Paizo Leadership Team Update

It's the right words. But actions speak louder than words. I know that any transparency about corrective actions is probably not going to exist except for saying they happened.

As a customer it is hard to know what is really happening in an environment built to teach employees they should be happy to have a job at the place they want to work. It is hard to know if what the employees at the bottom of the command chain say is what is really happening.

It disheartens me to hear former employees, leaving the company as recently as 2 months ago, air what appears to be a work environment hostile to the people creating your product.

Do better. The words are right. Show you mean what you say with actions. Because these words are no different than what you have been saying since I started on as a customer. Accountability verbally is a good step. But not sure if words will rebuild the confidence I once had in promoting your product to my trans kids.

K.

You have lost our trust.

We don't believe you will do better. You have to prove it.

Disappointing. Again.

“Could contribute to a /perception/ of transphobia?””Anyone who /felt/ marginalized?” These are not subjectives and hypotheticals - they are concrete misdeeds of yours. To continue to try and squirm around these things is unconscionable; to say that we won’t get to know what actions are taken against those responsible is mind-boggling.

We have you admitting to two pretty major screwups on Jeff’s part; at what point do you accept that he’s the problem? How many times does he need to hurt people before it’s too much?

Still no clear actionable steps that matter. An investigation just for the Leadership Team that we are expected to trust, when broken trust is the problem in the first place? I hope you all can understand why that is not a reasonable response.

It’s clear that Jeff’s standards for himself are unacceptable - when will someone else hold him accountable?

That fun moment when the company has no money to raise wages to a living standard but it has the money to hire Wolfram & Hart so that they can *checks press release* send e-mails asking former employees if they were mistreated.

That fun moment when the company has no money to raise wages to a living standard but it has the money to hire Wolfram & Hart so that they can *checks press release* send e-mails asking former employees if they were mistreated.

Nice Angel reference.

So considering the fact that these allegations stem back from multiple years how are you even going to investigate them?

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

That fun moment when the company has no money to raise wages to a living standard but it has the money to hire Wolfram & Hart so that they can *checks press release* send e-mails asking former employees if they were mistreated.

Nice Angel reference.

Nice catch, you're a person of manners and taste.

Not sure what other activity they can make other to serve Jeff on a plate, which is as wrong as his actions and, I dare say, bad for us to expect. At best, we can hope he steps down, or he is replaced by someone more qualified.

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

I appreciate what has been said, and it shows an awareness that I think many people have feared didn't exist.

I am also encouraged by the employee engagement survey and reaching out to a law firm for an external investigation. These are positive steps.

The apologies for poor behaviour and corporate decisions are also welcome in my eyes.

I am also aware that Paizo cannot discuss internal disciplinary or staffing matters. I would hope that, at least in regards to former employees, Paizo seriously consider making it clear that those ex-staff are able to publicly discuss their employment (and the end thereof) and experience of disciplinary proceedings.

This is a start. I consider it a positive one. There is a lot more.

So the update boils down to we are taking steps and hired some folks to look into it. That feels like this isn't going to be dealt with in concrete terms for some time with all the investigating and looking for people to talk to and whatnot.

That still leaves all the problems and problematic behavior on the table in the meantime.

That fun moment when the company has no money to raise wages to a living standard but it has the money to hire Wolfram & Hart so that they can *checks press release* send e-mails asking former employees if they were mistreated.

I mean assuming I was cogent enough to send the email and not just simply compose it I know at least two Paizo employees have a documented case of a harassment incident involving Crystal Fraiser.

Discussion in the past several months has resurfaced two instances in which a Paizo executive mishandled user data when replying to message board posts, resulting in allegations of doxxing. These actions were contrary to Paizo policy, and corrective actions were taken to ensure that this does not happen again.

Okay but what? Does the President of the company no longer have access to customer data? Did he get a slap on the wrist and told to do better? What is the actual corrective action to ensure this won't happen with the next poster that Jeff thinks deserves a lesson in manners via a threatening message?

Honestly kind of what I expected.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

That fun moment when the company has no money to raise wages to a living standard but it has the money to hire Wolfram & Hart so that they can *checks press release* send e-mails asking former employees if they were mistreated.

I mean assuming I was cogent enough to send the email and not just simply compose it I know at least two Paizo employees have a documented case of a harassment incident involving Crystal Fraiser.

