presume that my posting here only once or twice is the sum total of my conversations on this topic. This has already consumed an excessive amount of my free time over the past several days.

I have no doubt you'll try your best because I've always known you as an agent of positive change, I had mostly let it die down to wait for the process to work itself out and only became involved again when I saw more of the same misinformaiton appearing in this thread as appeared in the previously locked one.

Beyond that though, people are still angry, so I'm not sure that waiting for however long for a committee to come up with a set of recommendations that may or may not be acted upon by OP management is going to really solve this issue, especially not in the Southeast region which in certain parts seems to be in crisis.

Mark Stratton wrote:
Second, the mere fact that people view something as an injustice does not make it necessarily so (and I’m not commenting about this specific situation, just speaking in general terms.)

Sure, but the appropriate answer to angry people who see something as an injustice isn't "take a breather before you post..." I know you didn't intend it as so but I viewed that line as very condescending and judgmental.

Mark Stratton wrote:
Third, my request to let this storm blow over wasn’t made the day this situation was posted here and the conversation started; no, it was after several days of conversation, multiple posts, etc. It isn’t fair to characterize my comments as such that none of these things would have happened had you followed my course of action. We all know the general issue here, we know what people are upset about - there isn’t any reason for people to continually come here to beat against the gates, as it were.

We only know the general issues here because people fought for days in a thread trying to get information to be allowed to come out, the parties involve until these thread blow ups were under the impression through misinformation from the RVC involved that they could not discuss the issues.

I viewed your comment as a path forward, namely that in the future we should allow these things to continue to remain private, or even as backward looking that these things should remain private, if that was what happened here then we never would have had public discussion on these issues because people would have continued to believe that they could not discuss the issue for fear of violating their NDA. You likely would not be having these conversations with fellow VOs and nothing would have changed from the inadequate status quo.

Mark Stratton wrote:
In another thread, Tonya talked about a Task Force to develop some policies. I don’t know what, if any, impact that will have on Michael, but it addresses some of the very things you mentioned.

I can only hope so.

Mark Stratton wrote:
It’s time for people to let the jets cool for a bit and see what happens. We’re still in the middle of major convention season, with Origins this week and Gen Con about 8 weeks away. Let’s all just let this play out, not enflame or exacerbate the situation, and let it resolve itself.

Maybe, I've been told by people they've seen this before, Paizo will do something controversial, it will blow up in a thread the thread will get deleted and we'll never hear about a resolution of the issue, I don't know if its true or not, but I'll be doing my darndest to follow up on this one because abuse of NDAs(and process generally) and conflicts of interest are two things that really rile me up and can kill even the greatest organization.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
As a general matter, disciplinary matters ought to remain private. The fact that someone has been disciplined generally is public, but not specific reasons why - which is how it should be. The biggest reason for this is the privacy of all individuals involved. Yes, we all may want to know the details, but none of us has a right to those details. It’s not about the NDA (though under some circumstances it could be), it’s not about personalities or how great someone has been in their local community (but those ARE factors to be considered). Certainly if someone has been disciplined, he or she should be allowed to talk about it, except in very specific circumstances.

Mark, you and I have known each other for the better part of 20 years, I respect your opinion a lot because I know you have a wealth of experience in this and similar matters though the other organization for which we share membership but I couldn't disagree with the sentiment you're expressing here more.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. By advocating that specifics of discipline be kept private you allow bad actors to continue acting badly if they are the ones in charge of discipline without proper oversight. Which means the absence of an appropriate appeals or other review process. In the absence of such a process, the only way to effectuate positive change is via public outcry (like this thread), which is impossible if people do not know the details of issues that have arisen.

I would agree that private matters should be kept private if we had a functioning system in place to prevent abuse, that does not appear to be the case here(hopefully it will be soon) but absent that process, I just can't get behind this idea, it just allows Paizo(or any organization really) to hide their malfeasance or nonfeasance under the rug.

It's troubling because none of the many problems exposed here, conflict of interest, abuse of process, etc. would have been exposed if we followed your proposed course of action of keeping a disciplinary matter private.

