Paizo Update from Jeff Alvarez

One of the really weird paradigms that seems to be going around is that there are no levels. There is just one giant pile of bad without any sort of sorting. I really don't get it.

Agreed and seconded

On another forum a poster decided to Dox one of the writers of 5E. They took a screenshot of the credits at the beginning of the 5E core then circled the name of the writer. That is pure doxxing. A first name should never have been said and maybe even a mistake imo.

Then again I’m sure some posters here equate scratch on a finger and a severed finger the same injury. Even if the second is factually worse.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

One of the really weird paradigms that seems to be going around is that there are no levels. There is just one giant pile of bad without any sort of sorting. I really don't get it.

Agreed and seconded

On another forum a poster decided to Dox one of the writers of 5E. They took a screenshot of the credits at the beginning of the 5E core then circled the name of the writer. That is pure doxxing. A first name should never have been said and maybe even a mistake imo.

Then again I’m sure some posters here equate scratch on a finger and a severed finger the same injury. Even if the second is factually worse.

Again, literally nobody is saying there are not levels, and nobody is saying that what Jeff did is the worst thing he could have done. But it not being the worst does not make it okay. It's not a transitive property like that. He still used privileged information that he got from his role as an executive of a company, wielded it as a weapon to keep a disgruntled customer in line, and then when called on it did not correct his behavior for two weeks. Rather than say "He could have done worse than that" I'd like you to defend what he actually did.

. A first name should never have been said and maybe even a mistake imo.

It was done deliberately with the intent of (somehow) showing how seriously the issue was being taken. It was further pointed out that paizo staff have their real names out there, and posters shouldn't be able to hide behind the anonymity of the internet. At the minimum, someone would have had to click on more than a few things to even know the name in the first place.

So the first name being used by mistake isn't even a remote possibility. Having access to it took work and it was outright stated to be deliberate.

Linky

]Again, literally nobody is saying there are not levels

It looks to me like you are. Even within this post I can't follow your ideas from A to D unless there's nothing in between.

But it not being the worst does not make it okay.

Without the idea that there are no levels, what is being said that argues that it is ok? Everything I see being parsed as saying " it's ok" is saying "it's not THAT bad". Not "it's ok". Those arguments are not congruous if you have gradations of wrongdoing.

Rather than say "He could have done worse than that" I'd like you to defend what he actually did.

I believe the argument here was that first name only doesn't count as doxxing. That the first name isn't as bad as the whole name.

You must be this bad to be doxxing -----Line here----

What Jeff did was only this bad ----Line here----

That argument doesn't require a defense of the action to the point of it being ok.

I think Yoshua did a very good job of dismantling that argument, at least as far as the effect of it goes. (If you believe in the importance of intent there is still some difference). For myself, Doxxing is a new word without an agreed upon definition so arguing technicalities of a non technical (not yet technical?) term seems rather fruitless. (note. Not the larger picture. Just the exact meaning of a new word)

Incorrect argument about first name not being doxxing though. Any identifiable information is in fact doxxing. It is not limited to a specific name. Especially in instances when attempting to cause harm. Which intimidation legally is extremely harmful.

The personal definition of a first name isn't doxxing does not hold up in a court of law especially considering I had the users full name, state they lived in and multiple social media account names in under 10 minutes just by having his first name.

For reference:
https://felonies.org/is-doxxing-illegal-personal-information-revealed-onlin e/

Go to Clickified.

18 U.S. Code § 2261A.Stalking
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

Go to Clickified.

Harassment:
noun
aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Legal Defintion:
Go to Clickified.
harassment
(either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands

Dox:
verbINFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.

So, with those definitions, by default, doxxing is harassment. It is a form of intimidation, not informative in the slightest.

Removed a side conversation that was unrelated to the thread and that was borderline harassment/bullying. Thank ya all for staying focused!

With the first name within 10 minutes I was able to get his full name and find him on 3 social media sites

If you are adept at that, I'm sure you could have found the user without their first name. I'm not endorsing any doxxing, just saying that the privacy that people seem to think they have is mostly an illusion.

Incorrect argument about first name not being doxxing though. Any identifiable information is in fact doxxing. It is not limited to a specific name. Especially in instances when attempting to cause harm. Which intimidation legally is extremely harmful.

