Paizo Leadership Team Update

Everyone is replaceable in a business.

Everyone is replaceable in a business.

Except, as clear as it seems, the main community managers who proved themselves time and time again, and were rewarded with being dropped suddenly.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

Everyone is replaceable in a business.

Except, as clear as it seems, the main community managers who proved themselves time and time again, and were rewarded with being dropped suddenly.

Oh everyone being replaceable does not mean that Paizo did not make a stupid decision in getting rid of Sara Marie and by extension, Diego. One of the dumbest things they have done, in addition to keeping Jeff in leadership and promoting only white guys (Lisa owns so does not count) to leadership, while telling Diego he did not need a promotion. Oh and then transphobic policies on top of that.

Pendejadas and tonterias abound at the top of Paizo.

keftiu wrote:

Interesting notes on the law firm being employed: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Moritt-Hock-&-Hamroff-LLP/reviews

Thank you for sharing this information. Very telling. VERY telling indeed.

Paizo: "We fired one person without just cause, is that a problem?"

Indeed. Everyone being replaceable doesn’t mean a replacement is available.

It has never been Paizo’s intention to discriminate against any employee when making decisions of who to send to industry trade shows, but we see now that our room-sharing policy was based on outdated interpretations of gender, was not friendly to transgender employees, and could contribute to a perception of transphobia at the company.

“As the person in charge of trade shows, I want to apologize to anyone that felt marginalized as a result of the convention decision-making process,”

Look, I'm not a public speaking expert or anything, but here's the thing about apologies that you don't seem to understand. A strong apology must include the following elements:

1. An acknowledgement of what was said/done that caused harm to others.
2. A stated understanding of why what was said/done was harmful.
3. A promise that, going forward, said behavior will not occur again.
4. Following through with that promise.

The issue with your "apologies" is that you continue to make statements that suggest that you don't really think that what was done was transphobic at all, but that it could be "perceived" as transphobic and might make people "feel marginalized". These statements deflect any personal responsibility for the harm that this policy - which you acknowledge yourselves was outdated - caused, and understate the fact that despite any intentions you may have had in enforcing it the policy itself was transphobic and has verifiably caused harm. To not acknowledge this, to not own your mistake and give a proper apology that demonstrates understanding of the harm caused and your responsibility for the harm it did, runs afoul of Elements 1 and 2.

If anyone felt marginalized, it's because they were marginalized, and if there was a "perception of transphobia at the company" then it's because they passed their perception check. To water down the harm your leadership caused by upholding and enforcing a transphobic room-sharing policy to "We know this might look bad and we're sorry if anyone felt hurt" is frankly cowardly and doesn't give me hope for how you plan to handle these issues in the future.

Who Is Moritt, Hock, & Hamroff

They are a Long Island/New York law firm with 75+ lawyers. They have 27 partners, plus various 'associates' (lawyers), "counsel" (lawyers), and other administrative and clerical support staff.

Their Glassdoor staff reviews give them a 2.1 out of 5 stars.
Glassdoor Reviews

Bloomberg Company Profile
Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP operates as a law firm. The Firm provides practices in the areas of lending and finance, construction, securities, bankruptcy, healthcare, litigation, patents, real estate, transportation, marketing, cyber security, tenants, employments, and dispute resolution. Moritt Hock & Hamroff serves customers in the State of New York.

US News Ranking
In the US News rankings of national and regional law firms they rank in the top tier in one practice area, and in regional rankings, they are also ranked in the top 3 tiers in 4 other areas.
USNews Best Law firms
2022
National Tier 1
Litigation – Tax
Regional Tier 1
(New York City) Litigation-Tax
(New York City) Tax Law
(Long Island, NY) Construction Law
(Long Island, NY) Real Estate Law

Their main specialties are
Practice Areas No. of Attorneys
Bankruptcy..........3
Corporate...........3
Litigation.........13
Real Estate.........5
Tax.................2
Trusts and Estates..8

They make no claims of having any experience or expertise in Sexual Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, or Civil Rights law.

Closely Held And Family Businesses
However, they recently (May, 2021) created a new practice group within their firm called "Closely-held/Family Business Practice Group". This is essentially the legal structure of Paizo, so it is likely that Lisa's legal team are members of this practice group.

Mr. Frank's bio is especially interesting. Especially his experience in "counseling executive management on labor issues...., allegations of employee discrimination, and harassment and wrongful conduct."

Additionally, from the firm's own listing of attorneys, there is not much visible diversity or inclusion by race or gender.

Still processing, but confusion indicated:

The law firm mentioned via the link is in New York City, NY(?)

Isn't Paizo in Redmond, WA?

Does that even work legally?

People are fired for infinitely less every single day

Any candidates come to mind? *cough cough* Sara Marie *cough cough*

Thank you, Paizo.