I do agree that emotions are running high but I don't think letting it cool down is the right answer, emotions are running high because of people view as an injustice which is being met with platitudes and locked threads, heck there's even now a whole Reddit devoted to this issue because even the Pathfinder reddit locked the thread regarding this issue, if people are going to stifle debate and discussion in such a manner in what way can there ever be trust that would allow for private matters of discipline to remain private.

I am heartened by the fact that you do agree that the individual parties should be allowed to speak on the matter, since one of the parties involved here has allegedly tried to make sure that that was not the case through abuse of the NDA. He has not been disciplined, to my knowledge, for doing so, and I highly doubt he will ever be.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think the ultimate issue here is that while it may be technically correct it's a heavy handed approach to deal with a situation apparently not explicitly covered by the rules.

Beyond that, from what people have told me concerns about the VC for which Michael used his powers to investigate were raised up to the chain of command which fell on deaf ears.

I've also read that the VC for which Michael investigated was at one point dating the niece of the RVC which, if true, feels like a pretty big conflict of interest. This should have removed any investigation of that VC out of the purview of that RVC but which apparently did not. Even if not impropriety itself certainly raises the appearance of impropriety.

So it appears that due to the failing of the management chain to properly investigate allegations others around the area took it upon themselves to investigate and raise the issue with facts only obtainable through means which could be potentially considered to be verboten. The RVC then used this information to get rid of Michael. Which to me looks like was done because the RVC did not like Michael and the others going around him in an area he was specifically not doing anything about because of a pre-existing relationship with the VC Michael was investigating.

Subsequent to all this the RVC attempted to suppress everyone involved right to speak out about this chain of events through an improper use of the NDA. Which at the end of the day is what I think is the biggest issue although conflicts of interest and break downs of process are also big issues, I will again say the cover up is often worse than the crime.

I'm happy that through numerous attempts to point this out we've finally gotten to the point that some people involved feel comfortable sharing their part of the story but I am also hopeful that this whole ordeal will actually result in positive change with regard to investigation of issues with the VO program. Tonya has intimated such is on the way with a task force forming regarding VO removal.

I'm not personally optimistic for positive change especially given that the RVC still has his position and Michael does not and will likely not be reinstated anytime soon, since I consider what the RVC did to be a far greater violation of what I would consider appropriate policy than anything Michael did.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Totally missed your comment, I think a bump of that thread is on order with people FAQ requesting it.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think a separate thread in the rules forum covering the issue is a good idea.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is directly from Tonya, "The only items covered by the NDA are Paizo business operations, as sometimes venture-officers have knowledge of upcoming activities and products before their information is released to the general public. At no time have I meant to imply that venture-officers may not speak their minds; barring extraordinary circumstances like systemic or egregious breaking of community guidelines, we do not take action against those who do so. There are many posts on the boards where officers speak their minds and we have left them for public consumption. This thread received the moderation it did because I was out of town working UK Games Expo and unable to comment on the situation. We do not talk about disciplinary actions or investigations to protect the privacy of those involved and the sensitive nature of the investigations, not because it is against the NDA." (emphasis mine.)

I'm really not trying to make every thread about the NDA, but Tonya has made very clear what the NDA you are under does and not cover.

Beyond that, the amount of secrecy people think is warranted around Paizo organized play is frankly appalling, the adage, the cover-up is worse than the crime seems pretty appropriate regarding all of this. I mean seriously, what is everyone so afraid of.

I understand taking things seriously, but the amount of volunteers I see clam up when certain topics that are clearly not Paizo business related come up you'd think you were all under some sort of gag order.

The Exchange

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is definitely interesting, I can't find anything in the CRB that states the item level of a computer, but this blog post from Owen from a month before the game was released states, "[i]n general, a computer has an item level equal to double its tier." http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5ljy4&page=3?Override-All-Secur ity-Computers-and-Hacking

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Auke Teeninga wrote:
My question regarding your PFS play was not an attack. It's just that your posts seem very theoretical. Maybe you are just very good in filtering out your own personal experiences, but you don't seem connected to this campaign.

How did my post about replay not ruining other organized play campaigns seem theoretical to you?

Beyond that, in what way do I not seem very connected to this campaign, was it based on my last post, is it based on the amount of GM stars I have? Is it based on the fact that I'm posting in a thread about this campaign at 3 am my time. I'm not sure what you are basing your assertion on.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
It is unfortunate that his dismissal lies under NDA, because that makes people assume the very worst of him, and I earnestly do not believe that he deserves that.

