Who is Michael Eshleman? Why should you care?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
It is unfortunate that his dismissal lies under NDA, because that makes people assume the very worst of him, and I earnestly do not believe that he deserves that.

Definitely not trying to call you out here, but I hope if everyone gained anything from that locked thread it was the knowledge that information regarding the dismissal was not covered by any NDA and is instead not being disclosed because of privacy reasons.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
It is unfortunate that his dismissal lies under NDA, because that makes people assume the very worst of him, and I earnestly do not believe that he deserves that.
Definitely not trying to call you out here, but I hope if everyone gained anything from that locked thread it was the knowledge that the dismissal was not covered by any NDA.

Maybe she has gotten information under NDA that is connected or at least adjacent to the current situation and she does not know where precisely the line between confidential information and common knowledge is at this time.

Even without the NDA, sometimes VOs are told things from their players or other VOs with the assumption/request that things be kept confidential.
That might or might not have something to do with the text of our NDA, but when it comes to issues like this it is sometimes preferable to be careful with these things. We take these things seriously, even if sometimes we choose not to comment.
The various VO tags might imply some sort of added weight/insight information, which is in some cases really not necessary or justified.

Being a VO can be really rewarding, but our position also means that we can/have to access non-public information to do our jobs properly, so it is not always easy to make useful comments that are not colored by other information.

So please, if someone mentions their NDA, just try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I really suspect that you will not see a lot of VOs with significant access to confidential information post " You know I really want to write soooooo much about this, no really you would not believe it you guys if only I was not stopped by that NDA"...

To be frank, most VOs are just like your fellow players and prolific GMs like you, we just stepped up for one reason or another, I could tell you a rather long story how I found PFS, and why I stepped up ... and long story short about 3 years ago I started and now I am a VC with a Campaign Coin... but honestly when you sit and play with a VO you might never notice.

Edit: Fixed my grammar a bit

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is directly from Tonya, "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." (emphasis mine.)

I'm really not trying to make every thread about the NDA, but Tonya has made very clear what the NDA you are under does and not cover.

Beyond that, the amount of secrecy people think is warranted around Paizo organized play is frankly appalling, the adage, the cover-up is worse than the crime seems pretty appropriate regarding all of this. I mean seriously, what is everyone so afraid of.

I understand taking things seriously, but the amount of volunteers I see clam up when certain topics that are clearly not Paizo business related come up you'd think you were all under some sort of gag order.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:

This is directly from Tonya, "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." (emphasis mine.)

I'm really not trying to make every thread about the NDA, but Tonya has made very clear what the NDA you are under does and not cover.

Beyond that, the amount of secrecy people think is warranted around Paizo organized play is frankly appalling, the adage, the cover-up is worse than the crime seems pretty appropriate regarding all of this. I mean seriously, what is everyone so afraid of.

I understand taking things seriously, but the amount of volunteers I see clam up when certain topics that are clearly not Paizo business related come up you'd think you were all under some sort of gag order.

Well said.

I would say the clamming up is partially due to the fact that many of us venture officers are socially awkward and situations like these make such people uncomfortable. Or we like to keep our focus on our region. I fall into both categories.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

No worries about calling me out, Shaudius. You’re right, there’s also privacy matters here too. I posted here not to fan the flames, but to serve as a character witness for Michael.

:/

Yours,
Hmm

Sovereign Court 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:

This is directly from Tonya, "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." (emphasis mine.)

I'm really not trying to make every thread about the NDA, but Tonya has made very clear what the NDA you are under does and not cover.

Beyond that, the amount of secrecy people think is warranted around Paizo organized play is frankly appalling, the adage, the cover-up is worse than the crime seems pretty appropriate regarding all of this. I mean seriously, what is everyone so afraid of.

I understand taking things seriously, but the amount of volunteers I see clam up when certain topics that are clearly not Paizo business related come up you'd think you were all under some sort of gag order.

What Tonya failed to mention (assuming just an oversight) is that what is discussed on the non public forums, is also covered under the NDA, unless specifically called out by the OPC as something that we (VOs) are allowed to share with the public. I believe much of the "we cannot share details, because of the NDA" is because of where much of the information that many of the VOs have, originated (i.e. non public forums).

