Paizo Expands Leadership Team

it applies to everyone and anyone behaving badly

Except we cannot agree on who is behaving "badly" since it is generally a subjective evaluation. For every perceived "phobic" person there is a perceived "woke" person and both often consider the behavior of the other to be bad. Better to just focus on making your own point and not trying to judge the opposition. Let the merits of your position stand and give everyone else the freedom to decide for themselves. Accusations serve no purpose in discourse than to escalate tensions.

Not assuming tone is fine and all since it CAN indeed be hard to judge tone, but that doesn't mean its impossible, and after seeing dozens of messages like it, I find it hard not to notice patterns of wording used and the ways in which such messages have been used before to shut down people's complaints and tone police

I would dare to asume that an "establish history of racist and/or transphobic behavior" is banable here.

Historically, (IME) the "best" way to get sanctioned/suspended/banned was to bash Paizo directly. It would seem recent events have softened that position for obvious reasons.

Quote:

I would dare to asume that an "establish history of racist and/or transphobic behavior" is banable here.

Historically, (IME) the "best" way to get sanctioned/suspended/banned was to bash Paizo directly. It would seem recent events have softened that position for obvious reasons.

That was my experience. I got told in a suspension email, as well as people on the boards, that my being told one thing by Paizo staff and them not following through, was not accurate. 3 years later, still waiting for the issue to be rectified.

No political discussions. Thread is locked while I remove things.

EDIT: Looks like Tonya is working her way through this thread from the beginning. I'm keeping this locked until she's finished.

We are doing our best to moderate the forums properly, but we ask for your patience as we are short-staffed. We will continue to try to get these moderated in a timely manner, but things will get missed, or errantly removed, and someone is going to get angry about it, so apologies in advance.

FWIW, we're working on updating our guidelines, amongst other things, but it takes time. And time is rare commodity when you're constantly on fire.

Removed a large number of posts, including some involving political discussions and others focused on tone policing, respect, and courtesy. Over the past weeks, we've had a number of threads related to #PaizoAccountability, UPW, and adjacent topics. The moderation team wants to keep threads open and topics available for discussion, as we feel this is in the best interest of the community, while still adhering to the community guidelines. This is a balancing act, as any act of moderation is at its core at least somewhat subjective. Please help us keep the discussion going by flagging problematic posts and moving on without engaging. Thank you!

I would like to remind everyone that we are now coming up on two months since allegations broke that Paizo had transphobic policies that dictated different rules for trans staff than everyone else, and management has not only not responded, but has danced around the issue. The conversations that have ensued here have been a firehose of transphobic baiting, one that the moderation team has at times struggled to keep up with.

Please, consider all of this when you see comments from me and any other trans forum posters; we are actively hurting, and feel betrayed by a company that many of us love /because/ of how good it’s been about queer representation. We aren’t vicious fangs-out jerks, and I would beg everyone else to consider exactly why we’re angry, rather than dismissing us out of hand.

Cori Marie wrote:

Heck, with the exception of Erik Mona, I don't think I've ever seen a single adventure written by any of the other executives.

Huh.

Never stopped to think about that one before. Thank you.

I looked into this 'cause I was curious. Here are the Paizo adventures I could find with a short search for each of them. I'm probably missing some though.

Jeffrey Alvarez
-?

David Reuland
-?

Erik Mona
-Legacy of Fire 1: Howl of the Carrion King
-PFS1e 0-46: Requiem for the Red Raven
-Thornkeep Floor 4: Sanctum of a Lost Age
-Emerald Spire Level 14: The Throne of Azlant
-The Gauntlet

Does anyone know if Jeff or David have written any adventures, even outside of Paizo? David Reuland I can understand since he's the CFO and thus more of a business person, but I would have expected someone that is President and COO of a major TTRPG company to have written something in the past.

For what it’s worth, I don’t need my management team to be writing RPG content, and I think that’s a silly thing to hold against them (after all, they’re managers, not writers)… especially in the face of allegations of tangible, serious problems.

EDIT: If the manager of a restaurant is mistreating staff, I wouldn’t go “and they can’t even cook!”

Yeah my argument isn't that they need to write content to be leadership in the company, but that they're not the reasons that I love the company, because I love the company for the worlds they've built. Erik has certainly contributed to that, with adventures and other content in the campaign setting. The rest of the executive team hasn't impacted me in the same way. (note that I've never read Emerald Spire, so I can't say one way or another if Lisa's writing impacts me or not)

For what it’s worth, I don’t need my management team to be writing RPG content, and I think that’s a silly thing to hold against them (after all, they’re managers, not writers)… especially in the face of allegations of tangible, serious problems.

EDIT: If the manager of a restaurant is mistreating staff, I wouldn’t go “and they can’t even cook!”

I agree with that; I was more curious to see if they had written anything but couldn't find anything. Would have thought they would have tried their hand at it at least once in ~10+ years.

Yeah my argument isn't that they need to write content to be leadership in the company, but that they're not the reasons that I love the company, because I love the company for the worlds they've built. Erik has certainly contributed to that, with adventures and other content in the campaign setting. The rest of the executive team hasn't impacted me in the same way. (note that I've never read Emerald Spire, so I can't say one way or another if Lisa's writing impacts me or not)

ES1:Tower Ruins is okay and Emerald Spire is the best thing that came out of the PF:Online project. (Not that that means much considering the mess that was/is) According to PFSTracker it's the most played evergreen module and 5th most played evergreen, but I think that has more to do with it being fairly quick and uneventful so people would speedrun it for an easy 3xp to get out of 1st level.