Definitely not trying to call you out here, but I hope if everyone gained anything from that locked thread it was the knowledge that information regarding the dismissal was not covered by any NDA and is instead not being disclosed because of privacy reasons.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Auke Teeninga wrote:
Where did I mention your play history?

When you questioned whether I even play PFS. I play PFS plenty, in fact, I probably play PFS more than you, prove me wrong.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Auke Teeninga wrote:
It is just that IMHO many scenarios are about the story not the combats and having played through them once, there's not much point to playing them again. A (murder) mystery isn't as much fun if there's players that knew who did it already.

Which is a fine opinion to have, but is unresponsive to the point I was trying to make which was that the first point in Walter's thread was not incontrovertible fact.

Auke Teeninga wrote:
Well, participation is one, and wow, I REALLY find your post offensive. My title is not a muzzle, I am still allowed to speak my mind thank you very much.

And how do you know my play history, apparently looking at someone's play history is something that gets you removed from your position as a VO, or so I've been told.

Based on what I've been told by other VOs they don't view their ability to speak freely the same way, but even still you're supposed to be acting as an ambassador for Pathfinder Society, ridiculing someone's stance based on how much they've played is the exact opposite of that. And, I say again, how would you have any idea how much I've played Pathfinder, all you know, authoritatively anyway is how much I've GM'd PFS, anything else and I would question whether you also should be removed from your position as Michael Eshleman has been for viewing someone's play history without authorization.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Auke Teeninga wrote:
Have you actually ever played PFS?

Yes, and I've been playing various organized play campaigns for over 20 years now, but even if I hadn't, I fail to see how that's relevant to the argument that replay has ruined other organized play campaigns. The argument I was responding to was not about what affect replay has had on PFS. It was an argument about what effect replay has had on other campaigns means we shouldn't have it in PFS, something I have ample experience in.

Frankly, I find your comment offense and unbecoming of someone who is supposed to represent PFS on a regional level. Based on some of the information I've read in recent days, I am questioning more and more what the actual criteria are that Paizo uses to pick their RVCs. Some appear to be awesome in their community interactions, and others, based on what I've seen, not so much.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Phantom of Truth wrote:
Doonamis: I'm rarely inclined to side with those who accuse the forum's moderators of censorship - I've heard that rhetoric countless times before, and it never ends well for people like me.

I would encourage you to read the Locked "deleting threads is not forum management" thread. It has a lot of good information in it about the situation but does skate around a few issues to avoid getting deleted.

Phantom of Truth wrote:
You're not making a very good case for yourself with rumor-mongering and accusations, or by directing users to external sites where you can throw around whatever wild claims you please.

Only if those external threads aren't moderated, the difference between them and here is not that they aren't moderated it's that they aren't moderated by Paizo itself who obviously has a conflict of interest in this situation which causes people to tread lightly when interacting on their own forums (and the main thread regarding the issue is locked here but not external sites.) Although it looks like the main Reddit thread has also been locked.

Not for nothing but I'm on the organized play discord which is moderated by online venture officers and I've had people PM me privately saying that they agree with me regarding issues I brought up in that other thread but don't feel comfortable commenting publicly because of their involvement as a venture officer in organized play.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:

So... this thread, again? Golly, has it been that long?

For anyone catching up (or keeping score), here's my (and everyone elses) thoughts on replay for the last 6 years.

Where do I sit on replay now, with PFSv2 coming out with PF2?

One word: Meh.

Considering all the things that got expressed as incontrovertible fact in those threads that were exposed in this thread as not incontrovertible fact, I'd say that this thread served a purpose that the rest of those threads did not meet. Beyond that, since its the same 6-7 people posting against replay in all those threads, calling it you and everyone's else's thoughts on the matter doesn't really hold much weight to me, especially since each one of those threads contains a new person arguing for replay only to be shot down by the same 6-7 people using arguments that aren't incontrovertible.

We've been through all of that in this thread already.

Heck even the first point in the thread you linked contained a statement for which I can't find any basis beyond literally one campaign which had other issues, yet you state it as if its been tried in other campaigns, plural, with a parade of horrible results.