The personal definition of a first name isn't doxxing does not hold up in a court of law especially considering I had the users full name, state they lived in and multiple social media account names in under 10 minutes just by having his first name.

For reference:
https://felonies.org/is-doxxing-illegal-personal-information-revealed-onlin e/

Go to Clickified.

18 U.S. Code § 2261A.Stalking
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

Go to Clickified.

Harassment:
noun
aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Legal Defintion:
Go to Clickified.
harassment
(either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands

Dox:
verbINFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.

So, with those definitions, by default, doxxing is harassment. It is a form of intimidation, not informative in the slightest.

I was not arguing that it was not doxxing. I was arguing that what is generally understood by doxxing is associated with calls to action and vigilantism. It is a loaded term and it is worth clarifying that it was just first name rather than full info and a call to action. Just look at the examples of doxxing in Wikipedia.

Humbly,
Yawar

Yoshua wrote:

With the first name within 10 minutes I was able to get his full name and find him on 3 social media sites

If you are adept at that, I'm sure you could have found the user without their first name. I'm not endorsing any doxxing, just saying that the privacy that people seem to think they have is mostly an illusion.

Nope. I had no clue how to cross reference that specific user before getting their first name.

I can't just pick any random person here and cross reference without a few other identifiable markers. A first name is almost like an advance to go and collect your 200$ when it comes to identifying someone.

Not going to lie. I am 'ok' at finding people through tech. But I don't even scratch the surface of what some of my friends in the cyber security industry can do.

Yoshua wrote:

Incorrect argument about first name not being doxxing though. Any identifiable information is in fact doxxing. It is not limited to a specific name. Especially in instances when attempting to cause harm. Which intimidation legally is extremely harmful.

The personal definition of a first name isn't doxxing does not hold up in a court of law especially considering I had the users full name, state they lived in and multiple social media account names in under 10 minutes just by having his first name.

For reference:
https://felonies.org/is-doxxing-illegal-personal-information-revealed-onlin e/

Go to Clickified.

18 U.S. Code § 2261A.Stalking
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

Go to Clickified.

Harassment:
noun
aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Legal Defintion:
Go to Clickified.
harassment
(either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands

Dox:
verbINFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.

So, with those definitions, by default, doxxing is harassment. It is a form of intimidation, not informative in the slightest.

I was not arguing that it was not doxxing. I was arguing that what is generally understood by doxxing is associated with calls to action and vigilantism. It is a loaded term and it is worth clarifying that it was just first name rather than full info and a call to action. Just look at the examples of doxxing in Wikipedia.

Humbly,
Yawar

Ok. With that being said the President of Paizo did it to intentionally intimidate a customer. That customer has pretty much disappeared from the community since the incident.

Your commonly understood idea of what doxxing is is a huge misconception on what reality is. If you read my links you would understand what it really is.

Any attempt to publish someones identifiable information on the internet. Typically with malicious intent. Intimidation is considered so malicious under the law they have a name for it. Harassment.

Glad that at this point we can both agree just how wrong you were and hopefully you will stop asserting that falsehood.

your's humbly,
Yoshua

I think the difference in opinion might stem from intent. Some people seem to be saying that the releasing of the name by Jeff is not doxxing because that usually comes with the intent that people use that information to attack the victim. That is seemingly how doxxing originated. Despite Jeff's perceived issues, I do not believe he did what he did with the intent of people using it to attack the person. That is not to say what he did wasn't wrong or even perhaps criminal given the new privacy laws. Just that for some "doxxing" has a very specific connotation and what he did might not reach that threshold. YMMV

The intent was made explicitly clear when Jeff in the thread said he did it to 'show us how seriously he took' the issues and that since his employees couldn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet neither could we.

Don't know about you, but that intent is pretty much intimidation and harassment tied up with a bow.

As for what Doxxing is I listed the legal and grammatical definitions above. There really isn't much room for interpretation.

Someone who is very devoted to an ideal, say "Paizo is an amazing company and I don't want anything bad to happen to it" might feel compelled to use personal information disclosed improperly.

This then can escalate outside of the controlled data environment which has already been breached leading to no end of problems for the person that was referenced improperly.

