Paizo Update from Jeff Alvarez

Zexcir wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

- No longer mandatory to share hotel rooms (directly addresses one of the complaints)

I agree that this is great since it's archaic to force those to share. I just hope this doesn't come at the cost of fewer cons/travel or employees who choose to share rooms are the ones who go to cons.

The discriminatory policy wasn't addressed, but one of the items behind it has been changed. It was described as a "business decision" originally.

100% ending shared rooms means we'll see less company-sponsored travel to conventions and it will also likely means we'll see a less varied presence too as it consolidates around a handful of people.

Not sure why. I mean, it's an added expense, but Cons are part of the business, not a perk for special employees.

I'm not sure how I feel about this in general. It gets rid of the problem, but by kind of sidestepping it. No need to address the transphobic aspects, since they're all in separate rooms now.

Zexcir wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

- No longer mandatory to share hotel rooms (directly addresses one of the complaints)

I agree that this is great since it's archaic to force those to share. I just hope this doesn't come at the cost of fewer cons/travel or employees who choose to share rooms are the ones who go to cons.

The discriminatory policy wasn't addressed, but one of the items behind it has been changed. It was described as a "business decision" originally.

100% ending shared rooms means we'll see less company-sponsored travel to conventions and it will also likely means we'll see a less varied presence too as it consolidates around a handful of people.

Well, you're right that it certainly means company-sponsored travel will either be (a) more expensive and require a larger budget or (b) fewer people will be going. It's often easy for non-managerial employees and outsiders to look at a company as a bottomless pit of money. "Just pay the workers more!" or "Single-rooms for everyone!", "HEPA air-filters in all rooms," etc.

The reality is that everything costs money. That's not an excuse to discriminate; ensuring all employees get equal opportunities is a cost of business. But the business also has a bottom line to maintain.

So yes, of course there is going to be a balancing here. We can either accept this as a step in the right direction or damn them no matter what they do.

Hmm. This is a decent start, it's not as good a start as I was hoping to see. I'm skeptical of the claim any US company makes that they won't fire employees for advocating for each other or whistleblowing, labor rights in the US make it very hard for those claims to ever be more than words. Some statements of personal accountability have been offered up by Jason and Erik, and while I'm still processing how I feel about them, they show integrity and courage to admit to wrongdoing. There's still room for statements of accountability missing however. Perhaps there are good reasons for those to be missing, legal complications or similar problems. Or perhaps the possibility of those complications existing is a convenient excuse to stay silent regarding them. The new hotel policy is a good thing, but Paizo can still not invite trans employees to conventions so it doesn't necessarily mean much.

There are good signs here. Revised focus on work-from-home safety is good, even if the timeline provided is short. Independently managed anonymous feedback is good. Changes made in 2018, around when Jessica and Crystal left the company, are good. They suggest the company may have been working on some of these problems before they were brought to light, which is promising. This doesn't necessarily mean management will respond to feedback provided with respect and competence, nor does it mean a long-term commitment to safety, but it does provide room for them some room to do so. It's a start, perhaps it is a good enough foundation to build trust back. I'll even grant that it's a better start than many companies in the US would provide. I was hoping for more, but I will accept this. For now.

kings of not knowing that you need to keep pressure on until it IS fixed or it's pushed under the carpet

Not all solutions to problems need to cost more money. For example, one solution to the room sharing problem might be to take a step back from it. They could, for example, give each employee attending a convention a per diem payout to pay for their hotel room and other expenses and let them work out the details for themselves. If they micromanage who rooms with who, they could open themselves up to legal and other issues that they would not have to worry about otherwise.

The fact that most employees consider being sent to a convention a desirable thing gives the employees themselves the incentive to work out these details and gets the company off the hook in case the employees make decisions that would be unethical or illegal if the company imposed them.

Also, I don't think anything Jeff Alvarez has said has been wrong on its own, assuming that he plans to say and do more. So the best response to him seems to be, "Thank you -- please continue."

Hi Jeff

Will there be any investigation/evaluation of the events leading up to Sara leaving the company? (Private, obviously but beyond the usual “we’re always looking at what we do and striving to do better”).