"Replay has been tried in other Organized Play Campaigns (OPCs) and has led to more problems than solutions. People have "farmed" scenarios and spoiled fun for new players, which inhibits growth and the overall health of an OPC. "

I'd encourage you to go back and read this thread to get some of the stuff that was hashed out in this thread that I have looked and saw nary a peep of in the other threads, mostly just your above comment accepted as fact when it is anything but.

So at the end of the day, this thread served a pretty useful purpose, at least to me, namely it hopefully disabused people of the notion that replay has to be a campaign killer. The fact of the matter is the most popular OP campaign in many regions going right now has far more replay than PFS has ever had.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thurston Hillman wrote:

But seriously: BUY OUR STUFF! (Thursty gotta eat)

:)

Based on my experience at PaizoCon, I'm not convinced that you actually need anything besides alcohol to sustain you, or perhaps foodstuffs soaked in alcohol.

But seriously, thanks for everything you do, especially the leaking of map information to feed my growing flip-mat habit and the <super secret spoiler of pain>

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I can run a Starfinder scenario, I think the obvious choice is SFS 1-16 as its the latest repeatable and will be released in June, so it won't be played out by Gen Con.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

While I'm not really all that perturbed with the number of OP online conventions, what I am a fair bit perturbed by is the promise of the Regional Support Program for the online region back in November of 2017 and the fact that it is not yet available. See http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lk8k?Extra-Life-New-Regions-and-Vo lunteer-Recognition

Back then it was stated that regarding the RSP for online "[w]e are currently fleshing out the details and will post them in the next few weeks." It has now been seven months.

I think that extending the RSP to online events beyond the nine which are authorized for convention support a year would do a lot to alleviate some of the concerns with the number of convention events in the online region.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No worries, appreciate the reply.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Athos710 wrote:

For other GMs, I'm kicking ideas around on how to handle the Preparation missions before Part 1 starts. Do you think 3x5 cards would be a good way to approach it? One side has a pic of the Venture Captain (or Faction leader) and the name of the task. Back side has the benefits for easy, medium, and hard, with one of them marked based on their rolls as I hand it to the players.

Alternative is a handout, with everything on it. Would have to hold until the end of Preparation so they couldn't metagame the tasks.

I'm personally going to prepare individual notes for each one, typed out since what they get is kind of weird easy, medium, hard, I'd like to rewrite the text to personalize it for how well they succeeded.

Putting them on notecards is a good idea though.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Richard Lowe wrote:
I suspect that Shaudius is likely closest, he's a Starfinder GMing machine! :)

Currently sitting at 57 credits. Was hoping to hit 3 novas by Origins, but the game I thought I scheduled for tonight I actually did not schedule so I'll likely be a game short.

Looking like based on my known schedule, I will GM my 150th game at Super MagFest in early January 2019. Whether that will make me first, hard to say, I see a lot of other 2 nova people on these boards, but don't have a way to know if they're at 30 games or close to 3 novas like me.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Vertasi wrote:
I'm good with that, as long as Paizo continues to do like they did with this pair of adventures, where if at least ONE of your characters plays the scenario, they ALL get the benefit. of course, for story continuity of the character, i'd rather the same character play each connected part, but if that is not possible, then at least i can still gain the benefit.

They likely won't do that for everything but some things may work like that.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Delbert Collins II wrote:


I'm not sure if your smarter than I am (highly likely) or just obstinate.
I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand. I'll have to wait for Tonya to rule if disciplinary action is covered or not.

If someone claims they have been sexually harassed - Paizo is not going to stop them from coming forward. That is significantly different than disclosing why someone was removed from a position.

If Jane Doe accuses John Doe of sexual harassment publicly, Paizo is not going to stand in her way or attempt to silence people with the NDA. That is not going to be blocked using the NDA.

None of this is consistent with how you said you would handle a volunteer being removed from a con. You said you view the NDA as prohibiting you from commenting on if someone was removed from a con. So, lets say Venture-Captain John Doe sexually assaulted someone at DragonCon, and was removed from the con. Is your assertion really that you could not tell people that John Doe was removed from DragonCon for sexual harassment because its covered by the NDA, because that is basically what you said.