If that someone has other identifiers (perhaps from working with the person, attending a convention, whatnot), then it becomes even more problematic.

The bigger and deeper concern is the ethics of the situation -- much like the 'all Paizo employees must work from the office, but the execs may not' it presents a double standard that is incredibly ruinous to the integrity of a given company.

And we still haven't heard from the staff in nearly a month and a half for this or the other incidents related to transphobia, save for a hinted comment by one of the new Leadership Team.

Ok. With that being said the President of Paizo did it to intentionally intimidate a customer. That customer has pretty much disappeared from the community since the incident.

Your commonly understood idea of what doxxing is is a huge misconception on what reality is. If you read my links you would understand what it really is.

Any attempt to publish someones identifiable information on the internet. Typically with malicious intent. Intimidation is considered so malicious under the law they have a name for it. Harassment.

Glad that at this point we can both agree just how wrong you were and hopefully you will stop asserting falsehoods.

your's humbly,
Yoshua

"Glad that at this point we can both agree"? ...on the strength of a few internet links? Okay. sure. Let's see what they have to say.

Doxxing originated from the slang term “dropping dox,” a form of revenge practiced by hackers, which involved revealing personal information from another hacker. Dox is slang for docs, referring to a collection of documents, or a dossier on an individual.

A dox typically includes your name, home address, employment address, phone numbers, social profiles, personal photos, detailed family information, and social security number.

That's the closest thing I see to a definition, reading your first link. Perhaps you can find a quote that I did not? You present a definition for "Dox", but it doesn't seem to come from any of your links. So, your statement "If you read my links you would understand what it really is." may be correct, but if so, it really doesn't support the rest of your argument.

It might be appropriate to dial the triumphalism back a bit?

/**********/

Now, a simple google search does reveal the definition you present, but... it's not a particularly precise definition, is it? And anyway, that's not the point. Let's try this again.

- No one is saying that what he did was okay. Nobody. It wasn't okay. It was deeply unprofessional, and highly likely to have been hurtful. It was shameful behavior, and made worse by his immediate reactions to being confronted about it. I admit that I haven't been following the saga as closely as some, but so far as I'm aware he hasn't ever addressed the issue with the level of seriousness it deserves, even after taking it down, and that, too, is shameful.

- No one is saying that it wasn't technically doxxing. I mean, your earlier post on the matter doesn't defend the point particularly well, but no one was actually attacking it. Yes. You are correct. It was Least Doxxing. Like, it was pretty much the bare minimum act that could reasonably fit the definition. I suppose that if he'd wanted to dial it back one further while still keeping his toe across the line, he could have released initials instead? Still, and I want to reiterate this, it was shockingly poor behavior on the part of the direct representative of a company towards one of their customers... because even Least Doxxing is completely out of line for that sort of a situation.

- What they are saying (and I am saying) are two things. The first is that we have noticed a tendency on these boards in particular, to consistently portray any disliked behavior in the worst possible light - to ignore uncertainties and caveats (and argue severely with those who try to point them out), to use the strongest available language to describe them, and so forth. This is, effectively, activist language. It says that everyone who agrees needs to be screaming as loudly as they can. Everyone who disagrees needs to be silenced. It warps the discussion. By disdaining ameliorating factors (where they exist) it attempts to render them meaningless... and that's bad. If every minor violation is met with maximum volume, then you limit how much you can respond if things get worse. If the only acceptable response is utter capitulation (because every even marginally offending behavior is violently unacceptable) then you erode any reason they might have to treat with you at all. In some cases, you make enemies out of friends.

It would be nice to be able to question and discuss The Narrative (whatever The Narrative of the moment is) without being attacked for it. Real life is messy, and only very rarely completely one way or the other.

- The Second thing is, more specifically, that "doxxing" as it is commonly used, and by default understood, generally does not refer to Least Doxxing. If someone hear that "X doxxed Y" they don't think "revealed their first name". That's not the thought that generally goes with that word. So, while the behavior in question was utterly inappropriate, describing it as "doxxing", without further qualification, is at least somewhat misleading, however technically correct it might be.

This board gets real hostile sometimes. Maybe if we can lower the default intensity of the rhetoric a little, we can make it a more pleasant (and thoughtful) place overall?