I will just say this: it is your ground-level staff that makes your company tick. Any manager that does not protect them is more replaceable than any of your brilliant and underpaid talent. Please be on their side - they are proving every day that they deserve it.

NightTrace wrote:

Zexcir wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

- No longer mandatory to share hotel rooms (directly addresses one of the complaints)

I agree that this is great since it's archaic to force those to share. I just hope this doesn't come at the cost of fewer cons/travel or employees who choose to share rooms are the ones who go to cons.

The discriminatory policy wasn't addressed, but one of the items behind it has been changed. It was described as a "business decision" originally.

100% ending shared rooms means we'll see less company-sponsored travel to conventions and it will also likely means we'll see a less varied presence too as it consolidates around a handful of people.

Well, you're right that it certainly means company-sponsored travel will either be (a) more expensive and require a larger budget or (b) fewer people will be going. It's often easy for non-managerial employees and outsiders to look at a company as a bottomless pit of money. "Just pay the workers more!" or "Single-rooms for everyone!", "HEPA air-filters in all rooms," etc.

The reality is that everything costs money. That's not an excuse to discriminate; ensuring all employees get equal opportunities is a cost of business. But the business also has a bottom line to maintain.

So yes, of course there is going to be a balancing here. We can either accept this as a step in the right direction or damn them no matter what they do.

Or you know, clean the carpets semi-regularly so your employees aren't getting sick. But hey, there's a cost for that too and Paizo isn't a bottomless money pit.

Note that actual complaint about the hotel rooms wasn't that they had to double up, it's that they wouldn't put a trans employee in a room with someone else and so wouldn't send trans employees to cons. It was Paizo's choice to fix that by putting everyone in single rooms.

And what are they going to do/say when the changes they're demanding don't come overnight? I've watched this exact situation unfold in other organizations (most recently a year and a half ago) - a situation often kicked off by an employee engagement survey . It can take years for the solutions to fully actualize.

I've watched it unfold too. Many times.

Usually it's vague promises and little or no action, often followed by more problems blowing up a few years later.

MisterSlanky wrote:

And what are they going to do/say when the changes they're demanding don't come overnight? I've watched this exact situation unfold in other organizations (most recently a year and a half ago) - a situation often kicked off by an employee engagement survey . It can take years for the solutions to fully actualize.

I've watched it unfold too. Many times.

Usually it's vague promises and little or no action, often followed by more problems blowing up a few years later.

I've seen three main outcomes.

My last company made lasting actionable changes. It took them about a year and a half to get there and it took reinventing the entire corporate culture. The changes really took to heart employee requests; their roll-out was stellar and well received by the employees. Result - positive. (Note, Mid-cap growth company with about 600 employees)

My previous company to that attempted to make lasting actionable changes. After a year they fell short in pretty much every instance as they failed to truly identify the root cause. Employees never trusted the process in the first place and dismissed it outright. The whole thing was doomed to fail. Result - negative. (Note: privately held small company most like Paizo in size and structure).

I know somebody quite personally who's organization is about a year and two months into the process. The organization has made dramatic changes, all of which could be interpreted as positive and directly related to employee concerns. The employees though don't like the solutions, and won't even give them the time of day. This is the most interesting as it's a case of the employer making a good faith effort, and the employees - since it didn't match their exact expectations, not even willing to give those changes an opportunity. Chances are this will be a miserable failure, but not without a solid attempt. (Without giving it entirely up, large 400+ employee organization that's part of a much, much larger organization with deep resources)

The process works as well as everyone involved makes it work. It can (and does), but it's no guarantee. That said the main point is that even having the list of items to change is not going to appear tomorrow, or next week, or next month. If you're really committed to the process, it'll be months before the independent organization is done with their assessment.

Yeah. Read through this a couple of times. I feel the words are right and I thought that was what I was looking for, but an ominous ambiguous future hope for something better isn't what I signed up for when I bought full into Pathfinder 2e.

