How Often do they update the Additional Resources guide?

[Ragoz]

It doesn't protect everyone well enough in my example. It is very simple to just set a time limit in the guide so everyone can see it and understand "Rules are rules." rather than "My GM is such a jerk not letting me use this character. They made this change 3 years ago but I haven't played PFS how was I supposed to know?"

To me the player is clearly in the wrong here. He is still going to think the GM is the one in the wrong not letting him use the character. Rules exist so people don't have to get mad at each-other when a disagreement would occur.

[KingOfAnything]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Yes, but if someone goes "Well, so and so didn't write ID' on my sheet, so *I* didn't know I had to fix it" then it does become my responsbility as a GM, because they will look at who signed off on the chronicle, and then it'll fall back into my lap.

You are putting wayyy too much stress on yourself.

Marking a chronicle as "ID" is to inform the next GM that the player was made aware that a change is necessary, but did not have time to correct it. If you see "ID", ask what the change was, and make sure it was implemented. If it wasn't implemented, (and reasonable time has passed), they can't play that character. If it is the same convention, they can still play, but mark the chronicle you give them as "ID" to let their next GM know.

Overall, take it case by case. Be generous, yet firm.

[shaventalz]

Tallow wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

EXCEPT!

How is a GM supposed to know that IN ADDITION to prepping scenarios, making sure they get to the convention, etc, etc, etc?

It makes no sense and it smacks of a certain tier of elitism to assume that a GM has an instant neural download of all new errata/corrections.

Some GMs do not have access to the 'Net on a regular basis *to begin with* and to presume such is detrimental to the community as a whole.

ie, for example, there was discussion about the Jingasa. But if I didn't have the level of connection to know about that discussion, then when someone played at my table, I as a GM may not know about that 'correction' until weeks or months after the table is run.

Do we have to then retroactively assign damage/character death/etc because we as GMs have made a 'good faith' effort to keep up on the ruleset, and were impacted by the blitzratta as much as everyone else?

I think this clause isn't to put the onus on the GM, but rather to protect the player against strict GMs.

I was GM'ing a high level table during the special at Gen Con Friday Night (the year we had 2 specials, so I think 2015?) and a table of level 11's sat down. Two of which had favored class bonuses that got nerfed on the Wednesday immediately before Gen Con in the Advanced Races Errata. I only knew about it because another VO drew my attention to it, and so I downloaded it to my phone and looked it over.

I brought it to the person's attention, but told them I wasn't going to hold them to it because that wasn't fair.

That's what this clause is doing. It isn't requiring notes on chronicle sheets or it invalidates characters simply because a GM wasn't up to date on changes.

I would also read this the same way.

The clause, as written, only deals with whether the player has to update the PC immediately. This protects players from strict GMs that have better access to the AR.

From the GM side... aren't players already supposed to have all their sources in order WITH a copy of the AR? Technically? That would mean that they could just show the GM "yes, it's legal, here's proof, here's how it works." This requirement, already in play, protects the GM from dishonest players.

Both sides are covered.

[Davor Firetusk]

I try not to sweat the AR updates too much. There are plenty of options and characters yet to be played. That said I got very excited when the Starfinder announcement indicated that they would be planning on sanctioning those APs as they came out. I'm probably guilty of over interpreting that statement, but I took that to mean that internally they had identified a process and set of deadlines that could be met with some consistency. I imagined that this would lead to a similar set-up for PFS as well.

In the interest of something constructive, something about John's comment got me thinking. Instead of delaying again for a big update, switching to a regular monthly cutoff might make more sense. We'll update with a good faith to get to everything, but instead of waiting more and more for other products, push through what is available with the understanding that the product that was causing internal sanctioning debate just moves up the priority list for next month.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic and not capitalistic enough, but I would prefer a slight delay in production for 'vetted and authorized on release'?

EDIT: Going to adopt the BNW/Tallow/KoA 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil' approach and go with my gut in the future. Problem Solved?

[shaventalz]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic and not capitalistic enough, but I would prefer a slight delay in production for 'vetted and authorized on release'?

+1

[Tallow]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic and not capitalistic enough, but I would prefer a slight delay in production for 'vetted and authorized on release'?

EDIT: Going to adopt the BNW/Tallow/KoA 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil' approach and go with my gut in the future. Problem Solved?