Most words have both a legal/academic meaning and a philosophical one. Both have merit. It just depends on from which perspective you are conducting your discourse and the understanding of that perspective by both sides. What he did was wrong, but personally, I don't consider it doxxing. And I have been the direct target of a Paizo executive's intimidation. Though I admit that we are really just talking semantics. Whether you call what he did doxxing or something else, it was wrong.

Yoshua wrote:

Ok. With that being said the President of Paizo did it to intentionally intimidate a customer. That customer has pretty much disappeared from the community since the incident.

Your commonly understood idea of what doxxing is is a huge misconception on what reality is. If you read my links you would understand what it really is.

Any attempt to publish someones identifiable information on the internet. Typically with malicious intent. Intimidation is considered so malicious under the law they have a name for it. Harassment.

Glad that at this point we can both agree just how wrong you were and hopefully you will stop asserting falsehoods.

your's humbly,
Yoshua

My goodness but you're eager to claim utter victory on the strength of a few internet links. So... sure. I'll read your little links. Let's see what they have to say.

your first link wrote:

Doxxing originated from the slang term “dropping dox,” a form of revenge practiced by hackers, which involved revealing personal information from another hacker. Dox is slang for docs, referring to a collection of documents, or a dossier on an individual.

A dox typically includes your name, home address, employment address, phone numbers, social profiles, personal photos, detailed family information, and social security number.

That's the closest thing I see to a definition, reading your first link. Perhaps you can find a quote that I did not? You present a definition for "Dox", but it doesn't seem to come from any of your links. So, your statement "If you read my links you would understand what it really is." may be correct, but if so, it really doesn't support the rest of your argument.

So... maybe dial that triumphalism back just a bit?

/**********/

Now, a simple google search does reveal the definition you present, but... it's not a particularly precise definition, is it? And anyway, that's not the point. Let's try this again.

- No one is saying that what...

nah, just read your first sentence and didn't bother with the rest. You are new to the conversation and I was there at ground zero arguing with Jeff to not dox our community. So was Norse Wolf.

When someone says 'xyz' is legally 'abc' but doesn't bother to do more than a 10 second wikipedia search it pretty much loses any credibility.

To be fair, being among first people to be offended doesn't mean you have more credibility either. That you got there first is really not relevant. EDIT--Not really fair to provide a link for someone to read and then after they read it and come to a different opinion to its basis and meaning, you dismiss it.

To be fair, being among first people to be offended doesn't mean you have more credibility either. That you got there first is really not relevant.

Fair. But do you honestly believe I have no credibility in this situation?

Just asking to make sure what you are accusing me of here.

Fact that Jeff admitted wrong doing and apologized is truly the only credibility needed.

TwilightKnight wrote:

To be fair, being among first people to be offended doesn't mean you have more credibility either. That you got there first is really not relevant.

Fair. But do you honestly believe I have no credibility in this situation?

Just asking to make sure what you are accusing me of here.

Fact that Jeff admitted wrong doing and apologized is truly the only credibility needed.

Well, if getting there first doesn't give you an overwhelming credibility advantage (and thereby utterly undermine my right to say anything to you on the subject ever) then perhaps you would be kind enough to read past the first sentence of my earlier response to you?

Fair. But do you honestly believe I have no credibility in this situation?

Let's not exaggerate. I never accused you of anything nor have I said you have no credibility, just that you don't have more than someone else simply because you have been offended longer. To be fair, if either of us is "guilty" of something, you are the one that dismissed all of their credibility because they haven't been offended long enough.

Fact that Jeff admitted wrong doing and apologized is truly the only credibility needed

Except that is not what is/was being discussed. the interpretation of the meaning of doxxing seems to be at the heart of the argument, though as I mentioned up thread, it really doesn't matter exactly what we call does it? In fact the entire argument seems to be kind of childish as we are not fighting over the incident, but what to call the incident. Seems like one of the very things that our politicians get caught up in and why they cannot get to any solutions.

Yoshua wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

To be fair, being among first people to be offended doesn't mean you have more credibility either. That you got there first is really not relevant.

Fair. But do you honestly believe I have no credibility in this situation?

Just asking to make sure what you are accusing me of here.

Fact that Jeff admitted wrong doing and apologized is truly the only credibility needed.

