Deleting Threads Is Not Community Management

[Leg o' Lamb]

Tallow wrote:

jon dehning wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Pretty sure I've made disparaging comments around here after becoming a VO. The prime ones being "Paizo editing at its finest!" and "We don't play Pathfinder because it's good, we play it because it's popular".

Um.... I''m sure sure I've posted worse.

I know I've posted worse when a VO. And nobody threatened to take my VOship away for those criticisms.

You are/were the poster child for VO crankiness.

[Davor Firetusk]

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

[Tallow]

The lack of ability (or willingness) to communicate based on schedule is something that currently plagues PFS leadership. It is absolutely not ok for there to be no way to handle this type of issue for years or even months.

[eddv]

I can confirm that I literally never consider my VOship when I post anything on these boards.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Tallow wrote:

The lack of ability (or willingness) to communicate based on schedule is something that currently plagues PFS leadership. It is absolutely not ok for there to be no way to handle this type of issue for years or even months.

Having seen and been on the receiving end of 'snap judgements' with 'poor due dilligence' in a different campaign, I'm in the odd position of saying taking some more time to investigate a thing is important.

That being said, having an independent review arm of some sort that *is* under an NDA might not be a bad idea. HOWEVER the individuals involved with that would have to operate at a level of OpSec that arguably is unattainable in Organized Play.

Why an 'independent review arm'?

--If campaign leadership of the OPF is set on a 'tiered umbrella', with VO --> VC --> RVC --> Tonya and one of the links in that chain is faulty, then there is quite literally no good recourse to resolve the issues, because hardly anyone is going to forward self-incriminating cases up the chain of command.

It is *hoped* that everyone is being reasonable and honest, but sometimes one person's 'reasonable and honest' approach is another person's 'pit of corruption'.

EDIT: This is not to imply nor should it be inferred to be an accusation of corruption, but rather a public perception of such.

In the absence of transparency, which is not really a good thing to have in many cases due to the 'witch hunt' mentality of the modern Internet, there needs to be a level of accountability for senior officers, and a recourse that will be able to make itself heard WITHOUT disrupting the campaign.

How on EARTH that would be implemented would be anyone's guess, I'm spitballing here.

[Shaudius]

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 Human Diversion]

Charlotte Halcyon wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Do you mean communicating as a retailer, or communicating about a retailer?

As a retailer / brick-and-mortar store.

When it comes to the RDU area of North Carolina, four stores are affected by the recent events unfolding.

While players and other organizers have been expressing their concerns here and elsewhere, I am just wondering what the best method / point of contact a retailer should employ to also express their concerns.

A wee bit of background; I was a former VO in the Raleigh area, and I quit about a year and 1/2 ago because of the actions and attitude of our regional coordinator.

Paizo's refusal to address this in a way that makes me feel they don't care about their customers/players is hitting the local gaming stores more than you know. I've more or less quit not just Pathfinder Society, but Paizo as a whole over this; I refuse to partake in Pathfinder Society until changes are made. I've also convinced all 6 players of my weekly gaming group to do the same, and I'm cancelling all my Paizo subscriptions as well. I'm not the only one, either, I know of at least a dozen other players who have done the same.

When I quit, I pretty much feel my comments to management were briefly read and discarded, and when I brought that fact up I was more or less told, "oh, we'll see you when your attitude changes."

[Slyme]

Depending on the reasons behind someone being let go, discussing the details could open the person disclosing the details to libel/slander lawsuits.

If you were not directly involved, odds are you have no business knowing the details, no matter how much you like the people who were involved.

[Shifty]

I don't know the details or have an interest in hearing all about them, but if there was a VC or RVC that was just being a perpetual wet blanket, whats to stop people simply going around them or ignoring them?

Our RVC is a pretty decent chap, but he is 600 odd miles away and I have never him face to face, and I wasn't a VO when I was off running my own activities separate to the local Lodge (until I became the VC when the current one went overseas).

Last I checked the RVC doesn't have any magical powers.

[Belafon]

Shifty wrote:

I don't know the details or have an interest in hearing all about them, but if there was a VC or RVC that was just being a perpetual wet blanket, whats to stop people simply going around them or ignoring them?