Delbert Collins II wrote:
But how Paizo deals with a disciplinary situation is a private matter - potentially a legal matter and not open to public disclosure as it could have HIPPA information, or other private information which Paizo is not legally able to disclose.

Which is completely different than saying such a thing is covered by the OPF NDA.

And it goes beyond that, because whether or not Paizo chooses to disclose this information because of privacy concerns, volunteers have apparently been told that they cannot disclose this information, apparently under threat of NDA violation, not because they are being advised that it may expose them to liability for privacy breach.

Paizo can do and say whatever they want in this situation (I've expressed that I think going with the privacy route without a solid basis isn't the way I would go), but the problem lies with what they've told other people they can and cannot say and why.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Delbert Collins II wrote:


I disagree and feel that you are VERY UNFAIRLY taking her comments out of context to support your argument. That thread has to do with people reporting various forms of harassment not disciplinary actions taken within the organization.

You literally said that you didn't think you could comment on someone being removed from a con because it would be protected by NDA. This is what you said, "I know Aaron wasn't banned at any events, while people may not have desired his presence he was never officially banned from any event to my knowledge. If he was I wouldn't be able to say that because it would be covered by NDA." Please tell me how that situation is any different than what Tonya was talking about regarding PaizoCon.

Based on this back and forth, I think the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you have in fact been trying to suppress volunteer speech regarding this matter through the application of the NDA.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Delbert Collins II wrote:
I disagree but I'm not a lawyer and am waiting on word from Tonya who is seeking an answer to your question.

If this is true than Tonya's statement that "Paizo and the Organized Play Foundation use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect non-public business information and trade secrets. Paizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events." Actually means nothing and appears to simply be a smokescreen to assuage people regarding a sexual harassment allegation.

In no way is the discipline of an OP volunteer non-public business information or a trade secret versus a personal event, especially when its being used to supress the speech of a person whose personal event it actually is. If that's true than literally anything that Paizo does can be considered non-public business information. Heck, even the 'personal event' at issue, since it happened at PaizoCon and Paizo worked with the hotel on the issue.

The last part of Tonya's statement was, "[that any of our community feels pressured to silence by their NDA upsets me greatly." People have alleged you are putting this pressure on them, and appear to perhaps to be doing so with at least Tonya's acquiescence.

Keep in mind that you literally said that if a VO was removed from a con you could not comment on it because you believed it was covered by an NDA, that is literally what people who didn't feel like they could talk about the sexual harassment at PaizoCon said.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Delbert Collins II wrote:
If he was I wouldn't be able to say that because it would be covered by NDA.

No, no it would not. Again, I quote Tonya, "Paizo and the Organized Play Foundation use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect non-public business information and trade secrets. Paizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events."

There have been allegations made that you have attempted to use the NDA to suppress volunteer speech regarding the firing of Michael Eshleman. All I'm asking for is a simple yes or no answer, have you informed people that your communications with them regarding the firing of Michael Eshleman are covered by an NDA as alleged.

Delbert Collins II wrote:
In addition, I do NOT have the independent authority to hire and fire anyone. While I may advise and consent that authority ultimately lies with the OPC and I have nothing but the utmost respect for her ability to see the big picture and make very difficult decisions based on what she feels is in the best interest of the community at large.

Michael Eshleman himself has alleged that you fired him in his Paizo profile "May 2, 2018 I was fired from my venture officer position by Regional Venture-Coordinator Del Collins." Is it your assertion that this decision actually came from Tonya and that you effectuated it or is it instead your assertion that you did the firing but that Tonya acquiesced in the decision.

Michael Eshleman does not seem to be overly concerned with the knowledge that he was fired getting out. Is it your assertion that Michael Eshleman cannot discuss this issue, if so what is the basis for this assertion. Is it because you believe it be covered by an NDA? If so under what basis does an NDA that, again, I quote Tonya, "aizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events" apply.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Since you've decided to comment on this thread maybe you can answer one of the questions you didn't address.

Have you used the OPF NDA to prevent people involed from discussing the issue surrounding the removal of Michael Eshleman?

Under what theory can you not comment on this issue.