Well, if getting there first doesn't give you an overwhelming credibility advantage (and thereby utterly undermine my right to say anything to you on the subject ever) then perhaps you would be kind enough to read past the first sentence of my earlier response to you?

Why would I?

The entire premise you start off with is an insult? And then carried through. I don't feel like engaging with someone who comes to the table and the first thing I see is throwing an insult at me.

Humbly,
Yoshua

not posting does not equate to not being at the table

Yoshua wrote:

Fair. But do you honestly believe I have no credibility in this situation?

Let's not exaggerate. I never accused you of anything nor have I said you have no credibility, just that you don't have more than someone else simply because you have been offended longer. To be fair, if either of us is "guilty" of something, you are the one that dismissed all of their credibility because they haven't been offended long enough.

Ah, no. It wasn't the length. there is the confusion.

It was starting with an insult. I just don't engage well with people who insult me in the first breath. Which is why I asked for clarification from ya.

I can see how you took that away from what I said though. Apologies for not being clear. I don't take to being insulted kindly. Clearer?

I don't take to being insulted kindly

Gotcha, I can certainly understand that. Thanks for clarifying.

Why would I?

The entire premise you start off with is an insult? And then carried through. I don't feel like engaging with someone who comes to the table and the first thing I see is throwing an insult at me.

Humbly,
Yoshua

Ah. I apologize. I'd thought the tone of my response in line with that of the post it was responding to, but it's true, yours did not include any insults directly, and I can see where you'd feel that mine did. I had not realized that that in particular was an issue for you.

I have since edited the post, and adjusted it so as to continue to present the core meaning (which was not, in fact, just carrying through) while removing, moderating, and/or rewording anything that could be taken as directly insulting.

Perhaps now it meets your standards of civility?

I read what you said. I have no real responses because, as you admit, you are not as familiar with this particular situation as you could be.

I am not the end all be all knowledgeable person on doxxing, laws, or even the internet. I never claim to be.

I am however very familiar with this particular situation because myself and a few others had to go to bat HARD to get the doxxings removed. It took almost 2 weeks to do so. Many forum users were defending Jeff during this back and forth because it was only hurting people that they thought deserved it.

Some of those people are now the most vocal advocates here against what Jeff did, even though at the time they supported him.

I am not naming names, and a lot of those posts were removed from the original thread because of their content.

If you would like a more robust explanation of what I experienced while trying to get Jeff to understand what he was doing was dangerous, which he admitted to towards the end that he understood at that time what he did was serious, then feel free to click this link. Read the story, and then follow the link at the bottom and see the cleaned up version that Paizo left on the forums for everyone to see.

Mind you, the cleaned up version is horrendous at best.

The people you see me arguing with are doing so in extremely bad faith. Get some more back ground on the situation, this specific situation, and then decide if you want to play the semantics game with me about what is and is not legally doxxing.

If you already have read all of this and still want to play the semantics game? Then no thank you.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43h04&page=7?Staff-Change-Update-from-Paiz o-President-Jeff#335

Go to My response to Jeff's initial post about Sara Marie and Diego's firing and Jessica's twitter feed.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

One of the really weird paradigms that seems to be going around is that there are no levels. There is just one giant pile of bad without any sort of sorting. I really don't get it.

Agreed and seconded

On another forum a poster decided to Dox one of the writers of 5E. They took a screenshot of the credits at the beginning of the 5E core then circled the name of the writer. That is pure doxxing. A first name should never have been said and maybe even a mistake imo.

Then again I’m sure some posters here equate scratch on a finger and a severed finger the same injury. Even if the second is factually worse.

Are you referring to the rpgpundit because if so then maybe think about how the circumstances are different?

I read what you said. I have no real responses because, as you admit, you are not as familiar with this particular situation as you could be.

I am not the end all be all knowledgeable person on doxxing, laws, or even the internet. I never claim to be.

I am however very familiar with this particular situation because myself and a few others had to go to bat HARD to get the doxxings removed. It took almost 2 weeks to do so. Many forum users were defending Jeff during this back and forth because it was only hurting people that they thought deserved it.

Some of those people are now the most vocal advocates here against what Jeff did, even though at the time they supported him.

I am not naming names, and a lot of those posts were removed from the original thread because of their content.

