|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.O-O
Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.
Wow.
We'd be pretty close. That's completely absurd. I wonder what the reason for such a policy is. Well, I have my guesses, of course, but still.
Bob's a great RVC - fortunately we don't have that other region's problem.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.O-O
Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.
Wow.
I am moderately certain, that the same would apply to any event in Europe and eastern Europe, potentially excluding 2 large events in the UK.
Assuming we are talking about PFS attendance and not total convention attendance, but to be honest it would be weird to allow something for mixed gaming convention with a 15 slot PFS convention held at the same time and prevent a PFS centric event with 50 tables from offering something.
I honestly have no idea, how many events worldwide would qualify, but I suspect they are in the tens rather than hundreds.
I'd wager there is only a handful of events in the entire world not named Paizo Con or Gen Con that could meet either of those criteria.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd wager there is only a handful of events in the entire world not named Paizo Con or Gen Con that could meet either of those criteria.That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.O-O
Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.
Wow.
I am moderately certain, that the same would apply to any event in Europe and eastern Europe, potentially excluding 2 large events in the UK.
Assuming we are talking about PFS attendance and not total convention attendance, but to be honest it would be weird to allow something for mixed gaming convention with a 15 slot PFS convention held at the same time and prevent a PFS centric event with 50 tables from offering something.
I honestly have no idea, how many events worldwide would qualify, but I suspect they are in the tens rather than hundreds.
Of the conventions in the Southeast region, I believe the only ones that would qualify based on these parameters would be SCARAB, MegaCon, and possibly Dragon*Con.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I think that the requirement that we should expand to a new venue suggests that Del did intend for those numbers to apply to total attendance and not only Pathfinder/Starfinder. There are some SF/media cons in our area that are large enough, but they don't allocate too much space to gaming. We have tried to run games at some of them, but were not able to get near enough tables to qualify for a Special. If Magic and D+D players are counted, AtomiCon had about 100-150.
Edit - Corrected AtomiCon attendance based on new input.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's total attendance rather than just PFS attendance, then there are several in the Twin Cities that reach in the several thousands. But its clear that the majority of those attending arent going to be PFS. Although PFS did pull about 11 to 17% of the Con of the North tickets for COTN 2015 & 2016.
So perhaps some clarity on what those numbers represent? Total number of PFS seats filled? Total number of unique PFS numbers? Total for the whole con?
If it's total seats filled, the Twin Cities has two that far exceeds 250. If it's total convention, then two nearly exceeds by 20 to 30 times. If it's seats per slot, there aren't many but the largest conventions in the world that could even offer more than 10 tables per slot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thought...
The restriction on conventions held in retail locations was the initial rule when the new convention support rules came out shortly after Tonya was hired. I think maybe January 2016? That changed quickly after a pretty big outcry from the player base, and now there is a type of convention called a retail convention. So, while not defending anyone, this could be why the RVCs rule changed. The lack of transparency, however, is a problem.
|
|
He said he was going to deny approval because it was a retail convention when the application for AtomiCon was first submitted in December 2017. When I responded that this was a step backward from the retail outreach exemplified by the Regional Support Program, we got the first change in requirements. When I asked if, all other factors being the same, we might get approval if someone other than our VC made the request, we got the size requirement.
Edit - Corrected the date for the first application/denial.
|
|
He said he was going to deny approval because it was a retail convention when the application for AtomiCon was first submitted in December 2017. When I responded that this was a step backward from the retail outreach exemplified by the Regional Support Program, we got the first change in requirements. When I asked if, all other factors being the same, we might get approval if someone other than our VC made the request, we got the size requirement.
Edit - Corrected the date for the first application/denial.
Can you verify what the size requirement was relating to?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the absence of transparency, which is not really a good thing to have in many cases due to the 'witch hunt' mentality of the modern Internet, there needs to be a level of accountability for senior officers, and a recourse that will be able to make itself heard WITHOUT disrupting the campaign.
How on EARTH that would be implemented would be anyone's guess, I'm spitballing here.
THis whole thing makes me think that there should be some sort of ombudsman for PFS to handle this sort of thing. It's clear that there is more than enough work to go around at this point, and someone is needed to make sure that concerns are heard AND RESPONDED TO. An ombudsman might be the type of role that works best here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the conventions in the Southeast region, I believe the only ones that would qualify based on these parameters would be SCARAB, MegaCon, and possibly Dragon*Con.I'd wager there is only a handful of events in the entire world not named Paizo Con or Gen Con that could meet either of those criteria.That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.O-O
Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.
