Paizo Update from Jeff Alvarez

People are upset because solving the hotel room issue in this way is very similar to "don't ask, don't tell".

That's an interesting analogy. In my lifetime, I've seen DADT go from the progressive and inclusive option to the posterchild for discriminatory ruling.

DADT only changed one thing about gays serving in the military, the asking part. Previously, we all were asked, and thus if someone was later found out, it became a crime of falsifying a federal document. It was still illegal to be gay and serving in the military.

A (probably) gay soldier was brutally killed at my duty station of Fort Campbell, literally the first year I was in the Army. And not because of DADT, but due to gay panic. Because of that killing, the policy became that if you said you were gay, no (or very few) questions asked, you got chaptered out of the military in 72 hours. A lot of straight guys who regretted signing up used it to get out. Most of the gay people I knew in the service were not telling (or only telling trusted people). Most of us really didn't care about our fellow soldiers' sexuality. As one eloquent Marine once stated, 'the average military guy does gayer stuff on a regular basis out in the open than actual homosexuals do in their homes.' He was not using the term in the generic 'insult' sense either, although I suspect being more specific might violate the community terms of service.

Now, you might consider the commanders that threw gay (professed) soldiers out of the army in three days to be horrifically biased or homophobic today, but they were also trying to protect those same gay soldiers from potentially murderous reprisals. There weren't actual good answers, definitely not easy ones. Even if you prosecute and convict gay killing soldiers, you still have dead gay soldiers. It's not something that changed overnight, and it's not something that just one person, even a president, had the power to fix alone.

To bring it back to the Paizo hotel room issue, giving everyone their own room and letting them be the one to decide who they room/bunk/sleep with is probably the better and safer solution regardless, even preferable than to my previously stated 'let people consent to their roommate' idea. It removes hard feelings from company's sphere of influence. It's easy to look at it as letting people chicken out rather than have to vocalize that they have a problem sleeping in the same room as a trans person, or gay person, or any other kind of person, but it also keeps you from having to room with someone who is of the unwashed poor hygiene RPG player stereotype. Or just the person that tells horribly boring stories until 4am. Giving individuals autonomy is a good thing.

You don't release the pressure if you still see ongoing bleeding.

This. We've seen situations in the past where executives and higher ups in a company make one small change to shut us up and insist they'll do better but then it stops there. I love pathfinder and I want paizo to do better, but the past has shown me that we *need* to keep the pressure up if we want to see them actually continue to make good on those changes in the future

Mergy wrote:

People are upset because solving the hotel room issue in this way is very similar to "don't ask, don't tell".

That's an interesting analogy. In my lifetime, I've seen DADT go from the progressive and inclusive option to the posterchild for discriminatory ruling.

Well said.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

You don't release the pressure if you still see ongoing bleeding.

This. We've seen situations in the past where executives and higher ups in a company make one small change to shut us up and insist they'll do better but then it stops there. I love pathfinder and I want paizo to do better, but the past has shown me that we *need* to keep the pressure up if we want to see them actually continue to make good on those changes in the future

I’m still waiting to hear what those post-Agents of Edgewatch changes were.

A gentle reminder to stay on topic and not attack each other, or quote content that may be removed which will cause your post to be removed as well. Please do not try to get around our swear filter. If you feel the need to curse, maybe step away for a bit and not comment in the heat of the moment, thanks!

Mergy wrote:

People are upset because solving the hotel room issue in this way is very similar to "don't ask, don't tell".

That's an interesting analogy. In my lifetime, I've seen DADT go from the progressive and inclusive option to the posterchild for discriminatory ruling.

I'm too young (born 1990) and don't have the experience in the military but I got the impression that DADT was a compromise rather than *the* progressive and inclusive option.

I'm also struggling to reasonably map your elaborations (which are interesting and I appreciate you sharing your experience) back onto the hotel situation, as I don't think Paizo has a murdering trans people problem, or something similar that trans people need to be shielded from. The context for DADT being a compromise isn't a good mapping for the context of Paizo today. Although I can sorta see what you're saying with the reality of trans discrimination or prejudice still being present, I think we're supposed to be at a place now culturally where that should be unacceptable rather than compromised around.