Last I checked the RVC doesn't have any magical powers.

Solely answering this question, please do not read this as commenting on anything earlier in the thread:

The RVC has to give approval for a local convention to run the current year's Special (9-00). They aren't available for purchase and Tonya won't add them to the downloads of the GMs without RVC approval.

[Richard Moore]

Kevin Willis wrote:

Shifty wrote:

I don't know the details or have an interest in hearing all about them, but if there was a VC or RVC that was just being a perpetual wet blanket, whats to stop people simply going around them or ignoring them?

Last I checked the RVC doesn't have any magical powers.

Solely answering this question, please do not read this as commenting on anything earlier in the thread:

The RVC has to give approval for a local convention to run the current year's Special (9-00). They aren't available for purchase and Tonya won't add them to the downloads of the GMs without RVC approval.

...Except for when she DOES add them, and then the RVC revokes the privilege to play them after the fact.

[Abraham Z.]

Richard Moore wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Shifty wrote:

I don't know the details or have an interest in hearing all about them, but if there was a VC or RVC that was just being a perpetual wet blanket, whats to stop people simply going around them or ignoring them?

Last I checked the RVC doesn't have any magical powers.

Solely answering this question, please do not read this as commenting on anything earlier in the thread:

The RVC has to give approval for a local convention to run the current year's Special (9-00). They aren't available for purchase and Tonya won't add them to the downloads of the GMs without RVC approval.

...Except for when she DOES add them, and then the RVC revokes the privilege to play them after the fact.

Has that happened?

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Abraham Zablocki wrote:

Richard Moore wrote:

...Except for when she DOES add them, and then the RVC revokes the privilege to play them after the fact.

Has that happened?

I have heard quiet talk and grumbles of things happening along these lines in more than one area including my own at certain points in the past few years, with reasons including 'lack of players', 'insufficient GMs', and 'market over-saturation'.

NOT being in the official informational loop, all my information is of uncertain validity and should definitely NOT be treated as fact.

It is also not intended as either libel or slander against hard-working RVC who are attempting to balance things out in a fair fashion and may or may not have the information about the local venue to support said decision process.

[Shaudius]

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.

[Hmm]

So this is an interesting question. Do I consider my VOship when I compose my posts? The answer is... that depends.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I POST THAT I ACTIVELY TAKE OFF THE VO HAT

• When I advertised my boyfriend’s game in Flaxseed recruitment, I typed the words ‘I have taken off my VO hat to make this utterly biased plug for Bret’s game!’

• I also take off the VO Hat when I make suggestions or offer opinions in my region that I don’t want to have interpreted as a VC Gavel or Ruling. Sometimes, I’m not speaking as VC. I’m just speaking as Hilary.

• Do I take off my VO Hat when I criticize Paizo? Nope. That’s the time when I feel it’s most important to leave the hat on. On the other hand, my criticisms tend to be thoughtful. I tell them when they do things right, so I figure they can also hear me when I tell them they missed the boat.

THINGS THAT DO AFFECT MY POSTING

• I don’t want to be one of those people who posts when angry. If I feel emotional about something, I step away from the keyboard and take a bit of time to consider my position. There are times when I let six hours pass, and I decide that yep, I’m still annoyed and it’s time to express that annoyance. But I try to do so in a thoughtful way.

• I am also very cautious of criticizing VOs from other regions. I’ll praise the heck out of them in public if they warrant it. In private though, I’ll talk to them or Tonya if there’s an issue. I know that everyone has different management and communication styles, and that each region has its own culture.

• The culture of the Online region is very transparent and collaborative. Someone once described me as a mutant hybrid of the terminator and a cheerleader because I’m mostly, ‘GO, TEAM!’ and ‘YAY, PLAY-by-POST!’ in my communication style, but I can also get very protective of my region. (I think that protectiveness is really common in the VO corps. We love our players and we love our regions, and we go to bat for them as a result.)