Wow.
I am moderately certain, that the same would apply to any event in Europe and eastern Europe, potentially excluding 2 large events in the UK.
Assuming we are talking about PFS attendance and not total convention attendance, but to be honest it would be weird to allow something for mixed gaming convention with a 15 slot PFS convention held at the same time and prevent a PFS centric event with 50 tables from offering something.
I honestly have no idea, how many events worldwide would qualify, but I suspect they are in the tens rather than hundreds.
If we are talking total Pathfinder Attendees, I am pretty sure we didn't have 250+ for this last Megacon, maybe not even 100+. As has been pointed out, participation in the Southeast has been diminishing for several years. If you are talking total attendees (both gamer and non-gamer) then there are easily a dozen Wargamer, Anime & SciFi Cons in Florida alone that qualify. The only problem with the latter is that a dedicated PFS convention would get less attention/support than a random convention that offered PFS. Of course, it also matters if we are talking unique attendees vs. turnstile attendees.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you verify what the size requirement was relating to?Given that there is no love lost between Del and myself at this time, I will assume it referred to total convention attendance and leave it at that. If you need a definitive answer, I suggest you PM him.
Yeah, I wouldn't say that Del and I are really on speaking terms either, so I'll leave it alone. But suffice it to say, that total convention attendance for a convention that is inclusive (isn't just PFS) of many different games, 250 is an incredibly small number (easily attainable.)
My educated guess, would be that 250 refers to the total number of possible PFS players seated throughout the entire convention. At 6 seats per table, 5 slots, and 5 tables per slot, which is a small, but decent PFS presence (we started barely larger than that, 7 slots, 4 tables per slot (5 for the special) for just 174 possible seats at CotN 2012) equals 150 possible seats. Currently we average I think 18 tables per slot over 7 slots, which easily triples 250 total possible PFS seats.
Even Paizo Con doesn't reach 250 possible seats per slot I think (isn't it like 34 tables times 6 equals just over 200.) So I think that would be an absurd expectation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My educated guess, would be that 250 refers to the total number of possible PFS players seated throughout the entire convention. At 6 seats per table, 5 slots, and 5 tables per slot, which is a small, but decent PFS presence (we started barely larger than that, 7 slots, 4 tables per slot (5 for the special) for just 174 possible seats at CotN 2012) equals 150 possible seats. Currently we average I think 18 tables per slot over 7 slots, which easily triples 250 total possible PFS seats.
AtomiCon has been doing 7 slots with 5+ tables per slot, which would total 210 possible seats, so I don't think that this was the criteria Del meant or we would have qualified.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not a lot of explicit information here, mainly just follow-up to now hidden arguments/discussions. This thread is giving me the impression that the issue/drama is that there is one RVC that a couple of people really hate because he's the only RVC willing to tell people no.And that would be a problem since it is a deviation from the rest
of the OP organization.
Its not that a particular leader is willing or not willing to say no. If it were just a function of some sour grapes, then I'd agree with you. But setting unrealistic expectations as requirements to get support is not fair or reasonable. So it isn't just saying no, but rather saying no to the detriment of the PFS community. Apparently the PFS community in the SE region has been retracting over the last couple years. Might be coincidence, but it might not as well.
In either case, the RVC set up and everything instituted after Tonya made all the changes, was to create an uniform way of handling all situations. And if one RVC is not handling things at least similarly (of course every region is going to have differences that won't fit the one-shoe-fits-all type thing), then things are not uniform, and that's a problem.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not a lot of explicit information here, mainly just follow-up to now hidden arguments/discussions. This thread is giving me the impression that the issue/drama is that there is one RVC that a couple of people really hate because he's the only RVC willing to tell people no.
Here is my perspective - it is not an RVC's job to say no, it is the RVC's job to grow Pathfinder/Starfinder Organized Play in their region. More opportunities to play means more growth. Saying no is counter to that. I agree with Bob Jonquet's view - as long as there is not a conflict with another event, there isn't a reason to deny approval to run a Special.