I mean I could send those e-mails, I charge less than Wolfram and Hart and I don't cheat you on timesheets because I can get more substance in one snarky line than most lawyers can in a page, 10pt Times New Roman, single-spaced. Here's my card.

Okay, one more post, and then I'm back out of here for the day.

Sara Marie, Jessica Price and others had been advocating for culture change within the company for years and been ignored, dismissed, or, um *checks notes* fired without cause. It's amazing we had to generate this level of controversy to get them to apologize for these issues.

I will think about whether or not to resume my patronage, though I do appreciate what seems to be at least a professional apology for Crystal's treatment. Of course, this:

we see now that our room-sharing policy was based on outdated interpretations of gender, was not friendly to transgender employees, and could contribute to a perception of transphobia at the company. Paizo’s Leadership Team acknowledges the pain this caused, and we understand that we need to be better at recognizing issues where such decisions could have unintended results.

relies on ass-covering "innocent accident" phrasings like a perception of transphobia that make me pretty cynical about the apologies being genuine. I think, at the least, this shows that Paizo leadership knows they can't get away with it again, and that's almost like contrition, right?

Basically, all my hopes rest with the union here. It seems pretty obvious that Paizo leadership can only be trusted--for now--to behave themselves when there are real consequences for not doing so. Maybe they'll be able to recover my full trust in time, but not with a post like this, sorry. Some people in management should have lost their positions over all this.

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

Quote:

Discussion in the past several months has resurfaced two instances in which a Paizo executive mishandled user data when replying to message board posts, resulting in allegations of doxxing. These actions were contrary to Paizo policy, and corrective actions were taken to ensure that this does not happen again.

Okay but what? Does the President of the company no longer have access to customer data? Did he get a slap on the wrist and told to do better? What is the actual corrective action to ensure this won't happen with the next poster that Jeff thinks deserves a lesson in manners via a threatening message?

Nothing in this post gives me any confidence that this couldn’t happen again.

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

One would hope Lisa might not like him being a walking, talking PR/HR disaster for the brand.

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

Lisa is still technically the CEO even if she is "mostly retired"

Good to see that David "Refused to help me even once, in the several times I needed assistance while chronically ill, and was actually quite abrasive in all our communications" Reuland is on the leadership team lol

Removed a baiting post. Posting your reaction is fine, posting about others is not. Please let each person speak for themselves about whether it is enough or not.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You mistreated your employees for years, and now that there's a union to hold you accountable, you've decided to do your own accounting?

The entire pitch for Energage is to have your employees fill out a survey so you know can "attract top level talent" it all looks very pro-business and not very pro-employee. I had to go through multiple pages to find an application like what you're talking about. I think you could find a more neutral data collection party. (Preferably one chosen by the union)

As far as hiring a law firm, what was the union input on the choice of firm?

This is just more corporate garbage meant to placate people, but we know better now.

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

One would hope Lisa might not like him being a walking, talking PR/HR disaster for the brand.

Yeah but can she actually just flat out fire him? (Not trying to be argumentative but I honestly have no idea how this works)

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

That fun moment when the company has no money to raise wages to a living standard but it has the money to hire Wolfram & Hart so that they can *checks press release* send e-mails asking former employees if they were mistreated.

I mean assuming I was cogent enough to send the email and not just simply compose it I know at least two Paizo employees have a documented case of a harassment incident involving Crystal Fraiser.

I mean I could send those e-mails, I charge less than Wolfram and Hart and I don't cheat you on timesheets because I can get more substance in one snarky line than most lawyers can in a page, 10pt Times New Roman, single-spaced. Here's my card.

Do you really want to deal with the psychological trauma with that? As much as I hate and despise to what Paizo did I don't want to dump a bunch of traumatizing stuff on some random person.

While the process seems slow I'm not Surprised this is taking some time. Hiring a 3rd party to investigate and supporting the Paizo Union are positive steps.

I know some people will want more immediate action in response to the accusations, But considering the mixed nature of the efficacy of the accusations made(some true, some inaccurate, Some debated by staff outside executive staff), I'm not against having an inquiry done before more affirmative action is taken as I have seen enough "witch hunt" style responses(Some just, some later found false) to know that three main goals of any response to accusations like these is,

1.Truth
2.Penalty
3.Correction/Deterrent of Repetition

All of which a proper inquiry is required to get right.

