Deleting Threads Is Not Community Management

I just need to post here to state that there seems to be an issue currently with how Paizo is handling some affairs in the NC area.

Specifically threads are getting locked or much worse deleted because they seem to express opinions that Paizo seems to disagree with. These are threads that are literally just end users asking fair questions of the Paizo management, but rather than respond in any way, the moderators are taking it on themselves to delete the threads, seemingly hoping that the problem will go away.

Instead what you are doing is censoring your community. Hiding problems is not a responsible way to manage a community and will cause long term damage if it continues.

Please stop removing posts of reasonable people asking reasonable questions about information that impacts their ability to participate in PFS in their regions. Instead respond to the inquiries, make the facts of the matter public, explain yourselves, and let your community respond. Being held accountable for your actions is important to us and hoping that these problems will go away on their own is both irresponsible and unreasonable.

The problem is that the answers to those questions cannot be given out at the moment. The Catch-22 is that not answering just leads to MORE questions asked. And the more questions asked, the more accusations that fly. There is no good way to handle this.

If you have a problem with how the forums are being moderated, you need to send an email to community@paizo.com

Forums are not the right place, and this thread will get locked as well.

As the OP of the original problem thread, I understand why Paizo site managers prefer not to have such things on their forums - it just doesn't look good. 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. Using NDAs and forum post deletions as a bludgeon to quash discussion of uncomfortable situations only makes the underlying problems fester and I don't think it serves Pathfinder Organized Play in any useful fashion. Thank you.

The problem seems to be that many of the complaints on air have been ignored, suppressed, deleted, disregarded, or glossed over. What is the appropriate sequence of events when your complaints are tossed in the bay with concrete shoes?

It seems unhealthy for the discussion to be forced out of the community to Twitter and Reddit, etc. And to treat the issues as gossip when there is a trail of historic evidence on these very forums seems incredibly shortsighted.

Who do you talk to when nobody with power listens? (Serious Question, non-rhetorical)

Having had similar experiences in the past, I want to voice my unequivocal support for the concerns voiced by LoPan666, and for Michael Eshleman. I find this entire situation appalling, and part of an emerging pattern. The deleterious effect it is having on organized gaming for PFS fans in our region is self-evident to anyone who's even tangentially involved with the community (myself included in that number).

Paizo might not be able to act immediately upon these concerns given the circumstances of involved persons traveling, but it can definitely do better than this. I strongly feel that it hasn't, on several fronts, for upwards of two years now.

To be fair, as an ex-WizO for Wizards of the Coast, it is standard operating procedure for most companies to attempt to have issues like this resolved behind the scenes. While I understand you are doing this because you feel it is not being handled, that has nothing to do with the policies the moderators are obliged to follow, i.e. the moderators aren't trying to shut you up, they are just trying to follow SOP for this kind of situation.

I posted follow ups in both threads.

I am trying to keep a delicate balance of making sure the community is heard if they feel there is an issue, but also protecting the privacy of community individuals, including speculative details that may or may not be accurate.

As the OP of the original problem thread, I understand why Paizo site managers prefer not to have such things on their forums - it just doesn't look good.

It really isn't about looking good or bad. We leave plenty of stuff on our forums that is critical. I am very sensitive to making sure that we do not just delete or remove content that might not paint us with a glowing light (because that is what does end up looking quite bad in my opinion). However, the nature of this issue involves individual community members and as much as I want to inform or help the community understand or discuss it, I also need to make sure I am protecting the privacy of our community members as well. Since Tonya, Erik, and Jeff are all out of the office, I feel it is the wisest course of action to err on the side of caution.

If you feel you have adequately pursued escalating with Tonya, you're always welcome to email community@paizo.com or escalate further to Paizo's executives.

Because everything the termination of Michael Eshleman is covered by NDA, all the community can do is speculate. All we know is that a beloved pillar of the community was ousted by an unpopular RVC and that Paizo's been silent on the matter. Now we're being told that we can't even discuss Michael's termination on a public forum. For years, I've respected the Society's leadership and direction, but this matter has made that stance challenging to maintain.

Speculation about other people, other individuals from our gaming community, is not appropriate for the forums though? We've said similar things when former Paizo employees have departed the company. I don't see how guessing at what might have occurred, is something that should be publicly hashed out, especially when people who have the most details on what's occurred can't respond.

I can't speak to the particular issue underlying the discussion here. I really would need to speak with Tonya to figure out how we can address the community's concerns with this. She's at UK Games Expo right now, having left immediately after PaizoCon. I apologize that this is such bad timing, but I can't really do much until I can consult, at the very least, with Tonya.