• In my region, if someone wants to do something cool, my first response is usually, ‘Yes, go do that thing! How can I help you?’ But there are times when I have to say no too. The online region has a hard cap on conventions that we can offer, and that means that I have to sometimes tell people that all eight of the conventions that VTT and PBP can offer have already been scheduled this year. So then I explain to them what is going on, and then we look at what we can do to support their project in other ways. Perhaps we can do what they want to do at one of our regular conventions, or as its own event, only without con support. So when I have to say no, I tell them what’s going on and then offer alternatives. But I recognize that other VO’s have constraints that may affect when they can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as well.

• The other way that being a VO will affect my posting is NDA. I want Paizo to keep giving me a slight heads-up when changes are coming. If so, I have to uphold my end of the bargain and honor the NDA I signed. It doesn’t come up often, but it is something that will from time to time affect any VO on the boards.

Hmm

[LoPan666]

Steve Geddes wrote:

LoPan666 wrote:

However, when issues have been escalated up to the top levels of Organized Play Management and a satisfactory solution is not provided, our only recourse is to make a public stink and hope that it has a positive effect for change.

This is not true, you have plenty of options.

Consider what the effect on the community would be if everyone followed this course of action when they are dissatisfied with resolutions (including the people you vehemently disagree with) Almost every topic has passionate people on both sides. Do we really want a community where, if you don’t get the resolution you want in the timeframe you want, the accepted course of action is to bombard the forums and try to “make a public stink”?

I would welcome any other suggestions you might have as to other options. Sara Marie has suggested that I could contact Paizo management and I will keep that in mind for future reference. I was not previously aware that Paizo management had an oversight role on the OPF Foundation and thought that Tonya was the top level of management there. Since you have said I have plenty of other options, I would be interested in hearing them.

Personally, I think that if someone has an issue with Organized Play, this forum should always be an option and I don't have a problem with people posting their concerns here, regardless of how justified others might think they are. I would never discourage someone from considering this as a place to talk about whatever issue they choose because that is the purpose of forums like this. I understand that you think that this could lead to problems in the community, but I think that it is important that we have a place where we can express our grievances and it is also a problem if people don't have an outlet for that. People who don't want to read them can skip those threads. I am not suggesting that anyone "bombard" the forums and I don't think I have done that. I made one post and have since responded to posts made by others. I think that is reasonable. After that thread was locked, I sent a message to our local lodge members to discourage creating new threads on the same topic because I thought it would be counterproductive, but people obviously feel very strongly about the situation.

Just to clarify - I did not write my original post in haste. There has been more than enough time for the issues I have to have been addressed. I resigned my VA position on May 3rd. When I expressed my outrage privately to some the other affected Venture Officers and expressed my desire to inform the public of what I thought were some extremely serious issues I have with Organized Play management, they asked that I refrain until they had a chance to appeal the decisions. I waited four weeks. I don't know about you, but I think that is more than enough time for some progress to be made. 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. While I understand that Tonya is in a very busy time of year, I think that four weeks is more than enough time to at least acknowledge receipt of a request for review of the situation.

[N N 959]

Davor Firetusk wrote:

Apologies if the tone sounds overly blunt, but while your desires as a customer are perfectly reasonable, it is often the case that various privacy laws simply don't care about your desire.

There are no privacy laws violated by a customer posting about another customer, with information that the customer has obtained through direct contact or even hearsay. That may be against forum policy, but is has nothing to do with privacy law. Please do not spread misinformation about how the law works.

Quote:

And the result is the publicly available info is often misleading in important ways. Trust me if you find that frustrating it is even more frustrating to get yelled at by people to be more open, right after your lawyer tells you that you legally can't say anything.

Who is "you"?

Deleting posts of other customers (and in this case it looks like an entire region of customers) who are trying to get a grievance addressed has nothing to do with lawyers and privacy law unless some poster has taken information gathered from Paizo and used it for a purpose it was not intended. As VC's names a published for the purposes of letting people know who the VC's are, there is no privacy law violation. Forum moderation has everything to do with public relations.

My post is about how that moderation affects me as an individual and how it affects my opinion of Paizo. The entire point of a forum is for people to communicate and discuss things related to the subject matter of the forum, especially when it concerns matters of policy. This is a forum for Organized Play. It is thus counter-productive to delete posts that are cries for help.