When a hire is just checking boxes for diversity, it serves only to put a person in over his/her head and will spell trouble for the company in the longer run.

It's called the Peter Principle, and it's not restricted to "diversity" hires.

"People in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another."

Even before these two men were added to the Executive Team, we may have been watching that principle in action.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

diversity is a good thing

I would agree with the caveat that it occur organically. This really comes down to a very simple evaluation on a personal level—which do you prefer: equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. How you decide that goes to inform virtually all of your socio-political positions

The fact that many people operate under the incredibly laughable belief that we actually HAVE anything remotely resembling equality of opportunity is part of the problem to begin with.

[Another Old Timer logging back in...]

So as the d20 Rolls...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFP-P9YBv0

A reminder, when we talk about "equality of opportunity vs of outcome", is that there's a big difference between equality and equity. Equality is giving everybody the exact same goals to achieve in a vacuum, but equity is recognizing that if some people are dealing with other setbacks--such as entrenched racism in the hobby--pure "equality" is only going to really benefit those groups who are already doing fine. Everyone is allowed on the bus, but if you don't pay for a five dollar ticket, you sit in the back, and there's no assistance for wheelchair users. See? Equal!

That's why "equality of opportunity" has always been a bit of a smokescreen. I'm not saying checkbox hiring is the answer (although doing more to address hirers' internalized bias is important, and diversifying a team should be considered an intrinsic benefit to the team's performance for many reasons), but neither is just assuming that the only reason Paizo's leadership team seems homogenous is because those were objectively the only qualified candidates. The corporate world is not some perfect meritocracy, and neither is the labor market, and neither is the gaming industry.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Who is the right person on the new look executive team to raise the historic incidents of transphobia with?

I'm aware of the transphobia incidents raised over social media and the forums. You're free to email me at jim.butler@paizo.com or send me a private message with any additional details. This has not been forgotten, but the pace at which we can release updates has been slower than we'd like.

-Jim

I think this is the best post I've seen from management on the matter in over a month, so thank you, Jim, for acknowledging the issue and confirming that it's still ongoing. I'll look to send you an email about this when I can.

OOOO Where's that shoulder dragon from?

I do love my animated puppet shoulder dragon, everyone should get one!

Congratulations to you both--I hope Paizo flourishes and becomes ever more equitable during your tenure as part of the leadership team.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Who is the right person on the new look executive team to raise the historic incidents of transphobia with?

I'm aware of the transphobia incidents raised over social media and the forums. You're free to email me at jim.butler@paizo.com or send me a private message with any additional details. This has not been forgotten, but the pace at which we can release updates has been slower than we'd like.

-Jim

I appreciate what you said here, Jim, about the demand for accountability, because it indicates that behind the corporate silence there has been leadership-level attention paid to the treatment of trans people within Paizo and within the spaces supported by Paizo.

I really hope we hear more about that publicly, though, soon.

This may seem like a big ask, but has there been any discussion of creating a space explicitly for the accountability issues here on the forum? It would only work, of course, if Paizo was committed to providing a response to public concerns, but that response doesn't have to be an immediate resolution. Letting people know if a concern is being taken up (and if not, why), who needs to be involved in the discussion in-house, and how long such a process might take, would be a dramatic improvement.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can bear waiting if I can appreciate that the time is being taken to properly address the situation. The silence of leadership on the treatment of trans employees, though, has been painful for me. Silence is too often hostile apathy for me to feel comfortable in the face of it.

Accountability merits its own forum, and such concerns should be addressed by someone within Paizo (and not necessarily customer service--goodness, they do so much and they shouldn't be the face for issues they can't resolve!). Posts that don't directly amplify or clarify those concerns could be actively moderated to preserve clear channels between Paizo and those raising accountability concerns; there is no need for bystanders who don't share someone's concerns to debate their validity.

This may seem like a big ask, but has there been any discussion of creating a space explicitly for the accountability issues here on the forum? It would only work, of course, if Paizo was committed to providing a response to public concerns, but that response doesn't have to be an immediate resolution. Letting people know if a concern is being taken up (and if not, why), who needs to be involved in the discussion in-house, and how long such a process might take, would be a dramatic improvement.

[Emphasis mine]

As a person keenly interested in processes and accountability this would be an awesome endeavour for the site to implement. I completely understand the outlay needed in terms of personpower/oversight and is rather more than almost any organisation I know of has, but we can still hope and push for the best…

OOOO Where's that shoulder dragon from?

That was a gift from our German translation partners, Ulisses Spiele. I'm unable to find it through search, unfortunately.

Good Gaming!

-Jim

BigNorseWolf wrote:

OOOO Where's that shoulder dragon from?

That was a gift from our German translation partners, Ulisses Spiele. I'm unable to find it through search, unfortunately.

Good Gaming!

-Jim

Here it is: Drachen Plueschi

My daughter has one as well.

thaX wrote:

When a hire is just checking boxes for diversity, it serves only to put a person in over his/her head and will spell trouble for the company in the longer run.

It's called the Peter Principle, and it's not restricted to "diversity" hires.

Quote:

"People in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another."

Even before these two men were added to the Executive Team, we may have been watching that principle in action.

Thank you for posting this. You learn something new everyday.

Yeah, "diversity" hires are arguably one of the only counters for the Peter Principle: deliberately seeking to hire people outside the status quo.