While I generally agree that autonomy over room choices is good policy, the context for the switch to that policy is othering for sure. (For example: I like single stall bathrooms, I don't like single stall bathrooms being pitched as the solution to cis people realizing trans people pee like everyone else.)

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Mergy wrote:

People are upset because solving the hotel room issue in this way is very similar to "don't ask, don't tell".

That's an interesting analogy. In my lifetime, I've seen DADT go from the progressive and inclusive option to the posterchild for discriminatory ruling.

I'm too young (born 1990) and don't have the experience in the military but I got the impression that DADT was a compromise rather than *the* progressive and inclusive option.

I'm also struggling to reasonably map your elaborations (which are interesting and I appreciate you sharing your experience) back onto the hotel situation, as I don't think Paizo has a murdering trans people problem, or something similar that trans people need to be shielded from. The context for DADT being a compromise isn't a good mapping for the context of Paizo today. Although I can sorta see what you're saying with the reality of trans discrimination or prejudice still being present, I think we're supposed to be at a place now culturally where that should be unacceptable rather than compromised around.

While I generally agree that autonomy over room choices is good policy, the context for the switch to that policy is othering for sure. (For example: I like single stall bathrooms, I don't like single stall bathrooms being pitched as the solution to cis people realizing trans people pee like everyone else.)

Ah, my comment flowed naturally from the conversation, but a massive chunk of that is now gone and moderated away (including oddly enough a defense of inclusivity), and it doesn't fit quite as seamlessly now. There's also the bit where there are multiple threads at this point, so the flow of my thoughts as they develop isn't neatly in order on a single thread.

To summarize my thoughts on the Crystal situation.

1. Whether the situation was or wasn't transphobic misses the point. It made a woman feel discriminated against for being trans.
2. There was no policy in place to prevent transphobic discrimination.
3. A clear policy helps everyone understand the process that produces a given outcome, whether that's for being fired, rooming with someone at a convention, or getting a raise.
4. Clear policies are good, Paizo should have a clear policy. Even if it's not made available to the customers, the employees should know how things are working. Customers knowing that there is a clear policy will alleviate some of their concern about unfair treatment of people they care about.

And while I haven't thought about it, a clear policy that prevents trans discrimination probably doesn't have to specifically be about trans discrimination. Saying things like "Our company will never discriminate on the basis of gender identity" sounds nice, but it's not actually a clear policy.

Non single stall bathroom policies are almost always going to be bad examples of clear non-discriminatory policy because the very concept of a Men's/Women's room is discriminatory to begin with. Bathrooms also have the exciting distinction of having a rich history of discrimination.

Clear policies are good, Paizo should have a clear policy. Even if it's not made available to the customers, the employees should know how things are working. Customers knowing that there is a clear policy will alleviate some of their concern about unfair treatment of people they care about.

Clear policies aren't always clear. My current office has tried to create clearer more inclusive policies; but people keep being alienated in different ways. To help prevent any issues we now have pages of policies that no one really understands to the full extent. One of the things that happened right before the pandemic is that no one can have personal items at their desks. Instead you can only have company approved items for decorations that they have preselected. If you have any decorations on your desk someone will come and talk to you.

Just because you have "clearer" policies doesn't mean they are clear in every way possible and sometimes can create unintended side effects.

Ah, my comment flowed naturally from the conversation, but a massive chunk of that is now gone and moderated away (including oddly enough a defense of inclusivity), and it doesn't fit quite as seamlessly now.

Oh is that what happened to it? I know what I did wrong, but I'm disappointed that my edit wasn't enough to save it.

:(

:(

It’s ok, Carpet. People love you. John McClane still endorses you after a long flight.

Make fists with your toes!

A_Carpet wrote:

:(

It’s ok, Carpet. People love you. John McClane still endorses you after a long flight.

Hopefully without the spouse's Christmas office party being crashed by exceptionally bankrolled thieves attempting to heist the company funds...

A_Carpet wrote:

:(

It’s ok, Carpet. People love you. John McClane still endorses you after a long flight.

Plus, we know what was said and even the Roombas can't take that away from us.