A lot of trust has been lost and will take time to regain, but if we love the product and over the course of the next few years the staff honestly reports from their own social media free of Paizo oversight that things have gotten better then we should support and not deter the companies current action by constantly saying "that's not good enough"(burn the witch). Time and Treatment heal all injuries, you can change treatment but time remains a stubborn and slow beast.

And please stop deleting Diego's posts on the matter.

keftiu wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

One would hope Lisa might not like him being a walking, talking PR/HR disaster for the brand.

Yeah but can she actually just flat out fire him? (Not trying to be argumentative but I honestly have no idea how this works)

She absolutely *could* if she wanted to; Washington State employment is at-will, meaning they don't need a reason to fire anyone. Unless, of course, you're covered by a union, which changes your employment status to "represented." Which Jeff would not be, because he's in a managerial position.

And they've fired at-will employees for much, much less. =)

I know some people will want more immediate action in response to the accusations, But considering the mixed nature of the efficacy of the accusations made(some true, some inaccurate, Some debated by staff outside executive staff), I'm not against having an inquiry done before more affirmative action is taken as I have seen enough "witch hunt" style responses(Some just, some later found false) to know that three main goals of any response to accusations like these is,

We have Jeff admitting to being responsible for both doxxing and implementing discriminatory policy in this very post. It’s not a “witch hunt” to say that those admissions should be enough to see him removed.

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

One would hope Lisa might not like him being a walking, talking PR/HR disaster for the brand.

Yeah but can she actually just flat out fire him? (Not trying to be argumentative but I honestly have no idea how this works)

She absolutely *could* if she wanted to; Washington State employment is at-will, meaning they don't need a reason to fire anyone. Unless, of course, you're covered by a union, which changes your employment status to "represented." Which Jeff would not be, because he's in a managerial position.

And they've fired at-will employees for much, much less. =)

Wait were you fired or did you quit?

Wrote much. Said nothing.

Thanks for the update, I think it shows actions in progress.
My final judgment on this is just one question:
How do the employees at Paizo feel about it?

L Pellazar wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

One would hope Lisa might not like him being a walking, talking PR/HR disaster for the brand.

Yeah but can she actually just flat out fire him? (Not trying to be argumentative but I honestly have no idea how this works)

She absolutely *could* if she wanted to; Washington State employment is at-will, meaning they don't need a reason to fire anyone. Unless, of course, you're covered by a union, which changes your employment status to "represented." Which Jeff would not be, because he's in a managerial position.

And they've fired at-will employees for much, much less. =)

Wait were you fired or did you quit?

I quit.

Good post, I look forward to hearing more about the findings of the investigation by the law firm in the months ahead. Clearly, some measure of transparency is desperately needed.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

L Pellazar wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for both misuse of customer information and implementation of transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

Um is there anyone in the company capable of firing him? Since he's basically top of the pecking order.

One would hope Lisa might not like him being a walking, talking PR/HR disaster for the brand.

Yeah but can she actually just flat out fire him? (Not trying to be argumentative but I honestly have no idea how this works)

She absolutely *could* if she wanted to; Washington State employment is at-will, meaning they don't need a reason to fire anyone. Unless, of course, you're covered by a union, which changes your employment status to "represented." Which Jeff would not be, because he's in a managerial position.

And they've fired at-will employees for much, much less. =)

Wait were you fired or did you quit?

I quit.

Ok. I just wanted to make sure. Keeping track of everything going on is so rough. Im sorry you went through that. You struck me as a cool person a good artist assuming Im not confusing you for someone else.

I'm glad that steps are being taken, we'll have to see how they play out in tandem with efforts from the union.

How long have the law firm been given to do their investigation?

A week isn't long enough (unless it's an obvious case, like somebody admits to having done things they shouldn't), a year is too long.

zergtitan wrote:

I know some people will want more immediate action in response to the accusations, But considering the mixed nature of the efficacy of the accusations made(some true, some inaccurate, Some debated by staff outside executive staff), I'm not against having an inquiry done before more affirmative action is taken as I have seen enough "witch hunt" style responses(Some just, some later found false) to know that three main goals of any response to accusations like these is,

We have Jeff admitting to being responsible for both doxxing and implementing discriminatory policy in this very post. It’s not a “witch hunt” to say that those admissions should be enough to see him removed.