AR stuff takes so long to get released as is, I think we'd end up with a coup if it got released but you still couldn't use it for a couple weeks.

If a player is legitimately unaware of a change, even if it is 3 years later, I'm going to likely give them a pass that one time. How do I determine if its legitimate? I assume it is until proven otherwise.

But yeah, as a GM don't sweat needing to know everything immediately. You aren't a VO, and so don't have that extra level of expectation that you will be keeping yourself current.

[KingOfAnything]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

EDIT: Going to adopt the BNW/Tallow/KoA 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil' approach and go with my gut in the future. Problem Solved?

To be clear, you should not ignore problems. You should keep as up to date as you can and still ask for sources, additional resources, and clarifications. Just don't worry that the VOs are going to come after you if you miss something.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

KingOfAnything wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

EDIT: Going to adopt the BNW/Tallow/KoA 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil' approach and go with my gut in the future. Problem Solved?

To be clear, you should not ignore problems. You should keep as up to date as you can and still ask for sources, additional resources, and clarifications. Just don't worry that the VOs are going to come after you if you miss something.

If I don't know a thing is a problem, and I've made reasonable effort to remain informed, then if I don't catch a thing it's not a problem, in other words?

[KingOfAnything]

Are you knowingly violating any rules?

[Wei Ji the Learner]

KingOfAnything wrote:

Are you knowingly violating any rules?

Exactly.

EDIT: In case there's confusion, this was my attempt at a witty one-word response essentially compiling 'Do what you can with what you know, and be fair and respectful to your players while doing so. Don't cheat for them.'

[ZenithTN]

John Compton wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

If updating Additional Resources were a priority:

Vetting teams would receive product well in advance of product release.
Vetting teams would finish the process in advance of product release.
And, AR would be updated on day of product release.

The timely updating of Additional Resources is clearly not a Paizo priority. I guess they don't realize (yet) the effect it has on revenue. Or perhaps revenue has fallen, and they've misidentified the fix as More Product! instead of more quality support for the product you already have?

I'll put my efforts where my mouth is on this too... I'm a VA, 4.99 star GM and experienced player. I've signed a NDA. Send me a preview when you send it off to the printer, at least two weeks before release date, starting with the next product to go to printer. I'll review product for you, sending my final report prior to release date, for the price of one hard copy of every product I review.
Get four-to-six folks like me, you're out maybe $300 for a fat hardback, $90 for six copies of a splat book, plus shipping, but we'll get AR back in line. PFS Leadership can compile the six opinions... send out last minute queries on contentious subjects, make the final calls, spiffy up the formatting and send it off to the Web team. Say it takes me two hours to review & write up a splat book, and I net a $15 booklet for my labor & expertise. That's WELL below my vocational rate. I consider it a bargain for Paizo.

Hi Harold,

A robust team of volunteers helps Linda and me vet new products with Pathfinder Society in mind. They receive the product well in advance, they create and observe deadlines to provide us feedback, and they're consistently thorough in their reviews. Much like you've observed, that process then goes through Linda and me, the difference being that we're also reading all of the new rules and including the team's feedback in our assessment. Minus the solid time commitment, it's a good process, and I very much appreciate the help from...

Hi John,

I understand you appreciate the volunteers. I do too. Any vetting of product for AR is better than no vetting of product for AR. This doesn't change the fact that AR updates are unacceptably slow, costing Paizo sales, costing you salary increases, forces VOs/VAs to repeatedly explain and apologize to potential new players, and costing us game store shelf space to the next big thing. It hurts Paizo. Your stepping up to defend the robust volunteers at least tells me that you acknowledge a problem. Thank you.

To fix a problem, after acknowledging a problem exists, one must identify the problem(s). You've spoken for the review team, but stopped short of identifying any problem with the AR review process. I notice you haven't addressed what happens downstream from PFS Leadership. Part of me wants to read that as damning by faint, or absent, praise, or maybe it's out of your area of expertise, but I'll work with what you've given me.