If you would like a more robust explanation of what I experienced while trying to get Jeff to understand what he was doing was dangerous, which he admitted to towards the end that he understood at that time what he did was serious, then feel free to click this link. Read the story, and then follow the link at the bottom and see the cleaned up version that Paizo left on the forums for everyone to see.

Mind you, the cleaned up version is horrendous at best.

The people you see me arguing with are doing so in extremely bad faith. Get some more back ground on the situation, this specific situation, and then decide if you want to play the semantics game with me about what is and is not legally doxxing.

If you already have read all of this and still want to play the semantics game? Then no thank you.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43h04&page=7?Staff-Change-Update-from-Paiz o-President-Jeff#335

Go to My response to Jeff's initial post about Sara Marie and Diego's firing and Jessica's twitter feed.

Okay. I've now read it... at least, the "cleaned-up version". I admit that I still don't really know what the... less clean version looked like. In particular, I'd like to know if any of Jeff's own posts got purged as part of the clean-up. Still, thank you. That was an informative read... and now I am somewhat perplexed. From what I can read there, the most plausible understanding I can come to is...

- He got really unhappy, and failed a judgement check, and called someone out using their real name. This caused that person real harm. (The degree is somewhat unclear, but it's pretty clear that there was at least some real harm.) That was, as basically everyone now seems to agree, Really Not Cool.

- He got stubborn about having done it, and continued to fail his judgement check, and did not fix things for some time.

- Eventually, he was made to realize what he'd done, took it down, and gave what appeared to be a serious apology on the matter. This was, of course, woefully inadequate as far as the harm already caused, but it's not immediately clear (to me, at least) what more he could/should have done on the matter.

So... I guess this is Exhibit A for the statement "Jeff is an unfit leader, and the fact that he's in charge of Paizo is a cause for some concern."? I mean... based on the immediately available evidence, that's not an unreasonable position to take. ("Gets angry and fails judgement checks in ways that directly harm individual customers" is really not a good look.) At the same time... what would you have us/them do about it?

There are other exhibits, but those are mostly accusations of a culture cultivated under his leadership and the other executive leadership at paizo.

Some of the allegations have been denied. Others have been corroborated and ignored. Others have been acknowledged and stated that they have worked to make things better.

Welcome to the conversation, if you stay it is likely to not be fun because many people jump in and argue with very very bad faith arguments and when you see me get riled up it is likely because they are flatly refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

So, if your first post of mine that you saw was the one you responded to? I am sure it came off as quite snarky. However in context? It is people arguing semantics just to try to get a rise out of people who want actual change.

what would you have us/them do about it?

Not much. As much as we would like otherwise, those of us with a regular presence in the forums is an incredibly small part of Paizo's customer base. Those of us who stopped subscriptions and purchasing until we see a change in Paizo's business practices is unlikely to have much, if any, impact on their revenue/profit which is the only way we can have any effect on the business.

The UPW will negotiate a working contract. They will have to compromise on some things in order to get the best possible deal. Time will tell if there will be any real change in how Paizo does business or if they just get better at hiding it. Given their very long history of bad behavior over and over, some of us have little confidence it will happen, but time will tell.

There are other exhibits, but those are mostly accusations of a culture cultivated under his leadership and the other executive leadership at paizo.

Some of the allegations have been denied. Others have been corroborated and ignored. Others have been acknowledged and stated that they have worked to make things better.

Welcome to the conversation, if you stay it is likely to not be fun because many people jump in and argue with very very bad faith arguments and when you see me get riled up it is likely because they are flatly refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

So, if your first post of mine that you saw was the one you responded to? I am sure it came off as quite snarky. However in context? It is people arguing semantics just to try to get a rise out of people who want actual change.

I am at least aware of some of the other exhibits.

For what it's worth (and I'm not saying that it necessarily helps) I suspect that at least some of those arguments are not in bad faith - they're just uninformed. You were saying stuff that, with the weight of evidence behind you, is quite reasonable. At the same time, taken in a vacuum, I was looking at it and thinking "Wait. Hold on. What about...?" I had to swallow bile a time or two in order to get to the point that I actually understood where you were coming from, and that takes a bit of work. That's not on you, and I'm glad I did, but "not willing to swallow bile and give the benefit of the doubt long enough to gain understanding" isn't the same thing as "arguing in bad faith".