I literally started my subscription because of the forward in the pathfinder Play Test book on page 4 talking about inclusion. My kids were of an age where I could and did introduce them to Pathfinder.

While everything is a work in progress, you can't claim you fixed things in 2017/18 and are just now getting around to allowing for individual rooms when going to conventions.... It makes it sound like you are instituting a solution to a problem you felt was already fixed instead of recognizing that there are still issues that need addressing.

The majority of the post reads like this falls on the shoulders of middle management. While having an open door for all employees is good, I have been on the back end of what that means and I also know that employees won't use it. Simply because there is never a situation where backlash can't occur. Some will, don't get me wrong. But not the type of person who is marginalized and has learned through life experience that when someone who has power over you says 'SURE! come on in and tell me what we are doing wrong!'..... It historically hasn't ended well for them and it should NOT be put on your employees who are marginalized to have to come forward and fix problems your institution has created....

Like I said, 2e Play Test came out years ago and the forward was all about inclusion. From what I am finding out today that when it was said it wasn't actually being practiced.

I got my hands on the Play Test in 2018 and was full of hope. Now I feel lost. And the forum trolls coming out of the woodwork to make those of us who are already feeling like crap worse aren't doing you any favors.

I do believe Sara Marie's case deserves investigation, and I am frustrated by the lack of transparency from Paizo about these incidents.

There is a Catch-22 here.

DISCLAIMER: While I have worked for a corporation for nearly three decades and have experience (but not formal education) in how HR works, this is a possible perspective. It should not be considered an encyclopedic listing of the situation by any means!

I do believe Sara Marie's case deserves investigation, and I am frustrated by the lack of transparency from Paizo about these incidents.

People, get over this.

Paizo cannot legally discuss details of an employee's termination.

Even if Paizo is called upon as reference by her next potential employer, they cannot divulge specifics of the termination.

"Did she work for you from this date to that date?"
Yes.
"And was her position and responsibilities this and that?"
Yes.
"Thank you very much."

So after reading this a couple of times, the things that stick out to me are:

There is no direct denial that anything brought up in "the social media incident" was untrue, and in fact several references that seem to indicate that what was alleged are in fact spot on.

I also see no apology or admission of wrongdoing of any kind, just multiple "Well we had an email about it 3 years ago, so its not our fault!" level sidesteps.

I also see no evidence of some of the more troubling aspects being corrected so much as simply avoiding situations for them to come up. "You have a lot of misogynists and transphobic people!" "We won't put them together in rooms with each other any more" is not a good answer, its a "we're sweeping it under the rug" answer.

As an individual and a company, the response I want to hear is outright denial of what was said (and the potential law suits that will be entailed if the employees can bring the receipts to back them up), or an admission that there was a problem and how steps are being ACTIVELY taken to fix it (as in firing the harassers, making restitutions to victims, etc).

"Well we gave them training on it" doesn't cut it. You can tell someone not to do something all day long, but if you leave them in an environment where there are no repercussions, it doesn't mean anything.

But, admitting you were wrong means your employees would have legal backing to seek damages, which they are duly owed. Good to see Paizo putting it's bottom line ahead of the well being of it's workers. Still. Doesn't look you've learned anything.

Yeah. Read through this a couple of times. I feel the words are right and I thought that was what I was looking for, but an ominous ambiguous future hope for something better isn't what I signed up for when I bought full into Pathfinder 2e.

That's definitely why I am here too. Paizo has been ahead of its competition on inclusion in its products for many years and it's disheartening to hear that's not the case in every corner of the office at every level. With the release of Mwangi Expanse being so recent it seems like they are still moving in the right direction. My hope is that the PaizoAccountability will help improve the lives of their LGBTQIA+ employees.

I also see no apology or admission of wrongdoing of any kind, just multiple "Well we had an email about it 3 years ago, so its not our fault!" level sidesteps.

Nor should they. From a legal standpoint they should neither address nor admit anything without consulting a legal team.

Cyrad wrote:

I do believe Sara Marie's case deserves investigation, and I am frustrated by the lack of transparency from Paizo about these incidents.