How many is "a robust team"? Is it a sufficient quantity to cover life-events, conventions and plain old burnout? How often is a fresh mind added to this robust team? Is it a lifetime appointment? What level of literacy and game mastery is represented? Do they communicate efficiently among the team and with leadership? I understand the definition of volunteer, but you cannot deny a motivated worker is a better worker. Red Cross volunteers get a t-shirt. Habitat for Humanity volunteers get coffee and donuts. What's the robust compensation for this robust team? I perceive a polite "No thank you" to my offer to join the AR team. Is it because I require even minimal compensation for my effort, while the team actually receives nothing? That's not conducive to best effort. Give them Some Thing tangible - something more than a first draft pdf. Please.

How far in advance is "well in advance"? Is it time to reconsider the definition of "well in advance"? Can the volunteer team receive the product earlier?

"They create and observe deadlines". Deadlines should be mandated by product release, not the volunteers. Or perhaps Leadership isn't holding volunteers accountable? Why are the volunteers creating deadlines? "Observe" is a peculiar word choice too. One can observe a Stop sign while choosing to ignore it. 'Adheres to' or 'Meets deadlines' would be more meaningful goals/praise for this team.

"They're consistently thorough in their reviews." This is empty praise also. It does not speak to quality of results. A batter leading the league in strikeouts may have the biggest backswing in the league - consistently thorough in his swing; he's still not getting base hits. Quality of results trumps quality of effort. Does the PFS Leadership step of the process take too long because we need higher quality work from the Volunteer team?

"It's a good process"... The parts of it you've addressed may be good process. It may need minor tweaks. Or it may be due an overhaul. The reviewer team may need expanding, contraction, compensation, more effective leadership, earlier access to product, or rotation of fresh staff. Release schedule should be driving the deadlines. Leadership may need more time, or higher quality reviews to be fed to them, or more staff for their part. Web team may need more time, easier tools with which to work, or more staff for their part.

Again, thank you for acknowledging a problem with unacceptably slow Additional Resources. Please don't stop there.

[TriOmegaZero]

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

[ZenithTN]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

[B.O.B.Johnson]

I personally wish that the whole AR was DB driven and part of being DB driven, it auto-generated a dated change log, and it is linked to my account so it'd highlight changes that have occurred since the last time I checked it.

So here's the DB structure/workflow:

Table: AdditionalResources_MainSections
Columns:
ID - internal/hidden number used to link various rulebooks to various main sections.
SectionName - the name of a section.

^ Example entry of this table: ID = 1, SectionName = 'Pathfinder Adventure Path'.

Workflow: this table would used to group the rulebooks into logical sections.

---------------------------------------

Table: AdditionalResources_RuleBook
Columns:
ID - internal/hidden number used to link certain tables to this rulebook entry.
SectionID - a linked column that links back to the MainSections table to determine what section this rulebook belongs in.
RulebookName - the name of the rulebook.
RulebookEntry - the HTML formatted text for this rulebook.

^ Example entry of this table: ID 1, SectionID = 1, RulebookName = 'Rise of the Runelords', RulebookEntry = 'Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide Equipment: all equipment on pages 10-11 9except hide shirt and Varisian Idol)...'

Workflow: this table would used to store the current entry for each rulebook.

---------------------------------------

Table: AdditionalResources_ChangeLog
Columns:
ChangeDate - a Date field for when the change occurred.
RulebookID - the ID that refers to the book entry that was updated/changed/added.
OldEntry - the HTML formatted text for the previous entry.
NewEntry - the HTML formatted text for the new entry.

The primary key would be both the RulebookID and the ChangeDate.

Workflow:

Insert DB Trigger: Whenever you add a new entry to the _Rulebook table, the DB trigger would generate a new entry in this table with the current date, the new rulebook's ID, an empty OldEntry value, and then the new text for the NewEntry.
Update DB Trigger: Whenever you add update an entry in the _Rulebook table, the DB trigger would generate a new entry in this table with the current date, the updated rulebook's ID, an OldEntry with the value of what it was before the update, a NewEntry value of what is now.

---------------------------------------

Last Table: AdditionalResources_LastChecked
Columns:
AccountID - the ID to link to each player's Paizo account.
LastCheckedDate - the date when the player's account last visited the Additional Resources page.

Workflow: when the player visits the additional resources page, update this entry, but before doing, highlight any rulebooks entries in red that have been added/changed since the last time the player visited based on the entries in the _ChangeLog table.

---------------------------------------

One last perk about it being DB driven, you could use the BBCode here used for the forum instead of HTML, make it a simple webform that John Compton and other select people have access to. They wouldn't need to know HTML, just the basic BBcode that is commonly used on this forum, and it wouldn't need to wait for the web dev team to update the page.