I do agree with what you said, the coverup tends to be worse than the actual act and the longer this festers, the worse the public perception becomes. However, it is highly unlikely that continuing to bring it up will change Paizo's position. The most likely outcome is having this thread be locked by the moderators and/or posts/threads be deleted (it has already happened and the forum moderators have given no indication that they won't continue to do so).

In closing, while I empathize with your position, you are fighting a hopeless battle. I could be wrong (I genuinely hope that I am), but I don't see it being very likely that you will get the result you are seeking.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

Well said, Daniel!

Hmm

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

11 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the reason I was given for my firing.

RVC wrote:
In the course of our recent investigation into the Pathfinder Society community of North Carolina, we found that you used the tools of a Venture-Captain to access data for a member outside your jurisdiction and utilize said data in a manner inconsistent with the policies and procedures of the Paizo Organized Play program.

I have asked several times to be quoted the policy or procedure that I am accused of violating, but to date I have had no response.


Shaudius wrote:
I'm really not trying to make every thread about the NDA, but Tonya has made very clear what the NDA you are under does and not cover.

The NDA is not the sole legal document that controls what can and cannot be posted here on Paizo forums.

See this previous post

If Paizo wants to avoid spending money on lawyers and court fees for cases they are not even a party to, they need to manage far more than just posts covered by the NDA.

So do the people with knowledge of the situation. They can't just post what they think without being very very sure that is is appropriate to do so.

It's not just about the NDA

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreySector wrote:
I have asked several times to be quoted the policy or procedure that I am accused of violating, but to date I have had no response.

I can only speak for myself and how I manage the Great Lakes. I would consider this an abuse of privaledge from the perspective that VC are empowered to manage their own areas of responsibility. It would be appropriate to use the session access to review the activities of their subordinate VL/VA and to review complaints that come up regarding players in their area. However, it would not be appropriate to investigate the VA/VL of another area/VC, or to investigate other VCs. That is the purview of the RVC who has responsibility for that area. For example, I would not investigate an RVC or any VA/VL/VC who operated outside of the Great Lakes.

Admittedly, that is not expressly listed in the Guide or in the NDA, but I have expressed this concept to my VO team and explained on numerous occasions my ideas on the philosophy of chain-of-command and the escalation process to the VCs.

In general, VOs are given some flexibility on how they deal with issues within their areas which is why we do not have a specific laundry list of rules. We tend to apply the behavior policy from the Guide to most situations. Its fairly liberal language allows the regions to address actions as it best fits their demographics. Given that we are a global organization there is a very wide swathe of differences in culture that need to be accommodated.

When it comes to the specific matter at hand, I cannot really comment as I am not aware of the details of what transpired, nor is it my business to get involved. It is an issue in another region and as such outside my mandate. I trust Tonya to review the situation and to take appropriate action if any is warranted.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think the ultimate issue here is that while it may be technically correct it's a heavy handed approach to deal with a situation apparently not explicitly covered by the rules.

Beyond that, from what people have told me concerns about the VC for which Michael used his powers to investigate were raised up to the chain of command which fell on deaf ears.

I've also read that the VC for which Michael investigated was at one point dating the niece of the RVC which, if true, feels like a pretty big conflict of interest. This should have removed any investigation of that VC out of the purview of that RVC but which apparently did not. Even if not impropriety itself certainly raises the appearance of impropriety.

So it appears that due to the failing of the management chain to properly investigate allegations others around the area took it upon themselves to investigate and raise the issue with facts only obtainable through means which could be potentially considered to be verboten. The RVC then used this information to get rid of Michael. Which to me looks like was done because the RVC did not like Michael and the others going around him in an area he was specifically not doing anything about because of a pre-existing relationship with the VC Michael was investigating.

Subsequent to all this the RVC attempted to suppress everyone involved right to speak out about this chain of events through an improper use of the NDA. Which at the end of the day is what I think is the biggest issue although conflicts of interest and break downs of process are also big issues, I will again say the cover up is often worse than the crime.

I'm happy that through numerous attempts to point this out we've finally gotten to the point that some people involved feel comfortable sharing their part of the story but I am also hopeful that this whole ordeal will actually result in positive change with regard to investigation of issues with the VO program. Tonya has intimated such is on the way with a task force forming regarding VO removal.

