| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several people have said that if I had just explained my reasons for denying them support in the first place, this would not have happened. I am curious if that translates into - I got what I deserved?
In addition, I don't think any response in which they got less support for their event than what they felt they deserved would have garnered any less of a response on their part.
In all honesty, if you had explained it more thoroughly in your initial email this wouldn't have even been started up, it was because of your curt reply they started it. :-)
Take it as you will, but a few extra minutes and a little more thought probably would've prevented this whole thing. Hindsight is 20/20, live and learn, etc. :-)
Just my view, not trying to be a jerk. :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So do you want me censored or disciplined because I responded in an angry manner not befitting my status as RVC?
If that needs to happen I am willing to own that. Is there something you think would be appropriate?
Nowhere, in any of my posts, did I ask or suggest that you be censored or disciplined. We all have heated moments and post things we, later on, might want to walk back. So, no, I don't think discipline is warranted, and as for censorship, I'd prefer that we all self-censor. One of the things I appreciated, Del, was that after your initial post, you asked a group of folks to weigh in on your edited draft. I think that's a great thing, and that reflects well on you.
But, this thread was initially locked because folks were out of the office and couldn't give it its due attention. You and those in your area were dealing with a hurricane, so understandably you couldn't respond to the initial posts in a timely manner. They unlock the thread once they have a chance to review and then you posted your response. Then, the thread was locked again (as it should have been) and your post (which I think was over the top in areas) should have been deleted (which it was.). The thread then gets locked again, and then unlocked again.
My point, Del, is that this whole thing has the *appearance* that you were able to get the thread unlocked specifically so you could respond, even though Tonya had adequately and effectively responded and in that response, you went too far.
Now, here is what I suggeste: the conversation about being able to discuss things on which we disagree needs to happen, but it cannot happen in THIS thread. This thread has a horribly inflammatory title, and its history (what remains of the posts, at any rate) is still here. It will be hard to have that conversation with all of this stuff in the background. So, I would lock this thread, for good, and start a new one focusing on "What To Do When You Disagree With a Post" or some such thing, and let that conversation start in a few days after everyone has had a chance to let this thread pass.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, if you had explained it more thoroughly in your initial email this wouldn't have even been started up, it was because of your curt reply they started it. :-)
Nobody outside of the OP and Del have seen the question, we've only seen the answer.
If the orignal request was something like: "We've only got 4 tables, that's less than the required 6, but as it is for charity, is it ok if we run the special anyway?" the given answer would be short, but sufficient.
|
My point, Del, is that this whole thing has the *appearance* that you were able to get the thread unlocked specifically so you could respond, even though Tonya had adequately and effectively responded and in that response, you went too far.
So you're saying people shouldn't defend themselves personally?
|
In a buisness situation Rysky, where upper level management has already chimed in to the situation, than that would be a yes.
Tonya has shown to be effective at diffusing the situation.
If she hadn't posted, and calmed the entire thing down, than sure go ahead. But once the head of OP has calmed everything down, than just let it be.
But YMMV.
|
|
In a buisness situation Rysky, where upper level management has already chimed in to the situation, than that would be a yes.
Tonya has shown to be effective at diffusing the situation.
If she hadn't posted, and calmed the entire thing down, than sure go ahead. But once the head of OP has calmed everything down, than just let it be.
But YMMV.
Except this was only a business situation in the original talks, and then it move to this thread and became a personal witch hunt against a specific person.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several people have said that if I had just explained my reasons for denying them support in the first place, this would not have happened. I am curious if that translates into - I got what I deserved?
No, it translates into you should have explained your reasoning
Otherwise people fill in the blanks with what they think of the other person, and as you're demonstrating here it is VERY easy to think the worst of someone that you disagree with.
Because you can't see you as they see you, the rant looks like cyberbullying, trying to coerce people into doing what they want etc. when its a reasonable response to what the OP THOUGHT was happening, and that thought wasn't entirely unreasonable given the (lack of) information that they had.
It was wrong, but wrong and unreasonable aren't the same thing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread was opened and Del defended himself after numerous pot shots against himself.
And the ability to do that has happened before on what occasions?
To what Mark said - this is a "last word" thing. In any other instance this would have never re-opened for the first deleted response. None of us, and I am including in-house Paizo employees that have become engaged in bitter discussions in this, ever get that kind of second chance.
But this isn't a re-opened thread discussion. This is a re-re-opened thread discussion where someone got to redo a rather vitriolic post.