[Haladir]

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

[shaventalz]

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Being able to see a problem does not mean you're suitable to fix it.

Easy example:
"Hey, that airplane's wing fell off. You need to fix that."
"What, are you volunteering?"
"...I'm a writer."

[shadowhntr7]

As has been suggested in this thread, I have just requested cancellation of my two subscriptions, as well as voting in the poll that was linked. While I intend to still support Paizo, the amount of reprints, errata, extremely situational material, and extremely slow AR updating makes it not worth my time to get every book on release.

I appreciate the time people put in to review the books, but these delays are too often and too long in my opinion.

[Phantom of Truth]

shaventalz wrote:

Being able to see a problem does not mean you're suitable to fix it.

Easy example:
"Hey, that airplane's wing fell off. You need to fix that."
"What, are you volunteering?"
"...I'm a writer."

In our defense, we mistook him for an aerospace engineer after he made a long list of criticisms and suggestions about how the (very much still-attached) wing needed to be improved.

[Redelia]

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Sometimes people have other good reasons for not helping in a particular way. I could never be a VC/VL/VA because I refuse to have an alias on Paizo's forums with my real world name.

[Gisher]

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Are you actually suggesting that volunteering to assist an organization is a moral prerequisite for criticizing that organization? Never mind. I reread your post, and I can see that you are. That is simply ridiculous.

[Blake's Tiger]

Redelia wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Sometimes people have other good reasons for not helping in a particular way. I could never be a VC/VL/VA because I refuse to have an alias on Paizo's forums with my real world name.

He doesn't expand upon why he declined, so I'll have to work with what he's given us: he declined because he's not being incentivized.

[plaidwandering]

These things have also seriously affected my purchasing, it dropped like a rock after 2015.

[Blake's Tiger]

Gisher wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Are you actually suggesting that volunteering to assist an organization is a moral prerequisite for criticizing that organization? Never mind. I reread your post, and I can see that you are.

In his previous post, he requested to do the task for incentives, and then criticized John for not taking him up on the offer. So for this particular person, it's not simply being challenged to volunteer because he criticized.

He already offered himself up to fix the problem he sees, for $15 for 2 hours work (his estimate). He could help fix the problem at no recompense, but he declined that offer.

Your assessment would be more accurate if he had only criticized the process and not already offered to help (for incentivization and complete restructuring with him in charge).

[Gisher]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Are you actually suggesting that volunteering to assist an organization is a moral prerequisite for criticizing that organization? Never mind. I reread your post, and I can see that you are.

In his previous post, he requested to do the task for incentives, and then criticized John for not taking him up on the offer. So for this particular person, it's not simply being challenged to volunteer because he criticized.

He already offered himself up to fix the problem he sees, for $15 for 2 hours work (his estimate). He could help fix the problem at no recompense, but he declined that offer.

Your assessment would be more accurate if he had only criticized the process and not already offered to help (for incentivization and complete restructuring with him in charge).

Now you have me completely baffled. Let me see if I can make sense of this.

- Alan would be willing to work at an organization if they made it financially worth his while. He has a job, kids, etc., so he would not be willing to volunteer his time there.

- Barbara would not be willing to work at that organization even if they made it financially worth her while. She has a job, kids, etc., so she would not be willing to volunteer her time there.

- Colin would be willing to work at an organization if they made it financially worth his while. He has some free time, and he would be willing to volunteer his time there.

- Deirdre would not be willing to work at that organization even if they made it financially worth her while. She has some free time, and she would be willing to volunteer his time there.

Let's assume that all four of these people posted the exact same criticism of the organization.

If I understand you, it would be equally fine with you that Colin and Deirdre posted that criticism, less acceptable for Barbara, and unacceptable for Alan to do so. Do I have that right?

[Kalindlara]

You act like he's somehow being silenced or censored. Nobody said anything about "unacceptable" except you.

He made his criticisms (you'll notice that the post is still there), was offered a position in which he could potentially have some influence, and turned it down. Based on this, his perceived commitment to these changes is undermined. Whether you agree with that or not, it shouldn't be terribly surprising.

Nobody said he couldn't have his opinion, or that he couldn't voice it. People just aren't treating him as an authority on this matter.

