Mergy's page

Congratulations to United Paizo Workers! This is really excellent to hear.

Just to jump in here. I admit I have not followed the complaints and the allegations very closely. But I hope that Paizo workers realize a union is not going to magically solve all of their issues with Paizo management.

Right, and because it might not solve literally all of their problems, what do you want them to do instead/in addition? Do you have anything to contribute?

My letter of support has gone out too. Gosh what a great day.

I cannot get over how delighted I was at seeing these tweets. Power to the workers, always. Let us know how we help.

OH MY GOD THEY FIRED SIXTY-TWO PEOPLE???

I cackled.

I for one would like to know if they're willing to say they changed cleaning companies because the carpets weren't getting cleaned. Oh wait, did they say that they changed cleaning companies because the hygiene situation was bad?

That's great, it's good to know they're both acknowledging what they did wrong, and brought solutions forward!

Now do it for the hotel room situation. Why did you change the policy? What was wrong with the room-sharing policy that prompted this change? Did you just get some hotel coupons and thought it was the time to upgrade? Or was there SOME OTHER REASON the room-sharing policy was changed?

I want to be clear: I really, really love Pathfinder. It sucks to not be able to buy Guns & Gears (finally an Arcadia map!) of Strength of Thousands #4 (a closer look at Mzali!) because it currently feels like allowing systemic transphobia to go rewarded.

I hate being here. Please, say something soon, and let it be the right thing.

This is where I am too.

So you don't want answers from people who actually know things, you just want to complain.

This from you is absolutely adorable.

I'm so sick of this. Our trans friends do not owe anyone an explanation, about anything. They shouldn't have to keep "justifying" themselves.

Moderators: I know you're low on numbers following SM's firing and Diego resigning in protest; and you're probably low on morale because of all the dust kicked up following said firing/departure; but it's not acceptable for all these losers to keep smearing their transphobia across this forum.

"But I was just asking a que-"

No. You weren't. And even if you were, you are not entitled to an answer.

I've developed a stress response to seeing the phrase "just asking questions".

I don't have a timeline on updates from the Paizo executive team, but I did want to take a moment to confirm discussions are ongoing and they are still actively involved in reviewing feedback/messages/issues.

I personally appreciate updates like this, and understand that change takes time. I like knowing that this is something Paizo has recognized as needing time and energy, and I look forward to seeing more.

I am positive there are consulting companies that specialise in creating positive and inclusive workplaces. If I were Paizo I would be looking for one of those and asking for a lot of help.

I have asked my girlfriend, who knows computer stuff much better than I do, what she thinks of this idea, and she has described it as "terrible".

Thank you for the hearty chuckle.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yoshua wrote:

but I do dig that I am papa smurf is the smurfatar random?

Indeed it smurfing random!

Unless you're me, yes. Though I am working on a national letter-writing campaign to drag Teter out of retirement so he can implement a Smurfette Cleaver. ;)

I'll add my pen to that campaign.

Wait, how do you get Smurfette? I have smurf jealousy.

EDIT: just. like. this.

This is really kind. And I appreciate how you called out all the smurfing going on.

There's some room in their staffing budget, haven't you heard?

If I were them I would consider putting it on Twitter, but maybe they already have.

All the post I have made here is not to justify Paizo or the managers actions. Just what the thought process might have been at the time however flawed.

This might be why you were having such passionate reactions to your arguments. To me it wasn't clear whether these were your own thoughts and feelings on the matter, or the hypothetical thoughts and feelings of others.

Finally the labor Board and EEOC references are not so much for staff who have left but current staff who may not have means for a lawyer. It is another avenue for them to pursue if facing similar situations.

That's a good resource to plug. I think we were responding to arguments (though I don't believe you were the poster introducing these elements) where if a complaint had not been made, nothing wrong had occurred, which I'm sure we can agree is not a realistic argument.

Took a screencap of this... just in case.

Mergy wrote:

I wonder if the ex-friends have a different way of telling how that went down.

Of course

I am instantly intrigued by this link you've sent me... I might have to track down a copy of this.

I wonder if the ex-friends have a different way of telling how that went down.

What would you consider the consequences of going 'too woke'? Do you feel that others here share those similar opinions on being 'woke'?

I'm gonna come right out and say it, what do you think 'woke' means? Because from what I can tell, it seems anything that involves granting more representation to populations which up to now haven't had very much.

I appreciate those words Yoshua.

I'm going to say that it actually doesn't matter to me at the end of the day if the discrimination I faced was born out of ignorance or malice. It is incredibly harmful either way, and either way it is the responsibility of the ignorant or malicious party to correct themselves.

And on the internet? You usually can't tell if someone is ignorant or malicious: both groups are often "just asking questions"; these questions often start with the assumption that trans = dangerous. It is exhausting.

Hard disagree, and it's upsetting how hard people will work to deny discrimination. And also tell people how to feel about things they will never personally experience.

That doesn't really sum up the last week or so.

Some folks start or participate in multiple threads to discuss the allegations and ways to improve. Some forumers don't agree and post repeatedly telling us to shut up and move on. Disagreements specifically with those posters derails the conversation we were peacefully having about accountability. Those posters go into other threads and repeat the claim that we're all AT WAR (we aren't) and demanding people get fired (we aren't) and trying to tear down the company (we aren't.)