Make fists with your toes!

I was JUST watching that the other day.

Argyle!

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Clear policies are good, Paizo should have a clear policy. Even if it's not made available to the customers, the employees should know how things are working. Customers knowing that there is a clear policy will alleviate some of their concern about unfair treatment of people they care about.

Clear policies aren't always clear. My current office has tried to create clearer more inclusive policies; but people keep being alienated in different ways. To help prevent any issues we now have pages of policies that no one really understands to the full extent. One of the things that happened right before the pandemic is that no one can have personal items at their desks. Instead you can only have company approved items for decorations that they have preselected. If you have any decorations on your desk someone will come and talk to you.

Just because you have "clearer" policies doesn't mean they are clear in every way possible and sometimes can create unintended side effects.

It would seem you are talking about unclear policies, not clear ones? I mean, in regards to the desk items question, the clearest policy of all is 'no non-work items allowed on the desk.' This might not be the most desirable policy, but if I can't trust my employees not to get into some sort of religious one upsmanship contest with holiday decorations, or someone to use their allowance of pictures to cover their desk in cultish fawning over a politician (or mockery of a politician) or LonelyFrans screenshots, then no decorations might be the best answer.

Freedom, even as simple as 'I can place personal items in my public workspace' comes with responsibility. Otherwise it doesn't work. And suddenly you end up with people fighting to band public Nativity scenes during December, or trying to jump down their Jewish cashier's throat for wishing them happy holidays.

In teaching, we call it rules and procedures. You have a few rules, which are nonnegotiable and apply regardless of situation, like 'treat people with respect' And you have many procedures (aka policies), for just about everything. How to get a pencil. How to ask permission to leave the room. Where to put your bag.

'Trans people get basic human respect' (how is this considered political or even bold?) would fall under the rule category, most likely without the first word included, while 'how rooming assignments will work when we go to GenCon' would be a procedure.

Zexcir wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Clear policies are good, Paizo should have a clear policy. Even if it's not made available to the customers, the employees should know how things are working. Customers knowing that there is a clear policy will alleviate some of their concern about unfair treatment of people they care about.

Clear policies aren't always clear. My current office has tried to create clearer more inclusive policies; but people keep being alienated in different ways. To help prevent any issues we now have pages of policies that no one really understands to the full extent. One of the things that happened right before the pandemic is that no one can have personal items at their desks. Instead you can only have company approved items for decorations that they have preselected. If you have any decorations on your desk someone will come and talk to you.

Just because you have "clearer" policies doesn't mean they are clear in every way possible and sometimes can create unintended side effects.

It would seem you are talking about unclear policies, not clear ones? I mean, in regards to the desk items question, the clearest policy of all is 'no non-work items allowed on the desk.' This might not be the most desirable policy, but if I can't trust my employees not to get into some sort of religious one upsmanship contest with holiday decorations, or someone to use their allowance of pictures to cover their desk in cultish fawning over a politician (or mockery of a politician) or LonelyFrans screenshots, then no decorations might be the best answer.

Freedom, even as simple as 'I can place personal items in my public workspace' comes with responsibility. Otherwise it doesn't work. And suddenly you end up with people fighting to band public Nativity scenes during December, or trying to jump down their Jewish cashier's throat for wishing them happy holidays.

In teaching, we call it rules and procedures. You have a few rules, which are nonnegotiable and apply...

Unclear or possibly just bad rules.

Generally lax rules and broad guidelines really are best, while strict rules just piss everybody off. "No personal items" might get prevent some problematic things, but it also sweeps away harmless character and personality. You only have to go there when people are abusing the privilege and management can't or isn't willing to deal fairly with the problems. "Don't be a dick" isn't a clear rule, but done in good faith it covers most problems.
Until someone isn't dealing in good faith and tries to rules lawyer around it.

Let's see how it goes.

As far as the room accommodations, there might come a time when hotel vacancy will be limited, and single rooms may not be available for particular conventions (like at Gen Con).

There should be something in place for that eventuality.

Mergy wrote:

People are upset because solving the hotel room issue in this way is very similar to "don't ask, don't tell".