But this isn't a re-re-opened thread discussion, it's a re-re-re-opened thread discussion where somebody (the same person) not only got a redo, but got to respond yet again after the thread had "run its course".
The first time never would have happened under normal circumstances, let alone the second or third.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, if you had explained it more thoroughly in your initial email this wouldn't have even been started up, it was because of your curt reply they started it. :-)Nobody outside of the OP and Del have seen the question, we've only seen the answer.
If the orignal request was something like: "We've only got 4 tables, that's less than the required 6, but as it is for charity, is it ok if we run the special anyway?" the given answer would be short, but sufficient.
This was the impression I got from Del's explanation.
The organizers knew they were asking for an exception to the table requirements for running a special. No explanation is required to respond "Sorry, but no." The organizers should know that is a possible and reasonable response to their request.
More explanation may have helped, or they may have come complaining with a little less ammunition. Everyone can improve their communication skills, but I don't think everyone is equally to blame for taking this issue negative.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I think I speak for many people here: Please lock this thread permanently and don't look back.Why stop there? This entire thread should be disappeared entirely, as if it never were.
Ideally, it should have been disappeared the day it went up, and an explanation sent to the people responsible about how this is not an acceptable practice for PFS or the forums and about the correct channels to use. Instead, we have endless recrimination, arguments and accusations, and grudges that look set to last - much better.
** spoiler omitted **
Not even
It should have disappeared the day it went up, but someone explicitly stated that, "(ask thread not be removed) I wanted your toxic words to be immortalized and associated with your event for many years to come."
So there is that.
|
|
It should have disappeared the day it went up, but someone explicitly stated that, "(ask thread not be removed) I wanted your toxic words to be immortalized and associated with your event for many years to come."
So there is that.
And since that is not a good idea, my (since deleted, on my own advice) point stands.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to represent us as gamers...you're going to have to accept our criticism of your performance in your position and just deal with it
Um, NO. Neither Del nor any of the Venture-Officers are employees of Paizo. This is not our job. We are VOLUNTEERS. Meaning we give of our valuable and often limited personal time to help provide YOU with an enjoyable gaming experience. Constructive criticism is certainly welcome, but what happened in this thread and what seems to be an ever-growing trend is viscous personal attacks towards individual campaign organizers/GMs/leaders. No, you are not entitled to blast another player just because they happened to be a Venture-Officer and they just have to "deal with it."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to represent us as gamers...you're going to have to accept our criticism of your performance in your position and just deal with itUm, NO. Neither Del nor any of the Venture-Officers are employees of Paizo. This is not our job. We are VOLUNTEERS. Meaning we give of our valuable and often limited personal time to help provide YOU with an enjoyable gaming experience. Constructive criticism is certainly welcome, but what happened in this thread and what seems to be an ever-growing trend is viscous personal attacks towards individual campaign organizers/GMs/leaders. No, you are not entitled to blast another player just because they happened to be a Venture-Officer and they just have to "deal with it."
As I said earlier, Paizo runs a business. From the point of view of Paizo, Pathfinder Society is--when all is said and done--an advertising effort to sell more items for their business. Regional Venture Coordinators are volunteers, but they are also the face of the business. Like it or not, you are representing the face of Paizo. Because of this position of responsibility, you should be held to certain standards.
Also, the people playing PFS--the customers of Paizo--might very well have complaints about you. You, and the actual employees of Paizo, will be judged based on how you respond to complaints.
I am not trying to be harsh here. I am just explaining the reality of the situation.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to represent us as gamers...you're going to have to accept our criticism of your performance in your position and just deal with itUm, NO. Neither Del nor any of the Venture-Officers are employees of Paizo. This is not our job. We are VOLUNTEERS. Meaning we give of our valuable and often limited personal time to help provide YOU with an enjoyable gaming experience. Constructive criticism is certainly welcome, but what happened in this thread and what seems to be an ever-growing trend is viscous personal attacks towards individual campaign organizers/GMs/leaders. No, you are not entitled to blast another player just because they happened to be a Venture-Officer and they just have to "deal with it."
As I said earlier, Paizo runs a business. From the point of view of Paizo, Pathfinder Society is--when all is said and done--an advertising effort to sell more items for their business. Regional Venture Coordinators are volunteers, but they are also the face of the business. Like it or not, you are representing the face of Paizo. Because of this position of responsibility, you should be held to certain standards.
Also, the people playing PFS--the customers of Paizo--might very well have complaints about you. You, and the actual employees of Paizo, will be judged based on how you respond to complaints.