Stuff

As an outside observer, I think that is a fair and reasonable response. I won't pretend that there is clear and obvious path to how to handle things when the moderators don't have all the information.

I do appreciate the moderators posting about what their mindset is. Communication is what the forums are all about.

To be honest, I did not see a lot of speculation, most of the comments were just praising the work of a former VO and expressing that they will miss him being part of their community and events.

Closing threads to give Tonya the chance to answer seems like a fair request, but deleting the content, unfortunately, tends to make some people on the internet suspicious and before you know it claims that "Paizo is hiding something" start to appear on other websites, which makes it really to have a discussion about accusations.

I always suggest for players to come here if they have a rules question about organized play, since that allows our community to help each other and even more importantly allows others to find the same answers here.
If a question is asked and potentially answered incorrectly, that's not ideal, and the same is true when it comes to accusations and concerns. If we can't see the problem it is very hard to deal with it, and it would be a shame if our community would not feel comfortable to discuss complicated issues on these boards instead of Reddit.

Personally, I really hate it when I only hear about problems at my conventions or specific tables hours or days after the fact, when I was literally in the same room.

N N 959, I agree with your entire post.

As someone who has heard Tonya's schedule over the next couple months, I am both jealous and non-envious at the same time. She's extremely booked, and I'm sure she'll answer as soon as she gets done emailing both, or all, sides of this issue to get a full picture.

I have no idea what has happened over in Raleigh, but getting upset at Sarah Marie because she is trying to ensure that the privacy of community members is upheld (Especially with all the emails I'm sure you've all gotten about GPDR and such) will not help anyone out. Give her time to get a reply from Tonya, and for Tonya to figure out how to resolve this issue. This doesn't sound like something that any of the PFS staff will take lightly, and I'm sure an official statement will be made. You need to have some patience.

Also, stop spreading to other outlets. Reddit is not a place to take grievances, ever...

N N 959, I agree with your entire post.

As someone who has heard Tonya's schedule over the next couple months, I am both jealous and non-envious at the same time. She's extremely booked, and I'm sure she'll answer as soon as she gets done emailing both, or all, sides of this issue to get a full picture.

I know how I feel when we locally have a number of conventions in a row, where the prep for the next con starts hours after the last one.

That spreaded to the online group's Discord channel, and I was one of these who had to intervene to make some users understand that mob rule is only hindering the situation when everything has already been said (Finding it irony when knowing my short temper).

It is worth noting that the bigger issue has been brewing for years, not just the past 24+ hours. Much of this history is indeed public already.

It is unfair that Sara Marie shoulders the brunt of the management in this case. Thank you for your efforts and recent communication.

Also, stop spreading to other outlets. Reddit is not a place to take grievances, ever...

Except when the place to talk isn't being open about allowing it.

Nature finds a way...

While I don't in any way agree with Sara Marie's reaction, I also am aware of the impossible position she's been put in and it's unfortunate it finally came to this. The timing was also difficult as it's unreasonable to assume that Tonya can respond immediately which makes things harder for her. But I also don't think that's really the problem, as was just stated, this has been brewing a long, long while.

If you feel you have adequately pursued escalating with Tonya, you're always welcome to email community@paizo.com or escalate further to Paizo's executives.

With regards to retailers, should this contact information be used, or is there a more appropriate email for contact?

Sara Marie wrote:

If you feel you have adequately pursued escalating with Tonya, you're always welcome to email community@paizo.com or escalate further to Paizo's executives.

With regards to retailers, should this contact information be used, or is there a more appropriate email for contact?

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

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.

Normally we would direct a retailer to discuss any issues regarding Organized Play with their local Venture-Officers and/or RVC, but if the issues are concerning those people, the next step would be to contact Tonya directly

To be honest, I did not see a lot of speculation, most of the comments were just praising the work of a former VO and expressing that they will miss him being part of their community and events.

I mean in the first thread it was about a half a dozen serious claims with vague generalities and unsubstantiated claims.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

To be honest, I did not see a lot of speculation, most of the comments were just praising the work of a former VO and expressing that they will miss him being part of their community and events.

I mean in the first thread it was about a half a dozen serious claims with vague generalities and unsubstantiated claims.

This is what happens when you take general publicly actionable items

As someone who lives in the affected region, there's a fair amount of
smoke and mirrors involved.

Things we do know publicly

1. Attendance is way down in all parts of the Southeast or nonexistent
2. Con attendance is down for the Southeast
3. Stores are losing traffic from our game days
4. Stores will be less likely to carry Paizo goods if people stop coming (I have already heard this mentioned from stores)
5. There are accusations of conflict of interest level misconduct
and NDA abuse actions in the Southeast Region.
6. Said actions are potentially damaging to Paizo's customer good will
and brand, especially with a product transition coming up.
7. We were thriving before the RVC system was put in place.