That said, my issues with Del are far more extensive than that he denied us the opportunity to run the Special. In respect to the moderator's decision to hide the thread that outlined my objections, I won't go into that here. I hope that the thread may be reactivated again soon when Tonya has returned from overseas.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd wager there is only a handful of events in the entire world not named Paizo Con or Gen Con that could meet either of those criteria.That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.
Back before PaizoCon moved to the same weekend our biggest established convention, KublaCon, would easily have qualified. But even in those days neither of our other two Tier 1 conventions had 250 different PFS players.
Total attendees for a convention, mind you, is a four-figure number.We've also had a PFS (and SFS) presence at a new con for the last couple of years. The first year was purely an experiment, but last year we had convention support, and expect to get it again this year. But even though we've grown attendance every year it's unlikely that we'll have 100 PFS/SFS attendees, even though we will probably run something like 50 tables. I don't know total convention attendance for that one, but it's certainly well over 250.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is something else I've noticed - whenever there's a pot-stirring drama thread, they always get posted at the beginning of a holiday weekend or a major convention when the people whose job it actually is to deal with these things will be publicly known to not be in the office. It's really starting to look like the timing is intentional on these things, and it's starting to color the intent of the threads themselves as well - it looks like these types of threads are specifically intended just to cause drama among the community, not to resolve an issue with the help of leadership.
There never seems to be a "good" time to post this sort of thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not a lot of explicit information here, mainly just follow-up to now hidden arguments/discussions. This thread is giving me the impression that the issue/drama is that there is one RVC that a couple of people really hate because he's the only RVC willing to tell people no.
Why is there a no? What determines yes's and nos? That I think is the bigger issue here. Is the rvc being fair to all our do some get better treatment? And the big question I would like to know is scarab getting the yes's more than others?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's not a lot of explicit information here, mainly just follow-up to now hidden arguments/discussions. This thread is giving me the impression that the issue/drama is that there is one RVC that a couple of people really hate because he's the only RVC willing to tell people no.Why is there a no? What determines yes's and nos? That I think is the bigger issue here. Is the rvc being fair to all our do some get better treatment? And the big question I would like to know is scarab getting the yes's more than others?
That would also be my biggest question.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is something else I've noticed - whenever there's a pot-stirring drama thread, they always get posted at the beginning of a holiday weekend or a major convention when the people whose job it actually is to deal with these things will be publicly known to not be in the office. It's really starting to look like the timing is intentional on these things, and it's starting to color the intent of the threads themselves as well - it looks like these types of threads are specifically intended just to cause drama among the community, not to resolve an issue with the help of leadership.
The Raleigh-Durham VC Michael Eshleman was removed from his position by Del Collins the RVC on April 30th. Over the last month, our local attendance has gone from 8 - 10 tables a week to 2 - 4 tables a week. When this happened, we lost all of our local leadership as our VA stepped down in support of Michael. We have a major convention in the area called SuperCon in July that we were looking to start supporting in addition to future AtomiCons. Unfortunately without local leadership and support the future of the areas PFS and conventions is starting to look grim.
While it is inconvenient that the decline has happened while Tonya is traveling from convention to convention, it is not the reason for the timing. I greatly appreciate all of the work that Tonya does to support Pathfinder Society. In most companies that I have worked for people are responsible for their other job functions while traveling. Common courtesy is to provide understanding for the increase pressures traveling, and event organizing creates and gives that person additional time to respond, not to put an issue on hold. I hope that these facts and statements help to provide you with a better understanding of what has prompted all of this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not a lot of explicit information here, mainly just follow-up to now hidden arguments/discussions. This thread is giving me the impression that the issue/drama is that there is one RVC that a couple of people really hate because he's the only RVC willing to tell people no.Why is there a no? What determines yes's and nos? That I think is the bigger issue here. Is the rvc being fair to all our do some get better treatment? And the big question I would like to know is scarab getting the yes's more than others?
The short answer is yes. And the concern becomes that he ensures his convention that he makes money from gets support, while cutting it off from possible competition. I’ve also heard complaints from locals who went to that convention that he plays favorites in GMing support for his friends and people he likes without supporting others.
We’ve lost a lot of VOs I my state and had trouble recruiting new ones due to people not wanting to deal with this RVC. We’ve been told by people they like PF but don’t want to get involved in society play because of issues in the region. We’ve had him arbitrarily add requirements to earning 5th stars that forced our VOs to go to John Compton to get the star approved. The VC that was removed with Michael banned from Cons in Georgia due to repeated behavior issues, but this RVC made him a VC anyways.