What benefit do you gain from constantly misrepresenting reality?

They've also called us a kangaroo court, a lynch mob, witch burners...

Basically any false equivalence to make us seem unreasonable, right?

Now that I've mentioned it, I'm sure we won't see anymore posts with the phrase 'trans or biological woman', right? We're past that bit of transphobia?

I am not going to give a moment to #PAIZOACCOUNTABILITY.

they said, giving many moments to talk about it.

Completely aside, I have been more harassed as a biologically male gamer rooming with other male gamers at conventions than at any time by either transgender or female gamer roommates.

I understand what you are saying here, and because parts of this thread involve education on trans issues and terminology:

Rather than 'transgender or female women', we would say 'transgender or cisgender women'. The opposite of 'trans' isn't 'normal', nor is it 'biological', or 'real'. I think you can understand how such language might perpetuate some harmful trans stereotypes.

Then you ask if she followed the procedure. If she did not, then she conceded the argument for Paizo being systematically transphobic.

No. This is a ridiculous leap you're making, and it is absolutely wrong.

'She didn't use Paizo's system to complain about Paizo's system so Paizo's system wasn't a problem' is blatant victim blaming, and it is not okay for anyone to blame Crystal for not 'working within the system' that was discriminating against her.

It's just not a logical conclusion to say something can't have happened because there wasn't a lawsuit. It's an insulting argument.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

You can't afford a lawsuit with the money Paizo pays. Unless it's small claims case, but these change nothing in grand scheme of things.

If you have solid evidence some lawyer would take the case in exchange for a substantial cut of the settlement or compensation that would be obtained.

Humbly,
Yawar

Okay, but going back to what you're attempting to illustrate with this, that a potential plaintiff chose not to pursue litigation does not mean that there wasn't a case.

Lots of people have introduced reasons why someone wouldn't want to sue, and all you've offered is that it might have been possible to get a pro bono? You're justifying things with arguments that don't actually answer any of the concerns.

Thank you for keeping the forums a pleasant place to be!

As a cis hetero white male with no current close personal LBGQT+ associations, I don't feel I have any real place in this, except to say I fully support those calling for fairness, transparency,accountability, and for the Paizo management to put into action the values they have espoused to aspire to.

And that folx, is how to be an ally!

I don't like the implication someone made earlier that simply hiring Crystal Frasier is evidence that Paizo has progressive leadership. Like, talk about a low bar.

I don't think Paizo gets brownie points for having a trans person on staff when the trans person in question was Crystal Frasier, who was prevented from attending a convention because she was trans.

Lonesomechunk wrote:

Not meaning to be harmful and discriminatory doesn't absolve you of actually being harmful or discriminatory. I could hurt someone and say "but I didn't mean to!" but that doesn't change the fact that my actions or words still hurt someone. If Paizo made a mistake, its their responsibility to own up to it, apologize, and do better, regardless of their intent

Deliberate malice in hurting someone, hurting someone from being reckless, hurting someone in pursuit of some other goal, and just plain unavoidable accidents are all different things even if the person involved is hurt.

Not from the perspective of choosing to discriminate based on mistaken beliefs. "I thought I was doing the right thing" when someone is doing the wrong thing might buy some leniency once they've at least acknowledged that they've done the wrong thing.

Absolutely. I would also like to say that the more explicitly Paizo is in supporting the LGBTQ+ community the better, to ensure that these forums remain a safe space for the most vulnerable.

Would it be untoward to ask what the clear HR policy is not just for trans people, but also for nonbinary, intersex, fluid identifications and any others I may have missed?

For brevity I was shorthanding it by putting all of those under the umbrella, but yes absolutely all of those are also valid and important to be explicitly protected in HR policy, IMO.

Still wanting to be clear that we want Paizo to clearly explain what they've changed about their HR policy regarding trans people.

Yeah that is the journey we keep being taken on.

I mean, the discussion now seems to be whether or not a real law was broken, but I don't see the relevance of that. Actions taken because someone thought the law (or rule, in the case of an unlikely company policy on the matter) was such and such don't necessarily have to have an actual law that justifies them.

This right here. If I'm understanding this right, some people are arguing that Paizo is either absolved of or innocent of these allegations of transphobia on the grounds that they THOUGHT they were covering themselves legally.

If Paizo made the call to discriminate against someone based on her gender because they thought they knew the rules and they were wrong, they were still wrong. Malice isn't required, you can just not know enough about trans people, which unfortunately is a problem a significant part of the population has.

True but where is the proof that Paizo did it to be harmful or discriminatory.

That is completely irrelevant in patters of enforcing anti-discrimination policy: you can discriminate just fine by not caring about something, you don't need to actively hate it.

Trans men are men and trans women are women, and non-binary and genderfluid people are also valid, and I don't think that's at all a political topic.

Make fists with your toes!

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.

This is nonsense. They'll continue to apply a hypothetical that is impossible to argue against because it doesn't exist anywhere, and then challenge us as to how we'd deal with their contrived situation.

You're incorrect about this Dave2. Take a step back and consider how many people are telling you this.

Because the company prevented something that was allowed to happen, which is a no no.

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

But we aren't talking about a man and a woman.

It's the last one, isn't it. :(

Thank you! Sorry for my part in stuff. I get passionate and then I get impulsive.