I ask this especially given the fact that you have felt comfortable correcting the record on a DragonCon issue regarding one of the parties involved in this.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Apparently some posters are not familiar with Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. I suspect a quick read of its 26 words will dispel some notions about what Paizo's liability is regarding postings on their boards.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LoPan666 wrote:
The VOs with whom I have communicated indicated that all of their communications with the RVC in question have been marked as being subject to NDA, so they are not allowed to discuss them, and that they have not heard from Tonya at all.

This right here is the ultimate problem, if true. Abuse of NDA. The fact that Tonya wasn't involved gives me a bit of hope that this doesn't go all the way to the top but I'm pretty disappointed that someone thinks they can abuse the OP NDA in this manner and get away with it.

For reference, "Paizo and the Organized Play Foundation use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect non-public business information and trade secrets. Paizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events." http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uoph?Open-Letter-From-Paizo-CEO-Lisa-Stevens#3

If I was Tonya I would fire the RVC in question immediately if they were actually trying to use the NDA in such a manner.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Slyme wrote:
Depending on the reasons behind someone being let go, discussing the details could open the person disclosing the details to libel/slander lawsuits.

Sure but libel/slander lawesuits aren't restricted to the type of relationship we're talking about here and in order to be subject to those sort of tortious actions the statements made have to be false.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Davor Firetusk wrote:
Shadius pleas see my earlier post, I have no affiliation with multinational corporations, or the private sector at all and I have been restricted to similarly vague responses based on privacy rules. The rules may be less strict as well, and there might be more explanation, but the absence of more detail is not evidence of a poor response

While there may be privacy rules at play with regard to the sharing of information obtained during the course of government or other public sector business (this usually involves the sharing of commercial confidential information or personally identifiable information, generally many of these restrictions on the latter are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974), these restrictions do not generally apply to privately held companies unless specifically covered by some other restriction (like HIPAA.)

A lot of companies will refuse to release information regarding firing decisions/former employees but unless there is a specific law in Washington state I am unaware of there is no specific law that prohibits such sharing.

It is also important to note that many of the laws that exist regarding this matter generally apply to the employee/employer relationship, this Paizo has stated again and again is not part of the volunteer nature of organized play (nor will they ever for obvious reasons). I don't know enough about Washington state law as to whether these laws would extend to independent contractors.

Like I said before, Paizo is free to share or not share what they like, but I really hope they don't stick to the privacy excuse, which does not likely appear to be applicable in this situation.

Heck, even if we got a statement that was simply, "It is Paizo's policy to not comment on the removal of Venture-Officers from the Organized Play Program" its better than something that isn't likely true "We can't comment on the removal of Venture-Officers from the Organized Play Program because of Privacy concerns."

The Exchange ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Shaudius wrote:
...do we think we've ever get a formal response on any of this if someone didn't raise a stink publicly about it? Likely not. But that's the tact some people appear to want to take, and its not how you effectuate change.

Depending on what you mean by a ”formal” response, you’re not likely to get one anyway. If the action taken by the RVC was disciplinary in nature as it appears it may have been, no one, not even Tonya is going to divulge the specifics of what happened. Assuming that she was aware of the issues prior to any action being taken (which would be typical) I expect her official comment once she returns from the convention that has her tied up this weekend will be something to the effect of “I am aware of the situation in question. I have no comment other than to say appropriate action was take. I will not be discussing the details of the situation as it pertains to the privacy of those involved.”

Even in the unlikely case that she does review the situation and determines that the RVC demonstrated poor judgement, she’s still not going to publish it publicly. She’ll take appropriate action in private and well move on with little to no public commentary.

That is basically the worst possible response someone could possibly give to a situation like this. When you have numerous people in a region clamoring for a justification for the removal of something they all apparently deeply respect and admire.

Beyond that, best I can tell based on responses from at least some of those involved, they are perfectly willing to talk but cannot because of the threat of an NDA, so when you say privacy of those involved, I can only surmise it is the privacy of one specific individual. I really hope that isn't the actual response Paizo chooses to go with.