That's an interesting analogy. In my lifetime, I've seen DADT go from the progressive and inclusive option to the posterchild for discriminatory ruling.

DADT only changed one thing about gays serving in the military, the asking part. Previously, we all were asked, and thus if someone was later found out, it became a crime of falsifying a federal document. It was still illegal to be gay and serving in the military.

A (probably) gay soldier was brutally killed at my duty station of Fort Campbell, literally the first year I was in the Army. And not because of DADT, but due to gay panic. Because of that killing, the policy became that if you said you were gay, no (or very few) questions asked, you got chaptered out of the military in 72 hours. A lot of straight guys who regretted signing up used it to get out. Most of the gay people I knew in the service were not telling (or only telling trusted people). Most of us really didn't care about our fellow soldiers' sexuality. As one eloquent Marine once stated, 'the average military guy does gayer stuff on a regular basis out in the open than actual homosexuals do in their homes.' He was not using the term in the generic 'insult' sense either, although I suspect being more specific might violate the community terms of service.

Now, you might consider the commanders that threw gay (professed) soldiers out of the army in three days to be horrifically biased or homophobic today, but they were also trying to protect those same gay soldiers from potentially murderous reprisals. There weren't actual good answers, definitely not easy ones. Even if you prosecute and convict gay killing soldiers, you still have dead gay soldiers. It's not something that changed overnight, and it's not something that just one person, even a president, had the power to fix alone.

To bring it back to the Paizo hotel room issue, giving...

While I understand the commander actions in the end it is also an issue of a backward policy and thinking. No offense, but while other countries are not perfect in many ways the US (or large parts of it) are decades behind on many social equality issues and acceptance of people who are perceived to be different. In my own country, despite having its own flaws, discrimination against (as it was called back then) gay people was banned around 50 years ago……. the military participates in gay pride etc…..

It all depends on standards, and with regards to eg liveable wages, LHBTQ+ there is a world to win still with many companies and countries. And yes it is good to aspire to be great instead of comparing (as I have seen people do) with something worse like Afghanistan.

Unclear or possibly just bad rules.

Generally lax rules and broad guidelines really are best, while strict rules just piss everybody off. "No personal items" might get prevent some problematic things, but it also sweeps away harmless character and personality. You only have to go there when people are abusing the privilege and management can't or isn't willing to deal fairly with the problems. "Don't be a dick" isn't a clear rule, but done in good faith it covers most problems.
Until someone isn't dealing in good faith and tries to rules lawyer around it.

Heh, I think the preference for lax vs strict rules is one of the few actual characteristics that differentiate between chaotic and lawful alignments, is it not?

As someone who struggles to notice, much less care about, others' personal styles, decorations, clothing, etc, I agree that I prefer less to more, when it comes to dress codes, people telling me what I'm allowed to have in my workspace, etc.

But, from a company perspective, say I have two employees that work hard, know what they are doing, and get things done. Employee 1 is a Christian, super uptight, and easily offended by what they perceive as sinful actions. Employee 2 doesn't have any religion, is fairly relaxed, but recently had an annoying personal exchange with Employee 1, so they decided to bring in Satanist counterparts to the Christian decorations in Employee 1's workspace, just to annoy them without actively doing anything wrong.

Now, as an employer, I have a potentially explosive situation on my hands, all due to the fact that these two good employees are basically picking at each other. And yeah, Employee 3, who has stayed out of this, but is a Wiccan/Christian/Satanist/Etsy enthusiast, is probably about to end up screwed by a policy designed to keep Employee 1 and 2 from escalating their sniping.

And human nature being what it is, the employer is often going to be drawn into the more obvious nature of the religious back and forth, than the fact that the religion is being used as a proxy for the two's personal issues. And now, it isn't just Employee 1, but all Christianity, and not Employee 2 but all Satanism. When in reality, this all boils down to someone who is uptight and someone who is doing something they know (but no one can prove) bothers that uptight person.

This is the sort of scenario that leads someone to declare workspaces to be barren of any personal items. Well before they get to the point of having back the blue and pride flags flying in their office.

In my opinion, the clearest policies tell you what you can/should/are allowed to do, not what you aren't allowed to do.