@Dancing Wind
This law firm is in Garden City. It may be located in Nassau county but we Long Islanders consider Nassau a natural extension to Queens and NYC instead. ;)

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

Washington is an at-will state; they could legally fire him if they wanted to

Not necessarily. It depends on how the executive team is set up. It could be that Lisa and/or Vic have the ultimate power to hire/fire anyone they want. It could be that to add/remove a member of the executive team requires a majority vote from the members of said team. There are fewer restrictions on how a private company conducts their top leadership than a publicly traded one, but its not necessarily as simple as at-will.

I am of mixed opinions on this statement.

First, I appreciate that Jeff accepted his role in the whole doxxing thing, and that he made it clear that, as president, he needs to hold himself to a higher standard. I agree. Now, let’s see if he actually does it.

Second, getting outside assistance to help identify how things can be improved is also good. It isn’t sufficient to say, “we need to be better.” Sometimes, a company needs outside help to implement what it means “to be better” (for example, to address the issues of transphobia isn’t as simple as saying, “don’t be transphobic” - what will Paizo do to make trans persons feel welcome, accepted, and supported? And yes, not being transphobic is a start, but it’s not the end.

Third, and this is where I have the biggest problem with this statement, and it’s on the issue of transphobia. While I appreciate Jeff putting the responsibility for the horrible policy on his own shoulders, he somewhat hedges - he apologizes to “anyone who felt marginalized…”. No, that’s not how it works. The burden isn’t on them for feeling marginalized, it’s on Jeff for marginalizing them. The apology needs to have been unequivocal - “I apologize for implementing and enforcing a policy which marginalized or treated our transgender employees differently and as less than equals in our company.” The fault isn’t on those people he marginalized, it’s on him for marginalizing them. So, I’m not satisfied yet that this particular issue has been sufficiently addressed.

Now, I know this can’t be easy for Paizo, and I’m sure it might be personally embarrassing or uncomfortable for Jeff. So, what they do next - the specific plans, actions, and steps they take - will tell me much more than today’s statement.

For now, I’ll continue to support Paizo with an occasional purchase and participation in Organized Play. I’ll look at today’s statement as an important down payment on more substantive statements and actions to come. But I’m still watching, and I expect a lot more out of them.

Okay, I am going to make a couple of observations that some people may not have considered. I am NOT a lawyer, nor affiliated with the UPW, but I am a union member and have had some experience with contract negotiations on both sides of the table. So, these are just my opinions based on my 50+ years of life experience.

"We’ve hired a company called Energage to complete an employee engagement survey on behalf of Paizo."
If I were in the UPW, I would advise our membership not to complete these surveys. Even if some on the side of Paizo have the best intentions, surveys conducted on behalf of the company, even by unbiased third parties, can be used against the union in their negotiations. People tend to complete surveys for their own benefit. Those interests may not be the focus points of the greater membership. If the union negotiators try to claim "these are the most important issues to our members," it is possible that the surveys could show some/many other concerns are actually more important weakening the idea of solidarity as well as the perception that the negotiators are acting in good faith.

"MH&H has a team of attorneys that specialize in these issues, and we’re confident they’ll be able to provide an impartial analysis of the facts that we need to move forward with any corrective actions."
No they won't. Paizo is the law firm's client. They are not their to hold them accountable. They are there to protect them. Period. It is possible that any investigations they conduct will be used to make changes up to and including removal of executive members. However, do not be confused. The law firm is NOT there to protect the employees or improve their position unless that position, first and foremost, improves the company's position.

One thing I learned during my time is that workers should NEVER voluntarily provide data directly to the company. Everything should go though the union and the union should be a collaborator on any investigations and/or fact finding. You might think that the company has your best interests at heart, and sometimes individual members of the company actually do, but at the end of the day, their #1 job is to protect and grow the business. History clearly demonstrates that employees are readily sacrificed along the way.

I was actually wondering why the union isn't being explicitly involved in any investigations. Thank you, TK.

I don't see a lot of workplace law expertise in the above post about that firm, but I see a whole lot of litigators.

This read like a lot of, "Circle the wagons around the fox that was caught in the henhouse." (Sorry, the metaphor got really tangled up there.)

@Dancing Wind

This law firm is in Garden City. It may be located in Nassau county but we Long Islanders consider Nassau a natural extension to Queens and NYC instead. ;)

For those not from the NYC area, the lower half of Westchester County, and the western half of Nassau County, and even Jersey City are "NYC", but Staten Island is a part of some other State*.

(*Wu-Tang and Pete Davidson not included.)

EDIT: I don't have much to say one way or another on the announcement, but what LuniasM wrote is 100%! Perceptions and feelings? Wrong direction!

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.

At. Will. Employment. Also, it's not a court, 'innocent til guilty' is completely irrelevant.

That's it.

Just leaving a note that not everyone is so hateful and doubting about the "news", bah, not everyone even care about employees-per-room issue or whether or not it's okay to have a St. Germain poster.
Many of us - even though we of course wish for the employees to have a comfortable jobs and creative opportunities - don't care about identity politics; we just want fun, inspiring product. We're probably just not as vocal as US-based people with US-based issues.

I believe your numbers will speak for themselves as long as books are fine!

Thanks, random person!