There is a Catch-22 here.

DISCLAIMER: While I have worked for a corporation for nearly three decades and have experience (but not formal education) in how HR works, this is a possible perspective. It should not be considered an encyclopedic listing of the situation by any means!

** spoiler omitted **...

I don’t want it made public. But something clearly went wrong. (At the very least the timing was atrocious).

Jeff has outlined steps that are being taken that were equally not entitled to know. I’m interested in hearing if that includes a review of that situation by someone not directly involved - not because I want to see it, but so Paizo can understand what went wrong and why.

Otherwise - who’s next?

Cyrad wrote:

I do believe Sara Marie's case deserves investigation, and I am frustrated by the lack of transparency from Paizo about these incidents.

People, get over this.

Paizo cannot legally discuss details of an employee's termination.

Even if Paizo is called upon as reference by her next potential employer, they cannot divulge specifics of the termination.

"Did she work for you from this date to that date?"
Yes.
"And was her position and responsibilities this and that?"
Yes.
"Thank you very much."

Yes, I understand they cannot discuss details. And I don't think they should. But it is frustrating nonetheless.

Edymnion wrote:

I also see no apology or admission of wrongdoing of any kind, just multiple "Well we had an email about it 3 years ago, so its not our fault!" level sidesteps.

Nor should they. From a legal standpoint they should neither address nor admit anything without consulting a legal team.

Exactly.

"I will neither confirm nor deny the allegations" is pretty standard legal speak for "Yeah, we did it, but you better hope your lawyers can prove it" level avoidance.

If the allegations are true, then suck it up and pay the price for your mistakes like a bunch of adults.

We are currently finalizing a job description to fill a vacant full-time HR position. You’ll see this posted in the next few business days, and we’ll be looking for a candidate with expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is important to all of us that this professional can help us to maintain Paizo’s shared commitment to our values in recruitment, hiring, and daily operations.

This right here is very very important. Without someone really paying attention to HR and applying impartial and detailed outlines of what should be done and not done as well as what steps will be taken in case of violation of said policies you have a situation where you have to trust that everyone involved will be on their best behavior and any violations will be handled fairly.

That trust seems to be sorely lacking given a variety of the posts from past employees and (while not as important to some people) the customer base. If the customers don't trust that you are carrying forward with the stated values of your company then the least problem you will have is chatter on your message boards. Given that we're seeing this story spread to Twitter, Facebook and non-Paizo websites this isn't something that is going to be easily forgotten or fixed with a PR spin of "We sure will try better in the future."

As for those who don't care about the people that are behind the screen/work for the company and just want their games, consider this: not dealing with the problem will slow down productivity and possibly result in many of the products you might be looking forward to being delayed or removed altogether as talent moves to other shops or the lack of employee/customer engagement makes putting out as much product less than productive for Paizo.

It affects everyone, and suggestions to just get over it are not helpful nor useful to the conversation. People are upset and are venting and looking for answers and solutions; telling them that their concerns are meritless or dumb just makes for flame wars rather than conversation.

And that's more than I've posted in years.

Good gaming all.

In any event, it's good to see old faces alive and well.

Erpa wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

I do believe Sara Marie's case deserves investigation, and I am frustrated by the lack of transparency from Paizo about these incidents.

People, get over this.

Paizo cannot legally discuss details of an employee's termination.

Even if Paizo is called upon as reference by her next potential employer, they cannot divulge specifics of the termination.

"Did she work for you from this date to that date?"
Yes.
"And was her position and responsibilities this and that?"
Yes.
"Thank you very much."

Yes, I understand they cannot discuss details. And I don't think they should. But it is frustrating nonetheless.

To that, I will still fully agree.

To all the "They can't respond because legally..." comments, they really, really can. It begins with two words. "We're sorry."

"We're sorry so many people have cause to feel we haven't lived up to the standards we aim for, sorry that we may have lost your trust through our actions or inactions, sorry that we didn't do better."

Thats how you start, no legalese or concerns about contracts or employee firings. Just ownership, acceptance that you need to do better, followed by actual actions over time proving your commitment to it.