[BigNorseWolf]

Kalindlara wrote:

He made his criticisms (you'll notice that the post is still there), was offered a position in which he could potentially have some influence, and turned it down. Based on this, his perceived commitment to these changes is undermined. Whether you agree with that or not, it shouldn't be terribly surprising.

Putting more people there doesn't seem to be effective. That doesn't look like the limiting reagent.

[Kalindlara]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Putting more people there doesn't seem to be effective. That doesn't look like the limiting reagent.

It's not necessarily about "more". The people making the decisions bring their own viewpoints and qualities to the process. Were Mr. Erwin part of that team, the results would be more likely to represent his views. Since he isn't, they probably won't.

[Hmm]

May I remind everyone that Harold is a volunteer? He's a Venture Agent, which means he does a ton of organizing. Not everyone wants the workload that you deal with as a Venture Lieutenant, and not all Venture Lieutenants review new materials for inclusion in the AR.

I'm a VL, but I don't serve on that committee for a variety of reasons:

1) Busy with a project of my own, overhauling how-to guides for PBP.

2) Not enough rules knowledge -- I've seen the folks on that committee. The expertise they have is astounding, and I've only been GMing Pathfinder for two years.

3) It's not where my passion is. Additional Resources updates are awesome, but there are very few things that I rush to A.R. to check for.

_____

Like many on here, I wait until after the A.R. for a certain item comes out to make my PFS purchases.

Hmm

[Blake's Tiger]

Gisher wrote:

Do I have that right?

In short: no.

You're misattributing the critique to his lack of desire to be a VL. I'm Barbara, so I don't begrudge anyone for prioritizing other life commitments over volunteering for a hobbyist organization. The critiques (at least mine) are aimed at the attitude and tone of his posts using irony, rhetoric.

Sentiments I gathered from his second post are that the delays are due to:

1. Lazy, illiterate, inexperienced, unaccountable, incompetent people making up the pool of current volunteers (since I know and am fond of several of them, I may be inordinately incensed, but I'm barely paraphrasing the second post).
2. John not hiring highly skilled people like the poster on the basis of a random post on a random consumer created thread.

Kalindlara wrote:

You act like he's somehow being silenced or censored. Nobody said anything about "unacceptable" except you.

He made his criticisms (you'll notice that the post is still there), was offered a position in which he could potentially have some influence, and turned it down. Based on this, his perceived commitment to these changes is undermined. Whether you agree with that or not, it shouldn't be terribly surprising.

Nobody said he couldn't have his opinion, or that he couldn't voice it. People just aren't treating him as an authority on this matter.

+1

[Nefreet]

I'm just going to go hide this thread now...

[BigNorseWolf]

BLakes tiger wrote:

Sentiments I gathered from his second post are that the delays are due to:

....

3, A web process that takes longer than seems like it should. I can have 6 players entering their own info into a google document (and my degree is in trees), it is really confusing to a lot of people (myself included) that once the additional resources have been decided on by employees that it takes so long to come out.

[Gisher]

Kalindlara wrote:

You act like he's somehow being silenced or censored.

*sigh*

I never said anything remotely close to that. I don't believe that Paizo is censoring the opinions of non-volunteers nor do I think that they are planning on doing so. I was addressing the opinions of individuals who have no power to censor, not the company which is providing this free forum. I thought that the judgements being made were unfair and perplexing, and I spoke up and asked questions. I didn't accuse anyone of trying to censor, silence, or ban.

Kalindlara wrote:

Nobody said anything about "unacceptable" except you.

Nor did I say that anyone did. I was asking Blake's Tiger if that was their position. I really am completely baffled about why a willingness to work for Paizo should somehow imply a greater obligation to volunteer before criticizing the company. I simply don't understand why wanting a paid job is relevant. I was hoping that Blake's Tiger would make corrections to my hypothetical so that I could better understand the rationale.

Kalindlara wrote:

He made his criticisms (you'll notice that the post is still there), was offered a position in which he could potentially have some influence, and turned it down. Based on this, his perceived commitment to these changes is undermined. Whether you agree with that or not, it shouldn't be terribly surprising.

There are lots of reasons why someone might not accept such a position. For example, someone might choose to care for a dying parent rather than take on that position. That certainly means that their commitment to Paizo isn't foremost, but I'm not sure why that should matter when it comes to judging their critiques. In my opinion, when posts started criticizing the person's lack of volunteerism, they moved into Ad Hominem territory. I'm not a fan of that.