I posted earlier that the temporary locking of threads was reasonable given the specifics of Tonya being unavailable. But wholesale deletion of threads comes across as heavy-handed and creates a feeling of mistrust. By repeatedly and continually deleting posts that call out bad actors, the moderators reduce, if not eliminate, a communities ability to police itself and to reinforce acceptable behavior. Refusing to allow light to be shed on bad actors empowers that behavior. The very fact that such behavior will be discussed openly is a deterrent to such behavior. That being said, I do agree that the moderators must take precautions against people being falsely accused and mob justice.

At no point have I said that being a moderator is easy. Nor am I trying to call out or blame any specific or individual moderators because I believe this is about Paizo's policy, or lack thereof.

[MadScientistWorking]

Sssstryxsss wrote:

and the many perceived conflicts of interest his decisions cause.

You do realize that given how small the industry and hobby is its impossible to avoid right?

[Shaudius]

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.

[N N 959]

Steve Geddes wrote:

LoPan666 wrote:

However, when issues have been escalated up to the top levels of Organized Play Management and a satisfactory solution is not provided, our only recourse is to make a public stink and hope that it has a positive effect for change.

This is not true, you have plenty of options.

Consider what the effect on the community would be if everyone followed this course of action when they are dissatisfied with resolutions (including the people you vehemently disagree with) Almost every topic has passionate people on both sides. Do we really want a community where, if you don’t get the resolution you want in the timeframe you want, the accepted course of action is to bombard the forums and try to “make a public stink”?

You're presenting a disanalogy. LoPan666 didn't "make a public stink." He posted about a situation which he and apparently many others in his area feel is having a disastrous effect on his gaming community. I find it unfortunate that you mischaracterize that effort as some sort of immature or impetuous act.

How would I feel if customers routinely aired their grievances? I'd feel like there would be a lot fewer shenanigans taking place if those bad actors knew that there would be public scrutiny on such acts. I've been the victim of GM abuse on more than one occasion. Fortunately GM Hmm did a great job in addressing it. But if she hadn't, my alternative might have been to simply quite Organized Play rather than come here looking for redress. It is beyond me why so many in the community systematically attack posters who experience bad situations and then need to talk about it publicly, especially when, in this case, the concern is shared by many.

[CrystalSeas]

N N 959 wrote:

As VC's names a published for the purposes of letting people know who the VC's are, there is no privacy law violation. Forum moderation has everything to do with public relations.

And managing corporate legal risk. There are 50 different US state laws in play here. "Privacy" is not something covered by US federal statues.

Unless you are licensed in all 50 states, your legal advice about what is or is not a violation of privacy law is nonsense. And if you were licensed in any state, you'd already know that individuals do not make final decisions about what is and is not a violation of a law.

That's left up to the courts. "Legal risk management" is all about keeping the company from having to pay legal and court fees to defend their actions, irrespective of whether the suit is decided in their favor.

Keeping the company from being taken to court is far more than "public relations"

[N N 959]

CrystalSeas wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

As VC's names a published for the purposes of letting people know who the VC's are, there is no privacy law violation. Forum moderation has everything to do with public relations.

And managing corporate legal risk. There are 50 different US state laws in play here. "Privacy" is not something covered by US federal statues.

There is no "corporate legal risk" here, you're just spouting off hoping something sounds legitimate. While there is no comprehensive federal law on privacy, there many federal and international level policies that govern privacy law. Most privacy law in the US is regulated by agencies, notably the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. Neverthelss, there are federal privacy laws, most notably things like HIPAA. Privacy lawyers can become certified by taking the CIPP/US,M,IT. These are given at the national level, not the state level.

Quote:

Unless you are licensed in all 50 states, your legal advice about what is or is not a violation of privacy law is nonsense.

You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. Nevermind that I'm not giving legal advice. Anyone can talk about what is law and what is not law. Discussing the law and how it works is not giving legal advice.