Society play is primarily a con and venue support system. It puts
people in locations, seats at cons, eyes on inventory, and drives
sales and is a good support tool for local gaming stores. When I
demo games at cons or stores, or even run society play, I sometimes
hear that they like the game, but they don't want to play in the
society because it has "issues."

What folks are asking for is a thorough investigation and some
view into what is going on and a resolution to this so we can
go back to not caring about what the venture level is doing
and get back to gaming.

I know absolutely nothing about any of the people involved. So this comment is geared purely towards encouraging people to have empathy. In daily life I work for an organization required to abide by open meeting laws, laws in place to ensure public accountability. In principle this is great, unfortunately in many cases people are justifiably upset about items the law defines as private data. In my experience this never ends particularly well. Legally you end up very limited in any kind of public response, and invariably this gives the appearance of hiding from the issue, not being transparent...

I'm definitely not a sunshine and rainbows personality, but trying to talk about this kind of stuff online, whether it is human nature or not, is only going to result in more polarization. I worry not even on the company side but increasing the frustration level (with a polarizing debate) of volunteers whom I do know and respect does not help either.

When I demo games at cons or stores, or even run society play, I sometimes hear that they like the game, but they don't want to play in the society because it has "issues."

You can't even be specific about these issues either?????? We had the same conversation about this two months ago so I'm not even sure why you want to skirt around that issue because I would bet a conflict of interest isn't the issue.

I'm definitely not a sunshine and rainbows personality, but trying to talk about this kind of stuff online, whether it is human nature or not, is only going to result in more polarization.

I can't speak for the people involved, but as someone not involved, I feel that open discussion on these types of issues is very important to the community as a whole.

As customer, I want to see that when players have issues with the organizational components, there is a place where we can go to talk about it. Especially if we feel that we are being stone-walled behind the scenes.

This is a forum.

Definition of forum

plural forums also fora play \ˈfȯr-ə\
1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

When moderators (due to policy or request) systematically delete and lock threads which are attempting to improve the community, it sends the wrong message, imo, and undermines customer's sense of agency. Paizo should provide a forum for players to air their grievances, real or imagined. While I can agree that said forums should not be used as a venue for cyber-buylling, I do agree that legitimate concerns should be openly discussed.

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'm definitely not a sunshine and rainbows personality, but trying to talk about this kind of stuff online, whether it is human nature or not, is only going to result in more polarization.

I can't speak for the people involved, but as someone not involved, I feel that open discussion on these types of issues is very important to the community as a whole.

As customer, I want to see that when players have issues with the organizational components, there is a place where we can go to talk about it. Especially if we feel that we are being stone-walled behind the scenes.

This is a forum.

Dictionary wrote:

Definition of forum

plural forums also fora play \ˈfȯr-ə\
1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

When moderators (due to policy or request) systematically delete and lock threads which are attempting to improve the community, it sends the wrong message, imo, and undermines customer's sense of agency. Paizo should provide a forum for players to air their grievances, real or imagined. While I can agree that said forums should not be used as a venue for cyber-buylling, I do agree that legitimate concerns should be openly discussed.

Forum moderation is anything but easy, particularly with a forum as big as this one. Quite often you have to juggle a number of concerns - at least one would be legal liability for the company - and find the best solution for a particular situation.

It can be hard to find the right approach, but I firmly believe that they try to keep this forum a good place for discussion.

How you phrase your post and who parts of the discussion you pick up can be the deciding factor between constructive debate and the start of a problem that should have been addressed much earlier.

I might not agree with every decision, but it is worth saying that I don't envy the difficult situation Sara Marie found herself in.

Talked with Tonya, it’s nearly 3am and she’s asked if I can post while she catches a few zzz’s before tomorrow’s con schedule starts again.

“Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate the passion and energy you bring to Pathfinder/Starfinder Society and your local community. I understand the desire for information, but there are several other considerations I must take into account when formulating a response, including privacy of those involved, what may or may not be covered by the Venture-Officer NDA, and how commentary will affect the local community and the Pathfinder Society at large. As such, I am in contact with Sara Marie and we are committed to responding to you as quickly as we can, given that I am currently working the UK Games Expo. We thank you for your continued patience and hope to have a more comprehensive answer soon.“

Thank you, Sara Marie.

Hmm

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'm definitely not a sunshine and rainbows personality, but trying to talk about this kind of stuff online, whether it is human nature or not, is only going to result in more polarization.