There is an ongoing trend of this RVC negatively impacting the region and regular complaints being brought up about it. And yet here we are seeing yet another person resorting to bringing it to the forums because they feel ignored by Paizo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There never seems to be a "good" time to post this sort of thing.I find Monday vastly preferable to Friday.
I started the whole mess on a Wednesday, which in my mind should have caused the least conflict (plenty of time to get back in the swing after PaizoCon, enough time before the next weekend of cons - what I didn't factor was that Tonya needed to leave early because of a long flight).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is something else I've noticed - whenever there's a pot-stirring drama thread, they always get posted at the beginning of a holiday weekend or a major convention when the people whose job it actually is to deal with these things will be publicly known to not be in the office. It's really starting to look like the timing is intentional on these things, and it's starting to color the intent of the threads themselves as well - it looks like these types of threads are specifically intended just to cause drama among the community, not to resolve an issue with the help of leadership.
I would suggest that it is logical that issues that revolve around Conventions would most likely rear their heads during the middle of Convention Season (which is mostly late Spring to early Fall). Which, of course, is the time of year that's PFS's Leadership is busiest and most likely traveling or out of office.
|
|
The short answer is yes. And the concern becomes that he ensures his convention that he makes money from gets support, while cutting it off from possible competition.
I've got to come forward and dispel some of the misinformation being posted.
No. I do not play favorites. If I did Paizo would remove me. SCARAB does NOT view any convention as competition and has helped others launch eight different conventions over the years we have been in existence. Even conventions I don't personally get to support get support. I have only ever denied support to three events in the years I have been a VC and then RVC. SCARAB philosophy is more conventions are better for everyone and I myself have attended as many as fifteen conventions a year.
By the way two of the events I have turned down for support were "Invitation Only Events" where someone was getting thousands of dollars of support and boons for 40 or so of their friends. Give you one guess where one of them was at and I had the full support of the OPC to deny this support.
I’ve also heard complaints from locals who went to that convention that he plays favorites in GMing support for his friends and people he likes without supporting others.
I'm really not even sure what this means. But there are so many rumors that circulate about me - mostly because I am a super private person - you would think I crapped thunder. A lot of decisions have been attributed to me over the years that ultimately weren't mine and in some cases I was merely the messenger and had nothing to do with.
We’ve had him arbitrarily add requirements to earning 5th stars that forced our VOs to go to John Compton to get the star approved.
I have not added any requirements to get a 5th star and have approved every single person who has ever applied to a 5th star under me. I think you have me confused with someone else. My requirements are the same today as they always have been. Meet the Paizo requirements - that's it. Run the session and get their application top lined by a qualified VC or Paizo staffer. I have seen some in the region go to GenCon or other locations and get turned down and I've worked with them to help them meet the expectations of their tester and they have all been successful.
The VC that was removed with Michael banned from Cons in Georgia due to repeated behavior issues, but this RVC made him a VC anyways.
Nope. Wrong again. Not sure if your a liar, bomb dropper or just ignorant of the actual goings on within the region but Aaron (not afraid to use his name) was kicked out of DragonCon and that was overturned the next year. I can't discuss the issue beyond that other than to say I had nothing to do with it.
|
|
The Raleigh-Durham VC Michael Eshleman was removed from his position by Del Collins the RVC on April 30th. Over the last month, our local attendance has gone from 8 - 10 tables a week to 2 - 4 tables a week. When this happened, we lost all of our local leadership as our VA stepped down in support of Michael. We have a major convention in the area called SuperCon in July that we were looking to start supporting in addition to future AtomiCons. Unfortunately without local leadership and support the future of the areas PFS and conventions is starting to look grim.
Speaking for myself I appreciate your sincere inquiry, unfortunately however, I cannot comment on the matter of the dismissals. I understand the rumor mill is in full force. I do understand how difficult a change like this can be on people and do apologize for any inconveniences you may experience. I promise that everyone within the VO ranks of the area are highly committed to delivering the same great experience that has existed for you under Mr. Eshleman's leadership. I can say that it is possible you could see Mr. Eshleman and Mr. Winz return to the ranks of the VO one day. But at this time the area has been turned over to Landon Hatfield and he is committed to continuing to further develop the area and to continue to ensure the same high quality you have become accustomed to. I would ask that you bear with him as he takes on the task and picks up the leadership responsibilities within the area. He will be in need of people with the interest and experience willing to help him through the transition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started the whole mess on a Wednesday, which in my mind should have caused the least conflict (plenty of time to get back in the swing after PaizoCon, enough time before the next weekend of cons - what I didn't factor was that Tonya needed to leave early because of a long flight).There never seems to be a "good" time to post this sort of thing.I find Monday vastly preferable to Friday.