To all the "They can't respond because legally..." comments, they really, really can. It begins with two words. "We're sorry."

"We're sorry so many people have cause to feel we haven't lived up to the standards we aim for, sorry that we may have lost your trust through our actions or inactions, sorry that we didn't do better."

Thats how you start, no legalese or concerns about contracts or employee firings. Just ownership, acceptance that you need to do better, followed by actual actions over time proving your commitment to it.

I still wouldn't. Let's just look at ridiculous examples how statements or art can be used against a company in legal battles... Example: Apple's spent twenty minutes dissecting various Banana related art that Epic has created for their game... A lawyer will twist anything you say in court...

Now, obviously, this was a joke. It was a small lighthearted moment during an antitrust-focused court case. But after Apple criticized Epic for hosting the Itch.io storefront and with it, its “so-called adult games,” Epic’s attorney simply couldn’t let Apple get away with implying that its naked banana was inappropriate.
Two excerpts about the Banana being naked and then in a tux...
“If we could just put on the screen a picture of Peely — is there anything inappropriate about Peely without clothes?” Epic’s attorney asked Weissinger two hours later.
“It’s just a banana man,” Weissinger was forced to respond.

The change to hotel room policy is good… but not acknowledging that it was apparently used as a transphobic bludgeon is shameful. This is a good list of updates and changes, but there’s pretty much no owning and accountability of things that actually went wrong. Where’s the apology, the regret? Any kind of understanding that real people were tangibly hurt?

This post is a first step, not a solution.

To people saying that we want to cancel paizo or burn em down, thats a bad faith reading of people asking for accountability and to do better. This statement is only the start yes, but many of us are used to companies making a gesture of goodwill to appease us and a statement that "things will get better" and then stop. This is only the first step, not the end, and I for one, would like to see paizo continue to improve and do better and to fully address the various issues that have been raised, particularly those of transphobia and workers being underpaid
#paizoaccountability

This blog post reminds me pretty much of Jeff’s first statement, but with a few particulars thrown in that address concerns brought up in multiple threads. But like Cori Marie, I am unimpressed, and agree with folks who feel it pretty much “says nothing”.

I am happy that workers working from home will be able to continue working from home. If that is one positive thing that comes out of this then I am happy for those workers.

That the carpets continue to be cleaned to a health standard? That other initiatives that have been in place…continue…to be in place doesn’t strike me as evidence of Paizo being forthright or ahead of the game on workers’ rights - which bringing them up seems to be the objective - convincing folks that Paizo is on the straight up.

Worker surveys! La! Workers - you are saved! Anonymous too! Fully 67% of statistics are misleading…

There will be folks here happy with positive comms, and those unhappy with the grinding of axes where positive comms have been presented. The problem for me is that this statement does two things *only* - it presents a “forward step” plan without genuine admittance of fault or error or even “we screwed up”; and only addresses specific issues that just so happened to be brought up in the multiple threads.

Were you not to be aware of the multiple threads, would it not seem odd that all of a sudden Paizo is hell bent on assuring that their premises were professionally cleaned since 2017? (Can that be made into a sticker for Executive level Hardcovers?) Or that from now on staff won’t have to share rooms at Cons. Both oddly, weirdly specific. Which is glaring, in absence of other information. And that glare casts a light elsewhere…shadowy. Multiple elsewheres. And obviously, it is not in Paizo’s corporate best interest to publicly say “we are responsible for malfeasance - and here are all the things we did wrong”.

But, if you are going to say something, maybe you could say, given you are improving, and stepping forward, and hey we’ve been legit on the Carpet scale since 2017, that it is clear something is not healthy, and it needs to be addressed and fixed before consumers can be confident that they are supporting an ethical concern.

Nothing here says there are processes that are harmful, nor that any other specific issues have been identified, are known about, or been/being addressed. The style of the piece, the breakdown, the tone, the paragraph breaks - its a do it yourself form letter to say “Um, there’s a new playtest dropping, we love our staff, m’kay!?!”