Discussion in the past several months has resurfaced two instances in which a Paizo executive mishandled user data when replying to message board posts, resulting in allegations of doxxing. These actions were contrary to Paizo policy, and corrective actions were taken to ensure that this does not happen again.

“This was a huge mistake on my part and I am deeply sorry for any issues that have arisen from these actions. This was not the right way to treat our customers and I apologize,” said Paizo President Jeff Alvarez. “As President, I know I need to hold myself to a higher standard.”

As much as I would agree with you, again we are an "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" Justice System, which means if Jeff believes his actions were mistakes and not malicious in intent he does have the right to retain his job until the inquiry says otherwise.

I'm not happy about what happened behind the curtains of Paizo either and felt betrayed and angered by what was happening, but we don't know all the details ourselves. When the Inquiry is done we will have the full right to demand then for all the information and request the proper response.

Steps are one thing, but this does little to show me that anything has actually been done about it in the here and now. How does Jeff still have that position after admitting to these? How do we know Paizo management won't just keep trying to do this stuff?

Thank god there's at least a union now so somebody can actually try to hold them accountable.

Do better, management.

Here's my card.

Look at that subtle off-white coloring... The thickness of it... Oh my god! It even has a watermark!

Clenches fist... breaks into a sweat.

Why is it wrong to ask that someone responsible for misusing customer information and implementing transphobic policy no longer have such power? People are fired for infinitely less every single day. Jeff’s track record is repeated abuse of his position - how many chances does the man need?

I didn't say that, Keftiu. Like it or not, the law is the law is the law. They will have to go through procedures, especially if it is heresy and not concrete court-admissible or civil mediated evidence.

Edit: The point of my original comment that I deleted because even I disagreed with my conclusion is this is the best we will likely get due to lawyers.

L Pellazar wrote:

I quit.

Ok. I just wanted to make sure. Keeping track of everything going on is so rough. Im sorry you went through that. You struck me as a cool person a good artist assuming Im not confusing you for someone else.

Lu is the best. They're a go-getter too. Whoever hires/hired them will be lucky to have them.

keftiu wrote:

zergtitan wrote:

I know some people will want more immediate action in response to the accusations, But considering the mixed nature of the efficacy of the accusations made(some true, some inaccurate, Some debated by staff outside executive staff), I'm not against having an inquiry done before more affirmative action is taken as I have seen enough "witch hunt" style responses(Some just, some later found false) to know that three main goals of any response to accusations like these is,

We have Jeff admitting to being responsible for both doxxing and implementing discriminatory policy in this very post. It’s not a “witch hunt” to say that those admissions should be enough to see him removed.

Blog wrote:

Discussion in the past several months has resurfaced two instances in which a Paizo executive mishandled user data when replying to message board posts, resulting in allegations of doxxing. These actions were contrary to Paizo policy, and corrective actions were taken to ensure that this does not happen again.

“This was a huge mistake on my part and I am deeply sorry for any issues that have arisen from these actions. This was not the right way to treat our customers and I apologize,” said Paizo President Jeff Alvarez. “As President, I know I need to hold myself to a higher standard.”

As much as I would agree with you, again we are an "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" Justice System, which means if Jeff believes his actions were mistakes and not malicious in intent he does have the right to retain his job until the inquiry says otherwise.

I'm not happy about what happened behind the curtains of Paizo either and felt betrayed and angered by what was happening, but we don't know all the details ourselves. When the Inquiry is done we will have the full right to demand then for all the information and request the proper response.

The room issue is an explicitly discriminatory policy we have him admitting to. Trans employees faced different rules than everyone else. If you want to talk about legality, that’s something right there that no workplace in the world should want to hold onto him after.

Good post, I look forward to hearing more about the findings of the investigation by the law firm in the months ahead. Clearly, some measure of transparency is desperately needed.

I think that's gonna be a long wait for a boat that isn't gonna come.

From the blog paragraph 9:
"Because the results of these investigations are private personnel matters, Paizo will not be able to make them public."

MadScientistWorking wrote:

L Pellazar wrote:

I quit.

Ok. I just wanted to make sure. Keeping track of everything going on is so rough. Im sorry you went through that. You struck me as a cool person a good artist assuming Im not confusing you for someone else.

Lu is the best. Their a go-getter too. Whoever hires/hired them will be lucky to have them.

You have no idea how much that means coming from you, Lissa! T_T <3