Wednesday is also preferable to Friday.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you've decided to comment on this thread maybe you can answer one of the questions you didn't address.
Have you used the OPF NDA to prevent people involed from discussing the issue surrounding the removal of Michael Eshleman?
Under what theory can you not comment on this issue.
I ask this especially given the fact that you have felt comfortable correcting the record on a DragonCon issue regarding one of the parties involved in this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only places Paizo can legally run into trouble is <snip>That's really about it.
Everything else is covered in their AUP Community Guidelines
You really need to read the appeals court Opinion that I spoilered. Your legal analysis and advice isn't taking that into account.
There's a legal precedent there that explains why N N 959 posted this
EDIT: I will concede the defamation risks are a concern on forums, I do agree that the moderators need to be vigilant for these types of posts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to clarify that AtomiCon did receive convention support. Since it is a retail convention, this was limited to GM and Player Boons. I agree with that policy in that it would be undermining our sponsor for Paizo to give gift certificates for their online store at an event held at a retail location. We strongly encourage our players to patronize the store and I think the Retail Incentive Program is excellent in that they have regular evidence of our players spending $50 or more per table. They love us there, from the feedback I've received from the employees and owners.
Del - thank you for your public comments. I would like a clarification on your comment, please. When you said you denied support to only three events, were you referring only to the standard convention support package, or were you also referring to the authorization to run Specials? Could you please provide a list of conventions for which the Special was approved in the Region this year? I had asked for this at the time we were discussing the denial of approval for AtomiCon and it was never addressed. Also, were any events in the Region other than AtomiCon denied authorization to run the special when they were able to demonstrate a history of running sufficient tables to meet the published criteria? Thanks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Raleigh-Durham VC Michael Eshleman was removed from his position by Del Collins the RVC on April 30th. Over the last month, our local attendance has gone from 8 - 10 tables a week to 2 - 4 tables a week. When this happened, we lost all of our local leadership as our VA stepped down in support of Michael. We have a major convention in the area called SuperCon in July that we were looking to start supporting in addition to future AtomiCons. Unfortunately without local leadership and support the future of the areas PFS and conventions is starting to look grim.Speaking for myself I appreciate your sincere inquiry, unfortunately however, I cannot comment on the matter of the dismissals. I understand the rumor mill is in full force. I do understand how difficult a change like this can be on people and do apologize for any inconveniences you may experience. I promise that everyone within the VO ranks of the area are highly committed to delivering the same great experience that has existed for you under Mr. Eshleman's leadership. I can say that it is possible you could see Mr. Eshleman and Mr. Winz return to the ranks of the VO one day. But at this time the area has been turned over to Landon Hatfield and he is committed to continuing to further develop the area and to continue to ensure the same high quality you have become accustomed to. I would ask that you bear with him as he takes on the task and picks up the leadership responsibilities within the area. He will be in need of people with the interest and experience willing to help him through the transition.
------------------------------
Delbert. I would like to start by thanking you for volunteering to be the Regional Venture-Captain for the SouthEast and all of your hard work over the years. All volunteer officers of the pathfinder society deserve PFS players gratitude and appreciation for the work they do.
I understand that you can not talk about what lead to Michael Eshleman's removal as the VC of our area. We all appreciate you taking time to set straight some the rumors float around and offer your side. We would appreciate it if you would be willing to answer some quick questions. I think they will help everyone involved move forward.
1. Do you feel that Michael Eshleman is an exceptional Pathfinder Society volunteer?
2. Did you consider other options other than removing him from his position before making this judgment? After seeing the effect that it has had on our area would it be possible to visit alternatives to his removal that would allow him to continue to volunteer as a member of local leadership possibly in a different capacity.