Just leaving a note that not everyone is so hateful and doubting about the "news", bah, not everyone even care about employees-per-room issue or whether or not it's okay to have a St. Germain poster.

Many of us - even though we of course wish for the employees to have a comfortable jobs and creative opportunities - don't care about identity politics; we just want fun, inspiring product. We're probably just not as vocal as US-based people with US-based issues.

I believe your numbers will speak for themselves as long as books are fine!

The issue is tangible discriminatory policy - transgender staff had different rules than everyone else. You're okay with that?

keftiu wrote:

I’m transgender. Jeff Alvarez here has admitted to implementing a policy that tangibly discriminated against people like me. To act like those who want him gone are being unreasonable is as blind as it is cruel. I don’t want him to have the power to hurt people again.

All I was trying to say was disappointing as the statement is, I am not sure what recourse, if any, we can seek. By all means, keep protesting. I will support you in doing that!

I don't know the full details of the case so won't say if he should go or not, but if he stays for whatever reason, I think he should be subjected to the same discriminating polidcies he made, if those policies lead to someone missing a convention then he should have to miss the same. It's much easier to believe someone has changed for the better if they have had to feel what it's like to be on the wrong side of a policy.

Anorak wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I’m transgender. Jeff Alvarez here has admitted to implementing a policy that tangibly discriminated against people like me. To act like those who want him gone are being unreasonable is as blind as it is cruel. I don’t want him to have the power to hurt people again.

All I was trying to say was disappointing as the statement is, I am not sure what recourse, if any, we can seek. By all means, keep protesting. I will support you in doing that!

I don't know the full details of the case so won't say if he should go or not, but if he stays for whatever reason, I think he should be subjected to the same discriminating polidcies he made, if those policies lead to someone missing a convention then he should have to miss the same. It's much easier to believe someone has changed for the better if they have had to feel what it's like to be on the wrong side of a policy.

The transphobic policy should not be applied to anyone, including cis people. He should still just not be going to cons though.

Oh, i didn't realize this was still a thing.

This right here is everything.

Everything Paizo is hoping will happen.

In a world with Taylor Swift, don't be a Jake Gyllenhaal.

I had my initial reaction. I have read through our friends reactions who live and experience the othering on a daily basis and I feel that even though my reaction was my honest reaction. It clearly wasn't enough.

To be clear, the statements above are NO different than anything anyone from the company has said previously.

There is zero actual action being taken to rectify any of the grievances.

Hiring a law firm to protect the company is not a good look. An understandable one. But when you position it in a way that you are trying to sell it to us that it is to protect the employees it comes off as disingenuous at best and a bald face lie at worst. I will take it somewhere in between but please stop trying to placate us by telling us what you are doing is to protect employees when visibly there has been zero repercussions for the persons actually responsible for the situations you are in.

The President of the company has admitted, in this blog, that he is the source for the policies that got you in hot water. In the next breath this post puts the emotional work of processing the othering and discrimination on the discriminated and I am ashamed that I didn't key in on that harder when I first read it.

That isn't accepting responsibility. It is shifting the blame. Do better. You continually and abysmally fail to meet the bare minimums we are demanding to maintain us as customers.

I have plans to maintain most of my subs through the Book of the Dead. If you haven't stopped hiding behind the lies that you can't tell us what is going on and actually visibly show actions publicly I can't in good faith continue to support you financially.

That is my personal dead line at this point, and I won't go away quietly. I will tell everyone with an ear, in every game shop I sit at, just exactly why I will not support Paizo if you can't manage to get your act together and walk the talk you sell us in the books you create.

Editted To Add before someone brings up the One Per Room Policy:
This doesn't make Women feel like Women. It makes them feel that the company deems that they are so other that everyone now has to be separated to cater to them. Even when in the specific instance brought up 2 women were more than happy to room together to allow a trans employee to take part in the event. Single rooms is a good look UNLESS IT IS IN RESPONSE TO A TRANSPHOBIC POLICY.

Paizo? You are doing horribly.

Step down Jeff. You have broken trust with the community.

It's a shame that nothing the Leads can do to appease the passionate few. Good try though.

I however have faith in the future and believe people make mistakes and can change. If I didn't have that belief it would be a sad world where people aren't allowed to make mistakes and learn from their pasts. The world would not have a chance to become better.

I think one of Paizo's ongoing problems here is that this is just some of the stuff that's happened. They've crystalized around these couple of big things, but there's more and some of them are lesser but longer term. I know there are tales from certain former employees that probably won't see the light of day unless they do. There are other things out there that have the potential to come up and that's where the continuing problems will lay. There is potential for them to keep coming up and Paizo just be a consistent holding pattern so that the good they do is constantly chopped off at the knees by old patterns of abuse.

It's a problem.

It's a shame that nothing the Leads can do to appease the passionate few. Good try though.

I however have faith in the future and believe people make mistakes and can change. If I didn't have that belief it would be a sad world where people aren't allowed to make mistakes and learn from their pasts. The world would not have a chance to become better.

We'd very much like them to show that they've learned *this time*.

this is about the 3rd time we've been through this sort of thing since PF1 was released