What standards have not been met?
When the OP offered a complaint in a public forum, they received plenty of helpful advice from both volunteers and John Compton. They did not listen to that advice. When the RVC responded inappropriately, his post was removed. He listened to the criticism and advice he received and posted a much more appropriate response.
So what more is being asked of these people? (They are all only people) Perfection?
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, demand cookies!
I bake cakes for my players on their birthday or when they reach a GM milestone. I host a gathering at my house where I provide food and beverage for my local pfs leadership the night before our Fall convention. I picked up the beer tab for the table at GenCon on Sunday afternoon at O'Reilly's (those of you who know what this means... wince).
I also recognize what rolls downhill, often very quick, and gladly stand at the bottom of said hill. I defend my people here on the boards and off (yes, that included Andy...). Because like it or not, I am the face of PFS in Minnesota, and by extension Paizo.
I expect to be criticized. I expect people to disagree with my decisions. And that's ok! It is how I get better at doing this volunteer job. And yes sometimes that includes just taking it. Being human, I do not like just taking it. Thus I work towards building the framework and foundation with people so that this doesn't happen because they understand my reasoning and why decisions are made.
My one real hard and fast rule for VOs in Minnesota is "Don't surprise me." I talk to the VO team here daily. Everyone here understands what is happening in our region. Because of this, every VO is empowered to make decisions as they see fit. I will always back you up in whatever decision you make, just don't surprise me. I may not agree with what you did, but that is something we can discuss later. You make a poor choice which leads a player to scream at me? I take it. Because I already knew what happened and better me than the VO who made the poor choice in the first place. This also works both ways. If something happens that I feel my RVC should know about, I tell him.
I want to think something like this wouldn't happen here. The above gives me my reasoning for why.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I will follow your advice to the letter.Let's just be kind to each other. Let's stop escalating.
Like a tank full of gentle cuttlefish.
Oh my. Now I have a greater respect for why they're called devilfish.
Are we not tar and feathering him, guess not. I had the stuff for it prepared and would have given it to you all, for a price of course............................. YOUR SOUL!!!!!
Are we not tar and feathering him, guess not. I had the stuff for it prepared and would have given it to you all, for a price of course............................. YOUR SOUL!!!!!THE DAY IS NOT OVER YET COMRADE!
RRRRRRAAAAAIIIIISSSSSEEEE!!!!!
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
In all honesty, if you had explained it more thoroughly in your initial email this wouldn't have even been started up, it was because of your curt reply they started it. :-)Nobody outside of the OP and Del have seen the question, we've only seen the answer.
If the original request was something like: "We've only got 4 tables, that's less than the required 6, but as it is for charity, is it ok if we run the special anyway?" the given answer would be short, but sufficient.
Auke posted it before I could, but the fact, that this single sentence was quoted without context deserves to be mentioned.
When reading the OP it's easy to make certain assumptions but it certainly lacks details and facts (which Del later added in his first post).
EDIT: If the OP had included those details the whole thread would have been very different.
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread was opened and Del defended himself after numerous pot shots against himself.And the ability to do that has happened before on what occasions?
To what Mark said - this is a "last word" thing. In any other instance this would have never re-opened for the first deleted response. None of us, and I am including in-house Paizo employees that have become engaged in bitter discussions in this, ever get that kind of second chance.
But this isn't a re-opened thread discussion. This is a re-re-opened thread discussion where someone got to redo a rather vitriolic post.
But this isn't a re-re-opened thread discussion, it's a re-re-re-opened thread discussion where somebody (the same person) not only got a redo, but got to respond yet again after the thread had "run its course".
The first time never would have happened under normal circumstances, let alone the second or third.
The locking and unlocking were because of me, not Del or anyone else in the thread. I have been traveling and ill while this issue runs its course. When I haven't been able to get to the computer and keep an eye on it, the thread was locked.
It is very important to me that people can have their say. All people. As long as the commentary is done in a reasonable, polite manner that doesn't violate community guidelines. Discourse is necessary for the health of PFS and our community. So please, have the conversation. As long as it remains respectful, it will remain open. If it devolves into flames and chaos, we will pull the plug.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, folks. I think the constructive feedback phase of this thread has come to a close, especially as the Paizo staff will not be around this weekend to deal with any aftershocks or late flare-ups.
Should you want to continue to discuss issues like this in a cordial, constructive manner, feel free to open another thread in which to do so.
This one has served its purpose, and then some.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
Go play some games. :)