3. What can Raleigh area do to hasten his return to local leadership?
Landon Hatfield is an excellent VC and extremely well liked by all of us in the area. We are grateful to him for stepping up to help us. He has done excellent work in Charlotte NC and the surrounding areas. It is a lot to ask him to manage both Charlotte and Raleigh plus all the surrounding areas. Big shout out to Landon the help he provides will be amazing and very appreciated.
4. I personally do not know much about you. How long have you volunteered as our RVC?
5. Based on your previous posts it sounds like you are doing your best to foster Pathfinder Society throughout the region you oversee. Can you take a few moments to tell us some of the work you have done this year to promote growth in the region?
6. Do you have any recommendation as to what the Raleigh area can do to help stop the decline we are seeing?
7. Is there any help that you can provide the area as our RVC?
(I know there are a lot of questions here so I numbered them to help make replies easier)
|
|
*stuff about SCARAB doesn't have competition and 5-Star GMs have always been at war with Eastasia
SCARAB does NOT view any convention as competition and has helped others launch eight different conventions over the years we have been in existence.
Which is great, especially if read as "Walmart doesn't consider any local stores as competion - especially as they almost all go out of business shortly thereafter" sort of tone. As almost anyone who has ever dealt with volunteer-driven activities knows, you only have so many volunteers. I can recall with great clarity that in March of 2014 GA PFS had chosen to support a new-ish local convention called SecretsCon. Unfortunately for SecretsCon, SCARAB had contracted to assist another local game day resulted in a divide of local players to the deteriment of both conventions. I'd post the board links, but unfortunately the original GA PFS boards set up by Mike Brock died a few years go. I'd send links to SecretsCon, but they no longer exist either.
As mentioned upthread, this is one of the reasons that a large # of GA PFS members protested the change from "conventions" to "Game Days" for Paizo boon support when the limited boon release proposal was suggested. We had already discovered what is good for SCARAB is rarely (if ever) good for GA PFS.
I have not added any requirements to get a 5th star and have approved every single person who has ever applied to a 5th star under me. I think you have me confused with someone else.
Prior to the creation of the RVC position, GMs who had earned their five-star status were not required to jump through self-aggrandizement hoops in order to earn their 5-star status.
GA PFS was fortunate to have a truly superb GM, Colin W., who was in every way I can think of, exactly what a PFS GM should be while GMing. At the time, I was a store coordinator at one of the local game stores that Colin GM'd at. Colin did not really care about recognition or about stars, but as is true of most volunteers who set a great example or go above and beyond he did inspire others to care about it on his behalf. To that end, I wanted to make certain that he would get that recognition, preferable as a "surprise" so I outreached to JohnC, who confirmed the # of games he needed (he was already at 11 of the 10 needed specials) in November of 2015 and began the count down so that I could "arrange" to have a VO witness his 150th game and make sure that his 5-star would happen smoothly.
With some delays and trepedition, his 150th game occurred on June 25, 2016 and the information was forwarded to try to get the 5th star stuff finalized in the manner I was told by JohnC via PM to utilize on July 13.
Then we waited...
...and waited....
...and waited some more...
After hearing nothing but crickets, I outreached again on Aug 24 at the same time the VL who attending the game send another follow-up email after checking with our former VC, who advised that the information had been forwarded along with his resignation as one of his last acts as VC. Finally we were told that we would need to send a list of his games. At the time, there was no one in GA who had access to the ability to access Paizo data due to the shift of the VOs. When questioned about if the information hadn't already been sent, the response was "If he[former VC] didn't send the sessions simply put it will not get approved."
So we ended up having to do the one thing that I truly did not want to do and have Colin dig up all of his stuff, making what should have been a "congrats, you're awesome!" moment turn into a "please do more paperwork for this thing that's not really all that important to you" instead.
Not exactly a great way to retain the kind of volunteers PFS should desire.
Regarding timing - all of this, of course, right before our little local convention, DragonCon, with an almost entirely new VO cadre.
|
|
Have you used the OPF NDA to prevent people involed from discussing the issue surrounding the removal of Michael Eshleman?
I am only commenting on the commonly known aspects of that investigation, as I was not a part of it. I actually don't have any direct knowledge of the the investigation process for that event and so I can only comment on the cause and results of the investigation which are common knowledge but rumors have cloaked them in an enigma.
I simply cannot tell you anything beyond that. I know Aaron wasn't banned at any events, while people may not have desired his presence he was never officially banned from any event to my knowledge. If he was I wouldn't be able to say that because it would be covered by NDA. But he wasn't and there is nothing official preventing me from saying that.