I'm not personally optimistic for positive change especially given that the RVC still has his position and Michael does not and will likely not be reinstated anytime soon, since I consider what the RVC did to be a far greater violation of what I would consider appropriate policy than anything Michael did.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 5/5

It is crap like this that makes me not want to participate in my local events and stick with the online region.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


I can only speak for myself and how I manage the Great Lakes. I would consider this an abuse of privaledge from the perspective that VC are empowered to manage their own areas of responsibility. It would be appropriate to use the session access to review the activities of their subordinate VL/VA and to review complaints that come up regarding players in their area. However, it would not be appropriate to investigate the VA/VL of another area/VC, or to investigate other VCs.

Bob, I appreciate that you are a well respected member of the community, and clearly for good reason: you have thought through policy and communicated clearly with your volunteers about what you think the policies are. And with all due respect, that's the exact opposite of what this issue is about.

It is clear from Michael Eshleman's somewhat limited comments that he did not, and does not, consider what he did to be an abuse of privilege. Your concept of how the tools available to a VC should or should not be used was not one that was established in this region by the RVC. It seems it was not communicated by the RVC. And as it's not written down anywhere, it's actually in no way a rule or policy that Eshleman could have broken.

Furthermore, as is pretty clear from comments from other VCs, there is debate on whether your interpretation is correct. Again, not saying you're wrong, but there's not even a general consensus which could have indicated to Eshleman that he should not have done what he did.

I completely appreciate that you're trying to broaden the view on the discussion, but the end result is that you're coloring the discussion with your comment that what Eshleman did would be wrong if he were VC under you. However, he's not, and he never had that guidance, so your region's interpretation is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

Second Seekers (Roheas) 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Noven wrote:
It is crap like this that makes me not want to participate in my local events and stick with the online region.

I think it's often overlooked just how much the online region has their crap together on this front.

Each and everyone member of that team I have dealt with has been competent and motivated by the desire to facilitate gaming opportunities for people.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Shaudius wrote:

I've also read that the VC for which Michael investigated was at one point dating the niece of the RVC which, if true, feels like a pretty big conflict of interest. This should have removed any investigation of that VC out of the purview of that RVC but which apparently did not. Even if not impropriety itself certainly raises the appearance of impropriety.

No it doesn't because what you describe is more of the norm than anything. Conflict of intrest gets bizarre as all hell in these sort of situations because very often its completely unavoidable.

Scarab Sages 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

1st and foremost, I don't think Michael did anything that deserved losing his position. Was it possibly a slight overstep? Yes, but it's certainly debatable. Is it something I would have done to help a colleague VL from another region if they felt their VC wasn't pulling the weight they should but was getting no love from the RVC? Possibly. Mike had a very loose set of rules for how to use VC powers, and unless there was a stalking or otherwise unsafe situation I doubt anything would have been done. Up until the end of September 2016, there was no codification of that usage as far as I recall.

That being said, even though I believe it may have been an overstep of privileges, I think the punishment absolutely did not fit the crime. A reprimand was most likely completely sufficient.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
GreySector wrote:
I have asked several times to be quoted the policy or procedure that I am accused of violating, but to date I have had no response.

I can only speak for myself and how I manage the Great Lakes. I would consider this an abuse of privaledge from the perspective that VC are empowered to manage their own areas of responsibility. It would be appropriate to use the session access to review the activities of their subordinate VL/VA and to review complaints that come up regarding players in their area. However, it would not be appropriate to investigate the VA/VL of another area/VC, or to investigate other VCs. That is the purview of the RVC who has responsibility for that area. For example, I would not investigate an RVC or any VA/VL/VC who operated outside of the Great Lakes.

Admittedly, that is not expressly listed in the Guide or in the NDA, but I have expressed this concept to my VO team and explained on numerous occasions my ideas on the philosophy of chain-of-command and the escalation process to the VCs.

In general, VOs are given some flexibility on how they deal with issues within their areas which is why we do not have a specific laundry list of rules. We tend to apply the behavior policy from the Guide to most situations. Its fairly liberal language allows the regions to address actions as it best fits their demographics. Given that we are a global organization there is a very wide swathe of differences in culture that need to be accommodated.