Quote:

And if you were licensed in any states, you'd already know that individuals do not make final decisions about what is and is not a violation of a law.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Quote:

Keeping potential legal suits from being filed is far more than "public relations"

There is nothing being discussed here that has anything to do with privacy law. Even the NDA isn't privacy law, it's contract law.

[CrystalSeas]

Contract law or "privacy" law, is an irrelevant distinction. As you yourself point out, there is no federal privacy law that covers this situation.

Community management is still far more than "public relations". It's also making sure that the company does not create legal risks for themselves by leaving comments visible that could create a legal liability.

So it's only common sense to hide those threads and comments that might put them at legal risk.

They aren't saying "we refuse to allow these discussions". This thread is obviously a counter to that claim.

But I'd much rather have them hide comments than spend time and money defending themselves against preventable legal actions. I'd much rather that time and money be spent creating Pathfinder products

[LoPan666]

N N 959 wrote:

LoPan666 didn't "make a public stink."

To be fair, I did and I'm the one who introduced that term into the discussion here. You don't entitle a thread "A Fish Rots from the Head" to be mild and diplomatic.

[N N 959]

LoPan666 wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

LoPan666 didn't "make a public stink."

To be fair, I did and I'm the one who introduced that term into the discussion here. You don't entitle a thread "A Fish Rots from the Head" to be mild and diplomatic.

Well, I did not perceive that post to be a "public stink." I would categorize it as an outcry. From your version of the situation, you have a legitimate concern. In addition, there were possibly a dozen other posters who alleged to be from your region and who offered their support, if not outright confirming the situation.

If your complaints are invalid, then I would like to know why so that I may better deal with a similar situation should it arise (but hopefully never will).

How can Paizo create an open gaming community and then deny a voice those members who are aggrieved by Paizo's administrative decisions? Again, this is not about critiquing the moderators as individuals, but with the moderation policy as a whole.

[Shaudius]

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.

[Kalindlara]

It bears mentioning, of course, that there are other reasons that threads get moderated and posts deleted. Aiming insults and abusive rhetoric at other posters, for example.

[N N 959]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Contract law or "privacy" law, is an irrelevant distinction.

No, it's not an irrelevant distinction. The is a lot of hue and cry about "privacy" violations that has generated a lot of misinformation.

Quote:

As you yourself point out, there is no federal privacy law that covers this situation.

That's because there is no privacy violation in LoPan's rotting fish post. Did someone actually post something that violated some federal or state privacy law? I didn't see it.

Did someone violated something from the NDA? I don't know, I haven't read the NDA, but it's certainly possible.

Quote:

Community management is still far more than "public relations".

Sorry I see that as the same thing.

Quote:

It's also making sure that the company does not create legal risks for themselves by leaving comments visible that could create a legal liability.

Like what? You might want to familiarize yourself with the DCA Section 230.

Quote:

So it's only common sense to hide those threads and comments that might put them at legal risk.

I disagree. 1) I don't see comments that put them at legal risk. 2) It undermines the purpose of having a forum which removes customer agency and may allow cancers within the community to persist, causing far more damage to Piazo's OP community; 3) It's clear from Sara Marie's communications that his has more to do the public relations aspect of these types of discussion, not the legal ramifications.

Quote:

They aren't saying "we refuse to allow these discussions". This thread is obviously a counter to that claim.

Uh...no. We are having a Jack Blackian discussion about the situation they are not allowed to discuss. The actual discussion was locked and entire threads were deleted.

Quote:

But I'd much rather have them hide comments than spend time and money defending themselves against preventable legal actions. I'd much rather that time and money be spent creating Pathfinder products

As I don't see any legal actions that needed to be defended against, I disagree. I also categorically disagree with the attempt to justify this type of moderation by raising the specter of a lawsuit. One could say the same everytime someone mentions another gaming product. Should the mods go around deleting every thread that discusses D&D?

EDIT: Ninja'd on the DCA 230. heh.

[CrystalSeas]

Shaudius wrote:

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.

Hassell v Bird:

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.
As to those issues, we conclude as follows:
(7) Yelp's immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the CDA), 47 United States Code section 230, does not extend to the removal order.