Kalindlara wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not, it shouldn't be terribly surprising.

No, I'm not surprised. Sad and a little disappointed, but not really surprised.

Kalindlara wrote:

Nobody said he couldn't have his opinion, or that he couldn't voice it. People just aren't treating him as an authority on this matter.

I have no problem with people criticizing any opinions on their particulars. I'm objecting to criticizing someone's opinions because the person won't take on a volunteer position. In my opinion buying Paizo products and being part of the Pathfinder Society should be more than sufficient commitment to have a person opinions be judged on their own merits.

[captain yesterday]

I dunno, considering the workload they normally have, pile on a hefty helping of rolling out Starfinder Society, a serving of conventions, and I'm a little surprised people aren't cutting them a little more slack.

Do you people want Thursty sleep drunk AND sleep deprived at GenCon! It'd be like Jack Black terrorizing New York City all over again!

Edit: sleep drunk! Lol! Now I have an image of convention goers waking up in the middle of the night to a sleep walking Thursty pillaging the little tiny liquor bottles in the fridge.

[Gisher]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Do I have that right?

In short: no.

You're misattributing the critique to his lack of desire to be a VL. I'm Barbara, so I don't begrudge anyone for prioritizing other life commitments over volunteering for a hobbyist organization. The critiques (at least mine) are aimed at the attitude and tone of his posts using irony, rhetoric.

Thank you, that makes much more sense. I've got no problem with attacking the actual statements made or the way that they were stated.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Sentiments I gathered from his second post are that the delays are due to:

1. Lazy, illiterate, inexperienced, unaccountable, incompetent people making up the pool of current volunteers (since I know and am fond of several of them, I may be inordinately incensed, but I'm barely paraphrasing the second post).
2. John not hiring highly skilled people like the poster on the basis of a random post on a random consumer created thread.

Yes, I agree with you on both points.

[Gisher]

Nefreet wrote:

I'm just going to go hide this thread now...

Me too. It's too much work trying to address responses to things that I didn't actually write.

[Wraith235]

shadowhntr7 wrote:

as well as voting in the poll that was linked.

what and where is said poll ?

[Chess Pwn]

captain yesterday wrote:

I dunno, considering the workload they normally have, pile on a hefty helping of rolling out Starfinder Society, a serving of conventions, and I'm a little surprised people aren't cutting them a little more slack.

Do you people want Thursty sleep drunk AND sleep deprived at GenCon! It'd be like Jack Black terrorizing New York City all over again!

Edit: sleep drunk! Lol! Now I have an image of convention goers waking up in the middle of the night to a sleep walking Thursty pillaging the little tiny liquor bottles in the fridge.

No, what they want is for starfind to not affect their pathfinder. And when they only hired one person and we had the promise that it wouldn't put undo strain on anyone to delay pathfinder, we don't want to be hearing their excuse for not getting PFS out is cause of starfinder load. That's the very thing we said we were worried about when they were using the PFS team as the SFS team that they wouldn't have the man hours to do both well. And I personally agree, I don't want PFS things like AR or CC to be knocked another peg down in priority cause of Starfinder. If starfinder is to blame for the months delay in AR then I want PFS to drop starfinder until they hire more people to actually handle the load. If AR is delayed cause Chris is busy with starfinder stuff then they should hire their own PFS web guy to do the web stuff for PFS.

[captain yesterday]

They do have jobs like project manager listed.

You could always apply if you're qualified, Seattle is very beautiful. :-)

[MadScientistWorking]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

BLakes tiger wrote:

Sentiments I gathered from his second post are that the delays are due to:

....

3, A web process that takes longer than seems like it should. I can have 6 players entering their own info into a google document (and my degree is in trees), it is really confusing to a lot of people (myself included) that once the additional resources have been decided on by employees that it takes so long to come out.

This just reminds me of the company that accidentally deleted their entire customer database doing something along the same lines of "simplicity". Its probably as not as simple as you think it is.

[ZenithTN]

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Questioning is not the same as criticizing.

"How'd you make that sculpture? How much did you pay for the materials? What colors could you make it in? What sizes could you make it in? Could you make it faster if I paid more?" does not equate to "Your sculpture sucks!" And asking these questions does not make me a sculptor.