People aren't dumb, they can read through corporate speak and while it may be fine for a huge multinational corporation that is ultimately removed from the direct brunt of criticism, its not so good when literally dealing with a small community whose continued patronage you rely on for your direct livelihood.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Its heartening to hear from VOs that my fears regarding anti-disparagement are likely overblown.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not getting that error when I click on 'Report a Problem' for PaizoCon events, it might be your system. I get an e-mail pop to e-mail pfsreportingerrors@paizo.com

As far as the parenthetical (or not) is concerned, it looks like I currently have 5 of 6 tables I ran reported, I'm not sure if its something to worry about yet, but it would be nice to know if PaizoCon has been completely reported to know if or when we should start bugging people about missing tables.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TimD wrote:
This is also where the "praise in public / criticize in private" aspect falls through as "trust us, it's being handled" only works for so long as things pile up and volunteers find other things to do with their time / resources.

It falls through because its an inappropriate adage for the context. The adage is primarily about management and how they should respond when their subordinates act in a manner that they do not agree with, its the idea that public shaming is not a motivational tool.

In this context, however, the subordinate in question has already been dismissed, there's no need to worry about their motivation because they are no longer part of your team. Now there may be other reasons to keep the issue private, but its not because of the 'praise in public, criticize in private' adage.

I've also seen this adage used as a justification by at least one VO as to why they don't openly criticize Paizo, I think that's equally troubling. Private comments are much easier to ignore and way less likely to be acted upon.

Lets take the example that spurred the thread deletion that led to this thread, do we think we've ever get a formal response on any of this if someone didn't raise a stink publicly about it? Likely not. But that's the tact some people appear to want to take, and its not how you effectuate change.

It also makes me think that perhaps Paizo has some sort of anti-disparagement clause in their NDA and that is what people are actually saying when they say "I can't comment because of the NDA." Which, if true, is also pretty troubling.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I mean the easiest solution is to make the boxes the same as the fame, xp, and credits sections and just have the gm fill out the center portion and leave starting and ending for the pc but it still relies on the gm filling that part out because otherwise there's no way for the player to know the factions for which they earned rep outside of their slotted one.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The process being referred to here is clearly the first part "Determine how much Fame the character earned over the course of the scenario. A character can typically earn a maximum of 2 Fame per scenario; 1 Fame for each success condition completed."

To read otherwise to not read the phrase 'update the field' with any meaning, +2 is not an updated field value, it may be a field in and of itself but what you have placed in this box is not an updated field.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Method 1: Player writes current reputation to left of bar. GM or player writes new total to right of bar.

That's player writing W and GM writing X, which is what the guide says to do.

So Method 1 is correct per the guide.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Why do you want GMs doing that part?

Because only the GM knows the reputation gained, so the same reason I want the GM doing the XP, fame, and credits sections on the right.

While the 2 reputation in your own faction are tied to the fame (so far), the additional rep for other factions have different success conditions which are sometimes, but not always, tied to succeeding at the primary or secondary success condition and sometimes tied to something completely different.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Is there anything else you would change about the current Chronicle layout?

I think the rep section needs to be changed to 3 boxes with the GM filling out the middle box with the reputation earned similar to how XP and gold are handled. Other than that I think its fine, personally.

I think the reputation at the bottom works fine, people just haven't read the guide I feel like its spelled out how its done there but labeling the boxes on the chronicle sheet or moving to three boxes and shading the third and saying rep earned would work. I'm not sure how best to lay that out.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think 3 is fine because I can't imagine a scenario will have more than 2 faction tags, which means at most you will be gaining reputation for 3 factions, I think people need understand the fact that they won't be able to see their current reputation with every single faction on every chronicle and will have to go back in time to see the last chronicle they earned reputation for a given faction if their current mission has an additional faction reputation.

The Exchange ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Method 1 is the correct method as per the guide, if you look at page 18 of the guide these boxes are marked W and X to which it says "Each player should also list the factions for which her character earned Reputation during the adventure (V) and her current Reputation with those factions (W)."

And furthermore, "Determine how much Fame the character earned over the course of the scenario. A character can typically earn a maximum of 2 Fame per scenario; 1 Fame for each success condition completed. Enter the number of Fame earned in the shaded Fame Gained field (L) and initial the adjacent box. Repeat this process for the character’s Reputation and update the field for the appropriate faction (X)."

I agree that most GMs do not do it correctly, but the guide makes it pretty clear how it is supposed to go.

1 to 50 of 616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>