I can't speak for the people involved, but as someone not involved, I feel that open discussion on these types of issues is very important to the community as a whole.

As customer, I want to see that when players have issues with the organizational components, there is a place where we can go to talk about it. Especially if we feel that we are being stone-walled behind the scenes.

This is a forum.

Dictionary wrote:

Definition of forum

plural forums also fora play \ˈfȯr-ə\
1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

When moderators (due to policy or request) systematically delete and lock threads which are attempting to improve the community, it sends the wrong message, imo, and undermines customer's sense of agency. Paizo should provide a forum for players to air their grievances, real or imagined. While I can agree that said forums should not be used as a venue for cyber-buylling, I do agree that legitimate concerns should be openly discussed.

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. 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.

I've had a 'behind the curtain' benefit of a different campaign that did *not* have the safeguards that OPF has and is implementing.

It is one of the reasons I will volunteer to help out by GMing, but between concerns of opsec/NDA and the extra time involved with leadership positions I'm content to 'remain a grunt' and 'help out where I can'.

Mad props to those who can work well and help the campaign prosper in that sort of environment.

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”?

One thing this brings to light is the flaw in managing PFS if high level decisions can only be addressed by one person. I get that Tonya is away, and wouldn't expect her to comment on this until she's back in the office. That being said, there should be a process in place where an incident like this can be reviewed and addressed by someone other than Tonya.

I'd suggest that any time action is taken by PFS against a VO, that it requires a write up which would be on file. Then, if Tonya can't address a situation in the future, other Paizo staff, such as Erik or Lisa or Vic, could review the file and understand the situation and step in as needed when Tonya can't. This also protects Paizo against a time when Tonya makes a career change and someone else becomes the new organizer of PFS, so they have details of prior decisions, as well as protects Paizo from lawsuits in the future, since they can refer to their documentation on actions taken, rather than only one person having the relevant knowledge of the situation.

One thing this brings to light is the flaw in managing PFS if high level decisions can only be addressed by one person. I get that Tonya is away, and wouldn't expect her to comment on this until she's back in the office. That being said, there should be a process in place where an incident like this can be reviewed and addressed by someone other than Tonya.

I'd suggest that any time action is taken by PFS against a VO, that it requires a write up which would be on file. Then, if Tonya can't address a situation in the future, other Paizo staff, such as Erik or Lisa or Vic, could review the file and understand the situation and step in as needed when Tonya can't. This also protects Paizo against a time when Tonya makes a career change and someone else becomes the new organizer of PFS, so they have details of prior decisions, as well as protects Paizo from lawsuits in the future, since they can refer to their documentation on actions taken, rather than only one person having the relevant knowledge of the situation.

This sounds good in theory, but I don't see it as being practical.

From a public need to know standpoint they can wait. It's better to have the person equipped to do the job be the one to do it than to do a handoff, which could make things worse.

From a legal standpoint if there is a need for immediate action I'm sure someone else can take action. I don't think the issue is that nobody else has the power to do anything, but when you run a business certain people have certain responsibilities and knowledge, and it's best not to disrupt that.

When it comes to legal matters Paizo should already be aware of when immediate action on something needs to be taken them staying out of legal trouble is a nonfactor.

The timing for bringing this up on the forums conceivably couldn't be worse.

The decision, whatever it reasoning / validity, is immediately affecting PFS players and apparently stores in the the removed VO's region.

Much like complaints about when things blow up right before GenCon because PFS leadership implements a change then, the timing is not driven by those who have issues with the decision - it's the timing of the decision itself.

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.

From the POV of someone in the region, but not the state, I've just assumed that the RVC has carte blanche unless they do something that would result in jail time. Maybe that's a good thing. I'm less certain now than ever.

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.

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".

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.

Well, you don't wear masks.

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.

I have criticized Paizo before and after I became a VO, however, context is a factor.

If I am unhappy about a scenario, I a likely to do a review about it.. and if I am particularly unhappy that one gets to be rather long.

Sometimes I tend to complain about scenarios, for example, I loved a recent SFS scenario written by a high ranking member of the organized play team, but some issues like encounter difficulty, the chronicle sheets and (a personal bugbear of mine) stocks broken up by full-size maps.

There are other areas where I might have access to confidential information or where I frankly don't have any relevant information to add, and in those case, I usually refrain from posting.

Of course, I have been posting under my real name for years (even before I became a VO) which helps me to consider when to post and when it is not a great idea.

Removed some posts. Please don't pick on each other. Really doesn't help at all. If you want the text back to edit and repost email community@paizo.com.

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

...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.

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.

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.