As for my reasons, as HMM pointed out (thank you), I already serve Paizo in a volunteer capacity. I'm a venture agent with responsibility for two stores, shared with another person. Our region consistently overfills a table on a weeknight, make a table on Saturday nights, add on games on holidays (e.g. 4th of July was a full length module), and special events (e.g. Free RPG Day). I'm active with the local convention. I post & report a majority of our games. I share my resources (maps, minis, battlemats, scenario prep, etc.). We're grooming new GMs. Without a VC. I've served Paizo long enough to log nearly 200 tables GM credit. I have a very large library of hard product (By choice, I'm not much of a .pdf guy). I think I'm doing my part. So when I declined the offer extended by VL Steven, on PFS' terms, you'll just have to forgive me. My plate isn't full, but it's full enough that the remainder of my free time is not free of charge. If you think that decision undermines my passion for, or investment in the subject, you are mistaken.

[Serisan]

Wraith235 wrote:

shadowhntr7 wrote:

as well as voting in the poll that was linked.

what and where is said poll ?

I posted it upthread.

[Tallow]

Harold Ervin wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Questioning is not the same as criticizing.

"How'd you make that sculpture? How much did you pay for the materials? What colors could you make it in? What sizes could you make it in? Could you make it faster if I paid more?" does not equate to "Your sculpture sucks!" And asking these questions does not make me a sculptor.

As for my reasons, as HMM pointed out (thank you), I already serve Paizo in a volunteer capacity. I'm a venture agent with responsibility for two stores, shared with another person. Our region consistently overfills a table on a weeknight, make a table on Saturday nights, add on games on holidays (e.g. 4th of July was a full length module), and special events (e.g. Free RPG Day). I'm active with the local convention. I post & report a majority of our games. I share my resources (maps, minis, battlemats, scenario prep, etc.). We're grooming new GMs. Without a VC. I've served Paizo long enough to log nearly 200 tables GM credit. I have a very large library of hard product (By choice, I'm not much of a .pdf guy). I think I'm doing my part. So when I declined the offer extended by VL Steven, on PFS' terms, you'll just have to forgive me. My plate isn't full, but it's full enough that the remainder of my free time is not free of charge. If you think that decision undermines my passion for, or investment in the subject, you are mistaken.

VLs get a PDF copy of the book they are reviewing. That could be $15 if its a splat book. That should satisfy your getting paid. It sounds like you do enough work to satisfy the VL requirements.

But since they have a full team of volunteers already, it is highly unlikely they would pay you to do the work others do for free.

[Woran]

Redelia wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Sometimes people have other good reasons for not helping in a particular way. I could never be a VC/VL/VA because I refuse to have an alias on Paizo's forums with my real world name.

When I became a VA I had the option to keep my forum alias.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Tineke Bolleman wrote:

Redelia wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Might you be able to take a Venture Lieutenant position? You'd be able to join the content review task force and help make sure the reviews are of the best quality and finished in a timely manner.

Thank you for the offer, but no thank you.

I'm just going to point out that you wrote a very long post criticising the quality and timeliness of work by the staff and volunteers, but when asked to step up and help them out, you said "no."

Sometimes people have other good reasons for not helping in a particular way. I could never be a VC/VL/VA because I refuse to have an alias on Paizo's forums with my real world name.

When I became a VA I had the option to keep my forum alias.

I have intentionally been using my real name for years before I became a VO, it was prompted by the Superstar contest, but I tend to think that it keeps me honest.

Or rather I only write something if I would also tell the person face to face.
Not entirely sure if you can post without using your real name, but my opinion of certain VOs has grown thanks to their forum activity under their real name. I love to name names, but I recall using something pretty critical Lau Bannenberg made for a scenario ... and thus the name stuck.

[BigNorseWolf]

at this point using my real name would be how i'd go incognito...

[Andy Brown]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

at this point using my real name would be how i'd go incognito...

It all depends how you define "real" name :)

[captain yesterday]

Who's to say these aren't my real names.

[Chess Pwn]

captain yesterday wrote:

Who's to say these aren't my real names.

Oh, I thought each Captain was a different person ;)

[captain yesterday]

If you use the second letter of every alias then you have my real name.

Or my Hulu password, i forget which.