This is a defamation suit, in which the court ruled that Yelp was not protected by CDA.

In fact, even though they weren't a party to the original suit, they had to hire attorneys and appear in court to try to keep from being affected by the Order.

This, of course, has gone to the CA Supreme Court, and Yelp is paying big bucks to try to get the ruling overturned.

Oral arguments were Apr 3, 2018; an Opinion has not yet been issued.

ACLU said: Yelp challenged the order against it, but in June of this year, the California Court of Appeal held that the court could in fact force Yelp to remove the supposedly defamatory speech from its website, without giving it any opportunity to argue that the reviews were accurate or otherwise constitutionally protected.

[N N 959]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Shaudius wrote:

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.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, you're citation is inapposite. Yelp was protected by the CDA from any liability for the defamatory post. They were given a court order to remove the post. Yelp chose to fight that order because their whole model of business is providing reviews. That's not what's going on here. Paizo hasn't been given any court order to remove posts.

The CDA doesn't protect you from court orders.

[CrystalSeas]

N N 959 wrote:

That's not what's going on here. Paizo hasn't been given any court order to remove posts.

The CDA doesn't protect you from court orders.

No one is saying that Paizo has been ordered to remove posts.

The issue is whether it makes financial sense to leave up posts that Paizo believes could involve them in expensive lawsuits and unjust court orders.

[N N 959]

CrystalSeas wrote:

The issue is whether it makes financial sense to leave up posts that Paizo believes could involve them in expensive lawsuits and unjust court orders.

There are no such posts. You are simply trying to allege this as a justification for a misunderstanding of the law. We can use that rationale to say Paizo shouldn't have a forum at all because at any time someone might post something that might get them sued. Paizo should just dissolve the company because someone might choke on a game piece.

EDIT:

Oddly enough, however, the more a website edits and removes posts, the more likely they can be held liable. So in retrospect, your approach may be more necessary than it would be for less moderated sites.

[CrystalSeas]

N N 959 wrote:

There are no such posts.

You have a way of seeing all the hidden posts?

Paizo accepts some potential liabilities. (choking on game pieces)

But it really is up to them to decide which ones to accept and which ones to try to avoid. And none of us posting here have all the information that is needed in order to make that decision.

That's what their corporate lawyers are paid to advise them on. Not random internet posters making unsubstantiated claims about what is and is not legal for them to do.

[N N 959]

CrystalSeas wrote:

That's what their corporate lawyers are paid to advise them on. Not random internet posters making unsubstantiated claims about what is and is not legal for them to do.

Then I encourage Paizo to post an explanation from Paizo's legal counsel which identifies what posters can and cannot talk about based on legal risks.

EDIT: I will concede the defamation risks are a concern on forums, I do agree that the moderators need to be vigilant for these types of posts.

[TwilightKnight]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Abraham Zablocki wrote:

Richard Moore wrote:

...Except for when she DOES add them, and then the RVC revokes the privilege to play them after the fact.

Has that happened?

I have heard quiet talk and grumbles of things happening along these lines in more than one area including my own at certain points in the past few years, with reasons including 'lack of players', 'insufficient GMs', and 'market over-saturation'.

Just to be clear because some may know which region you reside in, only once since the approval process for specials went into effect did I deny it and it was before the event was advertised or convention support was requested. If specials have been cancelled it was not due to lack of approval. Generally speaking, I have a blanket approval in the Great Lakes for the organizers to offer the specials and expect them to discuss their schedule with other organizers if two (or more) event occur in close proximity geographically and/or on the calendar. Only when they cannot come to a fair compromise do I typically get involved.

[Davor Firetusk]

As the originator of some specifically cited posts allow me to clarify. I was never suggesting any kind of privacy violations by customer or anything of the sort. My comments were meant to point out that any level of very nuanced or counter intuitive rules may apply to how a Company responds to issues concerning employees. Employees generally have pretty substantial privacy protections in regards to any investigations. How does the law classify 'volunteers'? I have no idea. Given how wacky employment law can be would I want to defend that 'volunteers' who receive complimentary scenarios should be considered differently then employees. Absolutely not. Simply my post was meant to indicate that for a variety of reasons Paizos public response may be limited for reasons beyond their control.

