Paizo Update from Jeff Alvarez

If Jessica had done this, I'm honestly not sure how many people would think a simple apology would be enough.

Gosh I wonder what the difference between Jessica and Jeff is.

I said what I said because I think it's a useful comparison. We often absolve the powerful of crimes we'd never forgive from the powerless.

This isn't wholly targeted at you, themetricsystem, but I think we all need to be patient and wait for the official follow-up statement. Calls for silence, to lock threads, or to drop this matter entirely are premature when we still don't know what's going on. We can't rush this process.

I've heard a lot of calls for patience directed at the critics over the past few weeks. It cuts both ways.

My first post on this particular DB basically said that Jeff is petulant and tone deaf. The more I read about his inability to actually apologize for things that he has done that are spiteful and wrong, and perhaps criminal, the more I am convinced that Paizo should take action about his behavior.

I would like to say that I am surprised by this behavior. However, my experience with him in one conversation was full of hubris on his part. The tone was, this is our website and we can do whatever we like with it.

If that is bait then I have no idea what productive dialogue looks like. That being said I do know that when someone tries to get around the foul/abusive language filter their are guaranteed to get moderated. Not sure what the point is at this stage to purposely try to get moderated and put more work on the CS team.

I don't know if Jeff is tone deaf or not. I do know that when multiple people directly brought it up to him that doxxing is dangerous and illegal he was slow to apologize and I don't think he ever took responsibility.

As for if an employee vs a president doxxes someone the only difference is who you have protecting you. The president has himself and unless the owners pull the 'you screwed up' card there is no one else who can hold them accountable.

If an employee does it, even with permission of their superiors, if the public outrage is enough they will be the scape goat. I've seen it real time.

People get fired for less. I mean, at Paizo I hear just standing up for your team can get you let go.

The doxxing is something that Paizo needs to address, in addition to the other claims being made against it. Messing with people's private information leaves an ugly taste and does not do much to foster trust in Paizo and its higher ups.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

I was not familiar with the events of almost a year ago where Alvarez thought it appropriate to call a person by their real name and then offer a non-apology apology (behaviors are patterns). In most other lines of work there would be serious ramifications against people who did this.

If a worker, not an exec, did this they would be fired.

Honestly, you'd be really surprised. Mistakes happen and MOST companies give people a little bit of leeway. Provided it was an employee in good standing that had been with the company for a year or more it's very likely they'd just be spoken to to ensure they understand the severity of what they did. They would likely be asked to offer an apology to the person.

If it happened again after it's been addressed the first time... That's when people would likely be fired for something. Or at the very least put on some sort of improvement plan or write up.

The only people that get fired from their job for mistakes like this are those who are new and don't have an established rapport with the company and those who are already in some sort of hot water and people are looking for an excuse to get rid of them.

Source: I've been working in customer service for the better part of two decades in both an employee and management capacity.

If it happened again after it's been addressed the first time... That's when people would likely be fired for something. Or at the very least put on some sort of improvement plan or write up.

It *did* happen twice, and is evidenced in Yoshua's documentation.

In all fairness, Gloom said "after it's been addressed the first time". Nobody reacted the first time Jeff did it, and it may be nobody even noticed or had the chance to explain to Jeff what he did wrong, so Gloom's statement stands.

In all fairness, that is also part of the problem.

If Jessica had done this, I'm honestly not sure how many people would think a simple apology would be enough.

Kinda feel addressed by this, so yes, it would. In fact, seeing her apologize for some of the things she actually did would probably make me rethink my dislike for her.

Cool! Like I said, I was honestly wondering. Now I know the answer: at least one! ;P

But seriously, it wasn't really directed at you at all. You've been even-handed and fair as far as I can remember. If you don't feel like it applies to you, it probably wasn't intended to!

In all fairness, that is also part of the problem.

I don't think that's really true (the fact that no forum posters noticed feels like a pretty neutral element to me), but it's also a pretty trivial disagreement for me to nitpick on.

KC, I'm pretty sure there's a moral alignment between us in these issues, so I'm totally quoting you upthread in a "yes, and..." capacity. I've just worked in social care networks that are highly sensitive to information crime and negligence to the point of criminal, so my radar may be calibrated with all of that in mind.

We're good! Like I said, I think the disagreement is very trivial. Honestly, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. I hate how online discourse always turns into arguing about tiny nitpicks or wording issues when everyone fundamentally agrees on what matters. :P

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

If Jessica had done this, I'm honestly not sure how many people would think a simple apology would be enough.

Gosh I wonder what the difference between Jessica and Jeff is.

I'm not sure this is a fair implication, nevermind that it's a hypothetical on a hypothetical.