At the same time... yeah. I totally see how if this is a major source of drek for you, then having people constantly coming in and challenging it with side arguments that don't actually meaningfully address the issues that you're trying to raise would get Real Old, Real Fast, regardless of whether any given individual was driven by ignorance of bad faith. So yeah. You have my sympathy.

lol appreciated but no sympathy required. I don't take it personally when people come at me on an internet forum and any time I feel my actual blood pressure rising I step back. I stepped back for a few weeks but Jeff still hasn't released any new narratives other than.

"Everyone going to a convention will now get their own room"

Without stating why, or what the issue was means no accountability or justice for people like Crystal who have moved on from the company. People directly affected by it.

Doxxing is just one aspect, I amplify the voices of the people who come in and have their own gripes as well.

The Paizo Union is a good first step, but that is a step by the courageous employees. Not the Executive leadership. Proud of the employees creating a voice for themselves, but it never should have come to that in the first place. Based on what Jeff will do to his customers it isn't hard for me to believe the accusations of a hostile work environment where people feel like they can't speak up. Management and leadership like Mona and Buhlman have both said in their statements that they feel they fell short of being able to be the voice for employees seeking their help.

What environment is cultivated where the people in charge of other people feel like they can't advocate properly for them?

Like I said. People will poke at specific topics, I don't mind reminding people that there are real humans that are being affected by these 'hypothetical' semantic pedantic arguments. Especially our LGTBQ+ friends.

It is a tangled web that has been woven.

Reminder that we don't really have to equivocate about abuse. We can just say "Hey, Jeff has continued to fail at basic levels of community engagement and refuses to own up to his failings in a satisfying way that makes clear that he both understands the harm he could have caused and the actions he plans to implement to make sure that neither he nor anyone else is allowed to abuse their customer info access."

Trying to insist that dude should get a pass because "it wasn't too bad" is just another way of saying you are fine with people weaponizing privileged information against others in an asymmetric relationship.

Again: Amazing that mods keep acting like there isn't a clear and present reason these threads get antagonistic. Almost like banning people might be the only way to reclaim some kind of preferred tone. Weird.

Reminder that we don't really have to equivocate about abuse. We can just say "Hey, Jeff has continued to fail at basic levels of community engagement and refuses to own up to his failings in a satisfying way that makes clear that he both understands the harm he could have caused and the actions he plans to implement to make sure that neither he nor anyone else is allowed to abuse their customer info access."

Trying to insist that dude should get a pass because "it wasn't too bad" is just another way of saying you are fine with people weaponizing privileged information against others in an asymmetric relationship.

Again: Amazing that mods keep acting like there isn't a clear and present reason these threads get antagonistic. Almost like banning people might be the only way to reclaim some kind of preferred tone. Weird.

Okay, and this is where I get confused again. I read back over the links that @Yoshua provided. As far as I can see, with the doxxing issue, at least, Jeff did own up to it (eventually) in a way that seemed to indicate that he had some understanding of the harm he had caused and could have caused. It wasn't perfect, and it was embarrassingly long in coming, but it looked to my eyes like it was pretty clearly there. He didn't include any "and this is what I'm going to do to make sure it never happens again" (that I saw), but I'm not personally sure what he could have done there that would have been practical, efficient, and effective at fixing the issue... and I haven't myself seen any specific calls for action on the matter from anyone else, either. So... if you're talking about the doxxing, then yes, it was terrible, and yes, it reflects badly on him, but at the same time, I (quite literally) don't know what more you want from the man on the subject.

The more recent stuff (what I've seen of it) has a lot of serious allegations with meaningful circumstantial evidence suggesting that there's weight behind them, but relatively little hard proof. His response to same has been inadequate. He started out with an embarrassingly corporatese block of not much, followed it up rather later with a message that was a bit better but more of a tide-you-over than a final response, and then followed that up with a whole lot of nothing. So that's also really not ideal, but it doesn't seem to be what your'e talking about.

So... what am I missing here? I mean, he did admit it and own up to the doxxing stuff, right? I'm not just imagining that?

The leadership team should be evaluating Jeff's performance and how it impacts the community.