Re: Mr. Eshleman: We cannot crowd source a disciplinary action that could lead to terrible humiliation of someone. I know people are dying to know what happened but that is not fair to those involved and while Michael may be more than comfortable discussing them in public that doesn't mean that someone else might not be humiliated or embarrassed by that conversation.
I would simply add that in all the time I have worked for Tonya I don't believe Tonya would ever allow me to do anything she felt wasn't in the best interest of the organization. In addition, I do NOT have the independent authority to hire and fire anyone. While I may advise and consent that authority ultimately lies with the OPC and I have nothing but the utmost respect for her ability to see the big picture and make very difficult decisions based on what she feels is in the best interest of the community at large.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he was I wouldn't be able to say that because it would be covered by NDA.
No, no it would not. Again, I quote Tonya, "Paizo and the Organized Play Foundation use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect non-public business information and trade secrets. Paizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events."
There have been allegations made that you have attempted to use the NDA to suppress volunteer speech regarding the firing of Michael Eshleman. All I'm asking for is a simple yes or no answer, have you informed people that your communications with them regarding the firing of Michael Eshleman are covered by an NDA as alleged.
In addition, I do NOT have the independent authority to hire and fire anyone. While I may advise and consent that authority ultimately lies with the OPC and I have nothing but the utmost respect for her ability to see the big picture and make very difficult decisions based on what she feels is in the best interest of the community at large.
Michael Eshleman himself has alleged that you fired him in his Paizo profile "May 2, 2018 I was fired from my venture officer position by Regional Venture-Coordinator Del Collins." Is it your assertion that this decision actually came from Tonya and that you effectuated it or is it instead your assertion that you did the firing but that Tonya acquiesced in the decision.
Michael Eshleman does not seem to be overly concerned with the knowledge that he was fired getting out. Is it your assertion that Michael Eshleman cannot discuss this issue, if so what is the basis for this assertion. Is it because you believe it be covered by an NDA? If so under what basis does an NDA that, again, I quote Tonya, "aizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events" apply.
|
|
Could you please provide a list of conventions for which the Special was approved in the Region this year?
You've asked me that before and I don't believe I can as per the NDA. Having said that you also know that because I have set some standards for how I make decisions it has caused Tonya to look at how we (The RVC) do make those determinations. One of the problems people have to bear in mind is that the RVC program is still developing and Tonya has to get a sense of what authority to give the RVC's and where the balance lies. I can tell you Tonya takes into account all feedback and is very responsive to it and as I told you if I'm wrong, I'm willing to be wrong and adjust my requirements accordingly. As you've heard some RVC have no standards. We are still trying to determine some sort of guideline we can all operate under and if we get it wrong, we will adjust it and adjust it and adjust it if we have to.
|
|
1. Do you feel that Michael Eshleman is an exceptional Pathfinder Society volunteer?
Yes
2. Did you consider other options other than removing him from his position before making this judgment?
Yes
3. What can Raleigh area do to hasten his return to local leadership?
Work with Landon and not against him. Giving time it is very possible both Michael and Pete could return.
4. I personally do not know much about you. How long have you volunteered as our RVC?
Some days it feels like forever. This investigation took a lot out of me I cannot tell you how difficult it is to make a decision like this. I seriously considered resigning prior to all of this recent blow up simply because this investigation hurt - a lot. But to answer your question - since the inception of the program and Tonya had to work pretty hard to convince me to do it, because I knew how hard it was going to be.
5. Based on your previous posts it sounds like you are doing your best to foster Pathfinder Society throughout the region you oversee. Can you take a few moments to tell us some of the work you have done this year to promote growth in the region?
I would say you are seeing a lot of comments about how the sky is falling in the campaign in the SE but I can tell you based on the numbers I get monthly from the people on the ground the region as a whole is going through a period of growth. So don't listen to the naysayers.
6. Do you have any recommendation as to what the Raleigh area can do to help stop the decline we are seeing?
Get involved with Landon. The area you are in has been ripped in two for the past three years and there are two factions operating against one another. We HAVE To heal the area and people have to stop undermining one another. Landon has been tasked with reaching out to both factions to begin healing the area. He has his work cut out for him but he is up to the task, but this is a situation I worry about him burning out. So help him if he reaches out to you.