[LoPan666]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Just to be clear because some may know which region you reside in, only once since the approval process for specials went into effect did I deny it and it was before the event was advertised or convention support was requested. If specials have been cancelled it was not due to lack of approval. Generally speaking, I have a blanket approval in the Great Lakes for the organizers to offer the specials and expect them to discuss their schedule with other organizers if two (or more) event occur in close proximity geographically and/or on the calendar. Only when they cannot come to a fair compromise do I typically get involved.

That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one. Tonya did indicate that she would be looking into establishing more uniform guidelines for approval and I hope these new guidelines are closer to yours than to Del's. Thank you.

[andreww]

Quote:

In my region, if someone wants to do something cool, my first response is usually, ‘Yes, go do that thing! How can I help you?’ But there are times when I have to say no too. The online region has a hard cap on conventions that we can offer, and that means that I have to sometimes tell people that all eight of the conventions that VTT and PBP can offer have already been scheduled this year. So then I explain to them what is going on, and then we look at what we can do to support their project in other ways. Perhaps we can do what they want to do at one of our regular conventions, or as its own event, only without con support. So when I have to say no, I tell them what’s going on and then offer alternatives. But I recognize that other VO’s have constraints that may affect when they can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as well.

I am curious about the bolded part as I haven't seen this publicly mentioned anywhere else before. Is it accurate that online only gets 8 convention slots supported for an entire year? A region which covers the entire globe, with hundreds, maybe thousands of players, gets 8 and they are shared between VTT and PbP?

The UK alone gets more than that and its only one small part of a single region.

[Zach Davis]

So I'm just guessing because I haven't played pbp or vtt, but it may have something to do with how long online conventions last. I have heard that a single scenario can take a month to play so if there are 8 online conventions a year that's at least 2/3 of the year that online convention games are being run. The hard cap means the online VOs aren't in convention mode for the entire year.

[andreww]

Zach Davis wrote:

So I'm just guessing because I haven't played pbp or vtt, but it may have something to do with how long online conventions last. I have heard that a single scenario can take a month to play so if there are 8 online conventions a year that's at least 2/3 of the year that online convention games are being run. The hard cap means the online VOs aren't in convention mode for the entire year.

For pbp yes, VTT games on roll20 or similar often take less time than face to face games.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Just to be clear because some may know which region you reside in, only once since the approval process for specials went into effect did I deny it and it was before the event was advertised or convention support was requested. If specials have been cancelled it was not due to lack of approval. Generally speaking, I have a blanket approval in the Great Lakes for the organizers to offer the specials and expect them to discuss their schedule with other organizers if two (or more) event occur in close proximity geographically and/or on the calendar. Only when they cannot come to a fair compromise do I typically get involved.

Bob, thanks for the clarification on that.

REALLY appreciate the work that you do, not only with Great Lakes RVC, but also in GenCon coordinating (with the other awesome coordinators), which is quite possibly one of the more Herculean tasks in the OPF 'to-do' list.

And the statement above sounds like the ideal that more should strive for, based on the general vibe of different areas and their concerns.

[Steve Geddes]

N N 959 wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

LoPan666 wrote:

However, when issues have been escalated up to the top levels of Organized Play Management and a satisfactory solution is not provided, our only recourse is to make a public stink and hope that it has a positive effect for change.

This is not true, you have plenty of options.

Consider what the effect on the community would be if everyone followed this course of action when they are dissatisfied with resolutions (including the people you vehemently disagree with) Almost every topic has passionate people on both sides. Do we really want a community where, if you don’t get the resolution you want in the timeframe you want, the accepted course of action is to bombard the forums and try to “make a public stink”?

You're presenting a disanalogy. LoPan666 didn't "make a public stink." He posted about a situation which he and apparently many others in his area feel is having a disastrous effect on his gaming community. I find it unfortunate that you mischaracterize that effort as some sort of immature or impetuous act.

I’m not mischaracterising his effort. I’m not characterising his posts at all.