Once again I must reiterate: my main concern through all of this, is that the employees who are responsible for the wonderful content we love are being mistreated and I want things to improve for them. A boilerplate statement that "things will improve" isn't enough to convince me that they will, I want more, otherwise I'm not sure I'll be able to keep supporting paizo products

Point one - Paying for more rooms means potentially less employees will be allowed to go, the policy stated on Monday does not in any way speak to who will be selected to go and how those selections will be made. Including language to make that a fair process is not that big of an ask.

Point two - How is "if you're not needed, you won't be going" an answer to the concern about a limited number of available single rooms for the staff that are needed at the con as was asked by the other poster earlier in the thread?

No one was suggesting that conventions are a "perk of the job," and the fact that you need to argue that as if this were a conversation about trying to wheedle a free ride to Gen Con concerns me a bit.

Conventions aren't a 'perk of the job' that you get sent to in order to have fun. They're sending you to work.

They're a bit of both, actually. You're there to work, but you also get to network and meet people - which helps you develop professionally and personally. You also get to participate in the community you support in your job in a way you may not be able to from the offices.

Standing up for Paizo would be a great thing, if anyone here were attacking Paizo. There was a very small handful of people who suggested someone should step down, that has not been the overwhelming viewpoint expressed in any of the threads - let alone this specific one.

The conversation going on at the specific point you waded in was a productive conversation about policy and procedure that in way was attacking the company.

Your argument about hiring has no bearing here, because this isn't a conversation about hiring.

Gloom wrote:

Conventions aren't a 'perk of the job' that you get sent to in order to have fun. They're sending you to work.

They're a bit of both, actually. You're there to work, but you also get to network and meet people - which helps you develop professionally and personally. You also get to participate in the community you support in your job in a way you may not be able to from the offices.

So, yeah, there really is an issue here of "who has to do this" vs "who gets to do this".

I mean, sure? But attendance at a convention isn't a guarantee for every employee. If you absolutely want to go to network then use your vacation time and purchase a ticket to go on your own. That's the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to go.

I used to do conventions for my employer and while there was some flexibility with who did or didn't go it was entirely on an as needed basis and once they filled all of the needed slots then no one else was going.

One of the claims was that Paizo forbade employees from going to conventions on their own.

I believe the difficulty here is that in order for us to take on trust that Paizo will use an “as needed” verbal-only policy to make decisions about who gets to network for the company and who doesn’t is that the allegations which even led to these circumstances paint Paizo as having behaved in an untrustworthy fashion. To whit, a company accused of being discriminatory practices should not propose a solution where, without clear written policy, discrimination can still take place.

Let’s say you only send some employees “as needed” but not others. You say it’s because it costs too much. You say it’s because the employees you do send are better. But the employee you never send is one of your few trans employees…you’re possibly being discriminatory there. Normally I would expect a company with stated values like Paizo to not conduct themelves in that manner. But that’s just it: that trust has been broken since they apparently did do so in the past.

So, a clearly outlined policy with very specific descriptions of how the company decides who gets to go, when, how often, and for what reasons would be necessary. Not just to earn back the trust they lost, but because having written SOP is just good practice to avoid problems down the line. And obviously if that policy is discriminatory, even if it’s otherwise clear-cut and written down, then it’s still bad and must be revised.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Gloom wrote:

Conventions aren't a 'perk of the job' that you get sent to in order to have fun. They're sending you to work.

They're a bit of both, actually. You're there to work, but you also get to network and meet people - which helps you develop professionally and personally. You also get to participate in the community you support in your job in a way you may not be able to from the offices.

So, yeah, there really is an issue here of "who has to do this" vs "who gets to do this".

I mean, sure? But attendance at a convention isn't a guarantee for every employee. If you absolutely want to go to network then use your vacation time and purchase a ticket to go on your own. That's the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to go.

I used to do conventions for my employer and while there was some flexibility with who did or didn't go it was entirely on an as needed basis and once they filled all of the needed slots then no one else was going.

It's fine to not have every employee have the opportunity to attend, they absolutely should consider how many slots they have and choose the people who have the relevant skills and relevant role related to the project to fill those slots.