Firstly, lots of people - myself included - don't think a simple apology from Jeff is enough.

And secondly, there's a big difference in both power and accountability between an employee and the president of the company.

If an employee had doxxed someone, I'd be more willing to accept an apology from them than the president of the company because I expect the president of the company to be more accountable.

On the other hand, an employee being fired for doxxing someone is much more likely than the president of the company being fired for it because of the power differential.

I guess the long and short of it is, I'm definitely in the "doesn't like Jessica" camp, but if she had done this, I'd be more willing to accept a simple apology from her than I am to accept it from Jeff.

I do not know who Jessica is, Jeff on the other hand needs to have some kind of repercussions laid on him for his behavior. Patterns are behavior and behavior is patterns. Non apologies apologies are not apologies and vague, We will do betters are really non committals.

Nothing has altered for me, but I’m aware corporations don’t change overnight. I’ve kind of said what I think but the fact I’m not still saying it doesn’t mean I’ve changed my view.

I’m aware a lot is being done behind the scenes in a consultation sense, which is good. I feel there are significant issues that Paizo hasn’t commented on - I hope that those statements are being considered.

Ultimately, I’m keen to see more than consultation and words. But a knee jerk response is how we got “we won’t share rooms anymore” - it’s a good policy, but doesn’t address the actual issue.

Can always count on Steve for well thought replies (and gm advice on discord (threefold))

I'm impressed that the thread has been kept largely classy and focused on concerns involved with the theme of the thread.

I'm also impressed that the moderators can keep up when it starts getting into deep sewage category, and I am thankful for that.

People who keep arguing that this should just be 'let go' or 'die a slow death' worry me.

If the standards of professionalism are relaxed at the highest level of a company, that tends to roll into the rest of the company.

Even without Paizo as an exemplar, my own RL workplace has had incredibly similar issues in the past few years. I'll be surprised if my Employer makes it through to the New Year, at the rate the chickens are coming home to roost.

I do not know who Jessica is, Jeff on the other hand needs to have some kind of repercussions laid on him for his behavior. Patterns are behavior and behavior is patterns. Non apologies apologies are not apologies and vague, We will do betters are really non committals.

The "pattern of behavior" that you seem to be referring to is the doxxing that happened. It did happen twice, but after it happened Jeff seemed to understand that what he did was wrong. It was very likely someone at Paizo spoke to him about it to help him understand what he did.

His apology wasn't the best, but since it happened I haven't heard of any other reports of Jeff doing it again.

Because of this I would fail to define this as a "pattern of behavior".

We saw it (abuse of power) twice in-person with an identifiable trail. Right here.

There are further allegations that further abuses of power happened behind closed doors.

In the light of the first, what makes the second *less* believeable?

But seriously, it wasn't really directed at you at all.

Thanks. Just felt that because of that other post I made, I probably should say this.

I also feel like that whole doxxing thing gets blown out of proportion a bit (by some people)* and I'm way more concerned about other allegations that have been made against Jeff.

Not saying that what he did was ok, but I'd be much more willing to let that slide than what happened with Crystal.

* I admit that I might underestimate the issue, especially because I had to look up what doxxing actually is, because I heard it here for the very first time. Part of it is also that I firmly believe that anonymity in the internet is much more of a curse than a blessing. But that's politics, so it can't be discussed here.

We're not seeking perfection, just that this company that trades on our queer family and acceptance thereof, *does not* engage in abuse of power elsewhere, as its president has verifiably done.

At the very least, that guy should not be the president of this company - the values seem so dissonant.

I’m the type of person who, after this blogpost, and how deflating it was, when they see endless new blogposts selling stuff feels…cheated. Like…no matter how much Paizo says “we are making changes”, one thing, in capitalism, never changes. Keep selling folks stuff. And I get it - Paizo is a business, and they…sell stuff. But the endless cavalcade of bright shiny new releases (but these issues still not dealt with) Live Twitch streams (only about guess what…products!!!) and more product spotlights, OrgPlay sanctions, Meet the Iconics etc - it’s business as usual.

For those whose concerns (if they had them) are largely met (and by seeing a minimum requirement apparently that’s good enough) then that all makes semse. But for those folks deeply hurt, deeply concerned or downright scared, fearful or threatened and harassed either by import, via Paizo’s actions and/or apologies (or lack thereof) or through the deleterious posts of actual posters then business as usual is confounding. Saddening. Scary.