He said: “...our only recourse is to make a public stink and hope that it has a positive effect for change.”

and I pointed out that isn’t true. I think “making a public stink” should never become the accepted way of dealing with not receiving what you consider to be a satisfactory solution.

For the record, I have no problem with LoPan666’s posts. Nor do I think he is impetuous or immature - quite the opposite, in fact.

He reached a conclusion on acceptable behaviour when you don’t get a solution you find satisfactory and I was disagreeing with that. I have no knowledge of the incident that sparked this thread and was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with his views in that matter.

[Steve Geddes]

LoPan666 wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

LoPan666 wrote:

However, when issues have been escalated up to the top levels of Organized Play Management and a satisfactory solution is not provided, our only recourse is to make a public stink and hope that it has a positive effect for change.

This is not true, you have plenty of options.

Consider what the effect on the community would be if everyone followed this course of action when they are dissatisfied with resolutions (including the people you vehemently disagree with) Almost every topic has passionate people on both sides. Do we really want a community where, if you don’t get the resolution you want in the timeframe you want, the accepted course of action is to bombard the forums and try to “make a public stink”?

Personally, I think that if someone has an issue with Organized Play, this forum should always be an option and I don't have a problem with people posting their concerns here, regardless of how justified others might think they are. I would never discourage someone from considering this as a place to talk about whatever issue they choose because that is the purpose of forums like this. I understand that you think that this could lead to problems in the community...

Nah. I don’t think anything in this paragraph would cause problems in the community. I also don’t think it entails “making a public stink”.

If all you meant by that term was expressing your view, I don’t have any concern (provided you do so within the bounds of the community guidelines). That’s not what it means to me, but we’re in different countries, so there’s not really a surprise there.

[Auke Teeninga]

LoPan666 wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Just to be clear because some may know which region you reside in, only once since the approval process for specials went into effect did I deny it and it was before the event was advertised or convention support was requested. If specials have been cancelled it was not due to lack of approval. Generally speaking, I have a blanket approval in the Great Lakes for the organizers to offer the specials and expect them to discuss their schedule with other organizers if two (or more) event occur in close proximity geographically and/or on the calendar. Only when they cannot come to a fair compromise do I typically get involved.

That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one. Tonya did indicate that she would be looking into establishing more uniform guidelines for approval and I hope these new guidelines are closer to yours than to Del's. Thank you.

What special were you requesting and for which dates?

[Leg o' Lamb]

LoPan666 wrote:

That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.

O-O

Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.

Wow.

[N N 959]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I’m not mischaracterising his effort. I’m not characterising his posts at all.

Then my post was in error and withdraw my criticism and offer my apologies for misrepresenting your post.

[LoPan666]

Auke Teeninga wrote:

What special were you requesting and for which dates?

We had requested Assault on Absalom for AtomiCon, which was held March 3-5 of this year.

[Shifty]

Zach Davis wrote:

So I'm just guessing because I haven't played pbp or vtt, but it may have something to do with how long online conventions last. I have heard that a single scenario can take a month to play so if there are 8 online conventions a year that's at least 2/3 of the year that online convention games are being run. The hard cap means the online VOs aren't in convention mode for the entire year.

The 8 conventions are split across multiple locations and websites, so Paizo forums get a couple, Myth Weavers etc get some and so yeah the cap was a bit harsh. The average scenario length is about 5-6 weeks. My beef was that as a non-VO on the forums I can no longer run an event as whilst they were previously supported, the cap means that the opportunity to run my longstanding series of events was cut. Similarly, the request for RSP got nixed as well.

I disagreed with the cap, but that argument went nowhere.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

jon dehning wrote:

LoPan666 wrote:

That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.

O-O

Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.

Wow.

I am moderately certain, that the same would apply to any event in Europe and eastern Europe, potentially excluding 2 large events in the UK.

Assuming we are talking about PFS attendance and not total convention attendance, but to be honest it would be weird to allow something for mixed gaming convention with a 15 slot PFS convention held at the same time and prevent a PFS centric event with 50 tables from offering something.

I honestly have no idea, how many events worldwide would qualify, but I suspect they are in the tens rather than hundreds.