|
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.
I'm not sure if your smarter than I am (highly likely) or just obstinate.
I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand. I'll have to wait for Tonya to rule if disciplinary action is covered or not.If someone claims they have been sexually harassed - Paizo is not going to stop them from coming forward. That is significantly different than disclosing why someone was removed from a position.
If Jane Doe accuses John Doe of sexual harassment publicly, Paizo is not going to stand in her way or attempt to silence people with the NDA. That is not going to be blocked using the NDA.
But how Paizo deals with a disciplinary situation is a private matter - potentially a legal matter and not open to public disclosure as it could have HIPPA information, or other private information which Paizo is not legally able to disclose.
Tonya's statement was not a legal suicide pact.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if your smarter than I am (highly likely) or just obstinate.
I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand. I'll have to wait for Tonya to rule if disciplinary action is covered or not.If someone claims they have been sexually harassed - Paizo is not going to stop them from coming forward. That is significantly different than disclosing why someone was removed from a position.
If Jane Doe accuses John Doe of sexual harassment publicly, Paizo is not going to stand in her way or attempt to silence people with the NDA. That is not going to be blocked using the NDA.
None of this is consistent with how you said you would handle a volunteer being removed from a con. You said you view the NDA as prohibiting you from commenting on if someone was removed from a con. So, lets say Venture-Captain John Doe sexually assaulted someone at DragonCon, and was removed from the con. Is your assertion really that you could not tell people that John Doe was removed from DragonCon for sexual harassment because its covered by the NDA, because that is basically what you said.
But how Paizo deals with a disciplinary situation is a private matter - potentially a legal matter and not open to public disclosure as it could have HIPPA information, or other private information which Paizo is not legally able to disclose.
Which is completely different than saying such a thing is covered by the OPF NDA.
And it goes beyond that, because whether or not Paizo chooses to disclose this information because of privacy concerns, volunteers have apparently been told that they cannot disclose this information, apparently under threat of NDA violation, not because they are being advised that it may expose them to liability for privacy breach.
Paizo can do and say whatever they want in this situation (I've expressed that I think going with the privacy route without a solid basis isn't the way I would go), but the problem lies with what they've told other people they can and cannot say and why.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 ... As you've heard some RVC have no standards.
Bold 1: I disagree. There is nothing inherently proprietary about who did and who did not. By claiming an NDA protection, this simply allows one to mask the reasoning from others who were denied the ability to offer a scenario from those who were.
Bold 2: Wow.
|
| 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. Tonya did indicate that she would be looking into establishing more uniform guidelines for approval
1) Any comment concerning the moving goalposts for convention support?
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.
2) So, it's ok to mention why support was denied in this case but not in general? How did the NDA not apply to this?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 ... As you've heard some RVC have no standards.
Bold 1: I disagree. There is nothing inherently proprietary about who did and who did not. By claiming an NDA protection, this simply allows one to mask the reasoning from others who were denied the ability to offer a scenario from those who were.
Bold 2: Wow.
Yeah that second bolded statement... wow.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 ... As you've heard some RVC have no standards.
Bold 1: I disagree. There is nothing inherently proprietary about who did and who did not. By claiming an NDA protection, this simply allows one to mask the reasoning from others who were denied the ability to offer a scenario from those who were.
Bold 2: Wow.
Bold 2: Wow..
Organized Play Manager
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all for your patience and passion for our organized play programs. I understand the desire to have answers and in our age of technology, immediate communications are possible. I didn’t want to respond hastily or without reviewing all communications, as a quick off the cuff answer had the potential to cause more issues than it resolved. Unfortunately, my participation last weekend in PaizoCon and immediate departure for UK Games Expo meant I am in the booth/org play room for 12-14 hours a day and snatching minutes here and there to work through this issue.
Evaluation of the various threads and conversations with the community identified four main areas of concern:
1) the removal of Michael Eshleman as VC
2) the widely varying criteria for event support in the North Carolina area
3) unclear policies in regards to VO activity
4) use of NDAs to quiet community commentary
I will address these in order.
Whenever there is an issue reported to the organization, the next level of VO is tasked with investigating the issue and formulating a course of action, which is reviewed by their administering VO. I firmly believe in decentralized, localized approach to Society management, as it is the people in the communities that know their regions best. So when an issue involving a North Carolina VC arose, the appropriate action was for the RVC, Del Collins, to investigate. This process did not go as expected, despite multiple requests made to additional parties to let the system take its course. While well meaning, the way the investigation was handled infringed on the Paizo Organized Play community behavior policy. This resulted in changes in VO leadership, including the removal of one VC and the suspension of another, as well as the issuance of warnings to several other VOs. None of those involved in this issue were removed from participation in organized play events. Pending completion of the suspension, the VC in question may request reinstatement to the VO team. As long as the others involved comply with the terms of their probation, there will be no further actions taken.
Regarding event support. There are three different pieces to this equation - event support, permission to run special events, and regional support. To get support, an event must have a minimum of 15 blocks over 3 days. This criteria is either met or not. Permission has a bit more flex and is based on a number of factors. When we limit something and ask for RVC approval, it is to make sure there isn’t an inundation of the same scenario at different conventions or to highlight big conventions in the region. While an event may be able to field the minimum number of tables for event support, this doesn’t mean it is a good venue for a preview event or a convention highlight event. Each RVC has different specific conditions based on their regions’ needs, but the underlying principles are the same. Going forward, the Org Play team will discuss more specific guidelines as to what events qualify for special access as well as how to present these criteria to the organizers. I’m also going to take a closer review all event requests in North Carolina for the next few months to ensure there isn’t an unintentional bias.
As I typed above, I believe in regions having flex to respond to their areas’ needs regarding organized play activities. Unfortunately, this incident showed that the flex leads to unclear policies and causes strife. I’m soliciting a team of venture-officers to work on a more defined list of consequences to use when policies such as the community behavior policy are violated. The RVCs are discussing a process of reviewing all venture-officer removals before they occur, to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all venture-officers. If you are a venture-officer and are interested in participating in this discussion, please email me with the subject line “Policy Task Force”.
Finally, there is a concern in our community that NDAs are being used to silence members. The only items covered by the NDA are Paizo business operations, as sometimes venture-officers have knowledge of upcoming activities and products before their information is released to the general public. At no time have I meant to imply that venture-officers may not speak their minds; barring extraordinary circumstances like systemic or egregious breaking of community guidelines, we do not take action against those who do so. There are many posts on the boards where officers speak their minds and we have left them for public consumption. This thread received the moderation it did because I was out of town working UK Games Expo and unable to comment on the situation. We do not talk about disciplinary actions or investigations to protect the privacy of those involved and the sensitive nature of the investigations, not because it is against the NDA.
If a person feels they want to share their pieces of it, they may do so. But if they violate someone else's privacy, contribute to dog-piling on another individual, engage in speculation or accusations regarding another person, or otherwise break community guidelines, the paizo.com moderators may remove those posts.
Thank you for reading to the end. I know this is a wall of text, but I feel it important to cover the topics posted and discussed. I’m still in the UK and won’t be returning to the office before leaving for Origins. I’ll work to reply as I’m able, but it may still be delayed.
-Tonya