It's not fine for the reason that an employee doesn't get the opportunity to attend to be because of their gender identity.

It's also not fine to have a structural thing designed around fear of trans people (whether it is fear of us or fear of some perceived drama related to us) shape the policy that determines how many people get the opportunity to attend.

Still just waiting for the next meaningful communication from the powers that be. From the Armchair Lawyers to the People asking for justice it feels like we are just talking in circles at this point.

Which is necessary because we need to keep this visible, and voices need to be heard on both sides. But nothing is going to get accomplished until upper management moves forward with their current plans and hopefully identifies more meaningful ways to acknowledge the current issues being brought up.

Still hoping to see a 'I'm here guys' post from Sara Marie and Diego. Saving money by cutting Sara Marie out of the chain is likely to cost at least as much in sales as it did to keep her employed. Just an armchair account here making statements.

SNIP

a clearly outlined policy with very specific descriptions of how the company decides who gets to go, when, how often, and for what reasons would be necessary.

Just wanting to jump in here and state that. nowhere in the post, does it state such a decision tree DOESN'T exist. Possibly a really, really, good one that has no discrimination in it what-so-ever.

All we do know, is that they adjusted their policy to default to one person per room. Further, some people here have found this to be lacking, in a "side-step the issue" way... However, they ignore the follow-up line stating that if multiple employees want to share a room they may request to do so.

This can be viewed multiple ways.

1) That it allows them to continue to deny such transgender room sharing, under the statement "not our policy".

2) It now allows them to openly allow room sharing of any two, or more, members under the agreement of "You willingly choose to room with this other person, and accept all consequences herein, and we are exempt from any claims of forced discomfort based on perceived gender or sexuality".

We have no way of truly knowing which is the case.

We have no way of truly knowing which is the case.

Hence advocating for clarification on the issue.

Kitsune Kune wrote:

We have no way of truly knowing which is the case.

Hence advocating for clarification on the issue.

I can understand desiring such a clarification. And would welcome it if it arrives.

However I know of vary few companies who would be willing to post the full details of their decision-making processes out in such a place. In case the details need changing in the future. Because if, somehow, an issue arises. We'll people pointing to the post going "But you said this!"

Future-proofing exists in both game-design, and official statements.

Gloom wrote:

Bill Dunn wrote:

Gloom wrote:

Conventions aren't a 'perk of the job' that you get sent to in order to have fun. They're sending you to work.

They're a bit of both, actually. You're there to work, but you also get to network and meet people - which helps you develop professionally and personally. You also get to participate in the community you support in your job in a way you may not be able to from the offices.

So, yeah, there really is an issue here of "who has to do this" vs "who gets to do this".

I mean, sure? But attendance at a convention isn't a guarantee for every employee. If you absolutely want to go to network then use your vacation time and purchase a ticket to go on your own. That's the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to go.

I used to do conventions for my employer and while there was some flexibility with who did or didn't go it was entirely on an as needed basis and once they filled all of the needed slots then no one else was going.

It's fine to not have every employee have the opportunity to attend, they absolutely should consider how many slots they have and choose the people who have the relevant skills and relevant role related to the project to fill those slots.

It's not fine for the reason that an employee doesn't get the opportunity to attend to be because of their gender identity.

It's also not fine to have a structural thing designed around fear of trans people (whether it is fear of us or fear of some perceived drama related to us) shape the policy that determines how many people get the opportunity to attend.

Gender identity should never play into anything related to the selection process they use for whoever is attending a convention. I don't disagree with you there.

I may be a bit out of the loop on this, but my understanding was that the claim was that Crystal wasn't able to attend because they would not put her in the same room as another employee and another room wasn't available.

This could have been due to any number of factors, including factors outside of the control of the company. The specifics have not been shared so I would rather not attempt to speculate on the reasoning behind their decision. Especially since they made changes after this happened to have only one employee per hotel room effectively negating this exact scenario from happening in the future.

The best that I would hope for from them on a company level is that they are dedicated to nondiscrimination and that ethnicity, gender identity, nor sexual orientation will be factors when determining anything to do with their selection process for who is attending a convention.