7. Is there any help that you can provide the area as our RVC?
I don't know but I am committed to seeing the area heal and have desired that for a few years now and I think we have the right people in the right places to make that happen. In addition, if people reach out to me for help I will do anything I can to help.
I tried to get them all hope this helps.
|
|
No, no it would not.
I disagree but I'm not a lawyer and am waiting on word from Tonya who is seeking an answer to your question.
Have you informed people that your communications with them regarding the firing of Michael Eshleman are covered by an NDA as alleged?
Yes, I believe disciplinary actions fall under "to protect non-public business information" and until I hear otherwise from Tonya won't disclose that information because there are many people involved and it would absolutely lead to the potential disclosure of very personal information that could have devastating effects to those involved or their families.
Michael Eshleman himself has alleged that you fired him in his Paizo profile "May 2, 2018 I was fired from my venture officer position by Regional Venture-Coordinator Del Collins.
I definitely delivered that message - that unfortunately is my duty. I am certainly an advisor and absolutely consented on the result. The removal of anyone must have Tonya's approval as far as I am concerned and I have never removed anyone without her authority. I hope that answered your question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree but I'm not a lawyer and am waiting on word from Tonya who is seeking an answer to your question.
If this is true than Tonya's statement that "Paizo and the Organized Play Foundation use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect non-public business information and trade secrets. Paizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events." Actually means nothing and appears to simply be a smokescreen to assuage people regarding a sexual harassment allegation.
In no way is the discipline of an OP volunteer non-public business information or a trade secret versus a personal event, especially when its being used to supress the speech of a person whose personal event it actually is. If that's true than literally anything that Paizo does can be considered non-public business information. Heck, even the 'personal event' at issue, since it happened at PaizoCon and Paizo worked with the hotel on the issue.
The last part of Tonya's statement was, "[that any of our community feels pressured to silence by their NDA upsets me greatly." People have alleged you are putting this pressure on them, and appear to perhaps to be doing so with at least Tonya's acquiescence.
Keep in mind that you literally said that if a VO was removed from a con you could not comment on it because you believed it was covered by an NDA, that is literally what people who didn't feel like they could talk about the sexual harassment at PaizoCon said.
|
|
SecretsCon
This is the first I have ever heard of SecretsCon. Additionally, I cannot be everywhere at once. But I can tell you I have many times split the SCARAB staff and sent up to four groups to four different events. If I had known there was an event that needed help I can assure you I would have done what I could to make that happen.
5-Star Hoops
You're unfairly blaming me for the creation of additional bureaucracy. I can apologize for it profusely but it seems like all we do is continue to apologize for it and that doesn't make it better. I am sorry for delays in those areas. Yes, it takes a while to get VO approved and stars approved and you can ask all the VO who report to me, that process is terribly slow (I think many would say agonizingly slow) and we are all very frustrated with it. But I didn't create that bureaucracy and along with all involved are doing our very best to improve that process even though I know it seems like we have taken 2 steps back and another 2 steps back and another, eventually we will get it right and that will give people the opportunity to identify the next area we need to work on.
|
|
If this is true than Tonya's statement that "Paizo and the Organized Play Foundation use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect non-public business information and trade secrets. Paizo and the OPF do not use NDAs to suppress volunteer speech regarding personal events." Actually means nothing and appears to simply be a smokescreen to assuage people regarding a sexual harassment allegation, so if that's true I'm not sure that I can continue my involvement with Paizo Organized Play.
I disagree and feel that you are VERY UNFAIRLY taking her comments out of context to support your argument. That thread has to do with people reporting various forms of harassment not disciplinary actions taken within the organization.
Again, not a lawyer, will wait to hear from Tonya. Best I can say at this time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree and feel that you are VERY UNFAIRLY taking her comments out of context to support your argument. That thread has to do with people reporting various forms of harassment not disciplinary actions taken within the organization.
You literally said that you didn't think you could comment on someone being removed from a con because it would be protected by NDA. This is what you said, "I know Aaron wasn't banned at any events, while people may not have desired his presence he was never officially banned from any event to my knowledge. If he was I wouldn't be able to say that because it would be covered by NDA." Please tell me how that situation is any different than what Tonya was talking about regarding PaizoCon.
Based on this back and forth, I think the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you have in fact been trying to suppress volunteer speech regarding this matter through the application of the NDA.