I have a real life. I have and will have many virtual lives/characters. The separation of my realities does not for a moment relax into “but they are a business” or “your needs needn’t be met”. I’m asking for Paizo to make changes, keep me and my community safe, and tell me about it so I can know I’m safe insofar as is organisationally possible. It’s not mine by right. I don’t “deserve” it. I want it, and that shouldn’t make anyone feel uncomfortable, that I have fairly low standards that I feel should be met. That’s right, I said low. Because I’d like to aim for real high, but I’m too much of a realist to get some sort of utopian reality.

My data. My friends. My community. Our world. Your business. Your point of sale. Your custom. Their products. No matter which way you peel it, it still shrieks.

And if some people are incredibly concerned enough to ask that the doxxing requires removal of employment or is indicative of a data insecurity level severe enough for people to ask for their account to be scrubbed and details removed…well I can see that that is serious. I’m definitely not going to make fun of them. Asking for a better world is not tantamount to a witch hunt.

Getting a bit tired of being told that those of us angry and hurt should just ignore it until the next time we're angry and hurt, and then ignore that until the next time. The only way you can actually get change is by continuing the pressure.

We saw it (abuse of power) twice in-person with an identifiable trail. Right here.

There are further allegations that further abuses of power happened behind closed doors.

In the light of the first, what makes the second *less* believeable?

I didn't say what he did wasn't nor did I say that he didn't do it twice. I simply said that it did not establish a "pattern of behavior". If he had done it more than just the two times or if he had defended his actions and continued to do it, I would definitely agree that it was a pattern of behavior.

But that's not what happened.

As far as what he did being illegal... If it was then the victims should file a lawsuit. Provided that's the justice they're seeking.

I'm not against stricter action being taken against Jeff or for him to write a better and more public facing apology, but personally I feel that the minimum effort has been taken on his behalf to resolve the issue. Provided it doesn't happen again after he's acknowledged that he was wrong to do it and apologized.

"If it was illegal they should sue!" ignores the fact that most people can't afford a lawyer to do so.

"If it was illegal they should sue!" ignores the fact that most people can't afford a lawyer to do so.

The legal system requires someone to pursue the case whether it's a private attorney, a prosecutor, or someone representing themselves. Unfortunately that is the state of our legal system.

You would probably say that them filing the case and representing themselves would be too much of a burden with the time it takes out of their life and the court fees to file.

Unfortunately when it comes to the police and doxxing they'll typically only pursue it if it's a credible threat to a persons life or health. I've dealt with the police before with someone doxxing me. They shared much more than just my name. Nothing was done about it even though I had screenshots and print outs.

If it was just my name that was shared in a public space without any form of real threat behind it though... I likely wouldn't have even bothered pursuing it. I don't speak for the two victims in Paizo's case though. If one or both of them feel egregiously harmed then they can pursue legal action as they see fit.

You're allowed to be unhappy about something. Your feelings are definitely valid. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that the action you desire is going to be taken by the parties involved.

Usually in those scenarios people just stop giving money to that business. Which is completely valid to do. You're also completely within your rights to sit on their forums shouting for "justice" and "action to be taken" non-stop even if it never happens.

The legality point is a complete red herring. I suspect (US laws being what they are) that the transphobia shown to Crystal was completely legal; it's also utterly unacceptable. Likewise, the doxxing of community members by senior management is utterly unacceptable, regardless of whether it was legal or not.

And honestly, any time you find yourself tempted to write that "the victims should/shouldn't do x" then please, please don't. It's almost never going to be helpful.

(FWIW I'm really sorry to hear that you were doxxed. It's not something I would ever wish on anyone and I'm sorry that you weren't able to get a remedy for it.)

I'm sorry but I don't base my morality on what is/is not legal. Just because nobody is pursuing legal recompense for what Jeff did does not mean he was in the right.

I've also already said that I'm not currently withholding my subs, because I don't want to hurt the people that are working to make this better. That does not mean I'm going to stop posting about it, and I hesitate to say that I've ever been "shouting" as I have done my best to be civil about my concerns, but I guess any request for accountability looks like shouts to those who don't want to be held accountable for anything.

“If he had done it more than just the two times”

That is an oddly specific and gracious allowance for a president of a company retrieving people’s personal information to use against them in an argument.

I'm sorry but I don't base my morality on what is/is not legal. Just because nobody is pursuing legal recompense for what Jeff did does not mean he was in the right.

I've also already said that I'm not currently withholding my subs, because I don't want to hurt the people that are working to make this better. That does not mean I'm going to stop posting about it, and I hesitate to say that I've ever been "shouting" as I have done my best to be civil about my concerns, but I guess any request for accountability looks like shouts to those who don't want to be held accountable for anything.

I simply said that people were within their rights to do it, not that you were already doing it. Please don't confuse my statements as any sort of tone policing. Because that's not what it was.