When it comes to the specific matter at hand, I cannot really comment as I am not aware of the details of what transpired, nor is it my business to get involved. It is an issue in another region and as such outside my mandate. I trust Tonya to review the situation and to take appropriate action if any is warranted.

Sorry Bob, but I feel I have to offer a counterpoint to your post:

Regional Venture-Coordinator Tasks:

Maintain a current roster of Venture-Officers in the region.
Be familiar with regional organized play customs such as table variations and player travel patterns and identify them to the OPC.
Acknowledge different styles of role-play and their presence in the Pathfinder Society. Schedule games catering to a variety of play styles, based on the needs and desires of your community.
Act as the third step in conflict resolution process, working with VCs to resolve community issues utilizing established guidelines. Up channel any issue that cannot be resolved to the OPC.
Attend quarterly teleconferences with the OPC.
Meet with VCs on an as-needed basis to provide mentoring in running Pathfinder Society activities, discuss local issues, and identify growth areas. Online/telephone meetings count for this requirement.
Evaluate VC/VL/VA performance and report findings to the OPC.
Identify potential VOs and identify them to the OPC.
Compile information from VC reports and submit this information to the OPC on a quarterly basis using provided forms. These reports are due the last Thursday of April/July/October/Jan.
Identify spotlight conventions within the region and submit this information to the OPC in November to facilitate travel schedule planning.
Ensure VC maintains a searchable online presence for their area.
Attend one Paizo-sponsored convention a year (PaizoCon, PaizoCon UK, PaizoCon Oz, or Gen Con). The OPC may waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Take the lead organizing Pathfinder Society activities at regional spotlight conventions. This can be in person or via mentoring VCs in the convention's Site.
Provide historical context of the organized play campaign to the OPC..

Those tasks are the job description of an RVC. While it is your job to assess everyone’s job performance, according to this publicly available description, your job (or the job of any RVC) is to support the VO ranks below you, letting them benefit from your experience and report any potential problems up the chain.

If you have the ability to just hire and fire VOs without actually having to ask the head of this campaign (and only do so since it would rude not to do so, at least that is how I read your last post on the issue) that is an ability that either Paizo/the OPF have given you, but one not covered under that public job description.
So it would be unreasonable for any player or VO to assume that you have that power.

Let me repeat for clarity's sake:

RVCs can and have to support their VCs/VLs/VAs according to their duties, but you don’t actually have any right to give them directions or add new rules for your region. Just like adding NDA tags to Emails that is something that is not covered under that job description.

If your VCs/VLs/VAs chose to follow your good suggestion and want to benefit from your impressive amount of experience, that is their choice.

I don’t blame you; while I don’t personally agree with your every post of yours, you are by all the accounts I have heard a very well respected VO. I have heard about the huge and the tiny personal things you have done for people, and I personally would defend you from character assassination.

It might be useful for RVCs to train their replacements, just like I am trying to prepare my VAs and VLs for the day when they have to replace me. I want to make sure the players in my region are in good hands and that my VOs have a good solid framework of rules to work with.

“Bob the friendly neighborhood RVC” does not worry me overly much, but with great power comes great responsibility, and sometimes it makes a lot of sense to limit the power of an individual, to prevent further abuse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

Regarding the breaking of unwritten rules, it is frankly a good thing that you told your local VOs how you personally view issues like this, so everyone has a reasonable understanding about your reaction to situations like this.

But I also have a counter:

When someone comes to you, and asks for help… you help. You give any help you can reasonably give.

I am not aware of what exactly happened in NC, People came to him asking for help as previous entreaties were met with either silence, stonewalling, or conflicting statements. they tried to follow the chain of command and this experience left them with little confidence.

The fact is that someone asked for help and at the time knew of no rule prevented the actions taken.. Would it have been better to just take their statements and forward them to Tonya like this

Please help :

Hey Tonya,
Some people from area X have contacted me; they feel they are at their wits end and don’t know what to do. I am forwarding you their complaints.

I fear that if this situation is not addressed privately this will get posted on the public boards where previous experience has established a bad precedent for this area.

Please let me know when you receive this so that I can tell the people involved that our highest authority has been informed.

Thanks,

Name
Rank

He chose to check the basic accusation first, and got another statement from another VO. I am not sure what lead to this, but he apparently acted in good faith.

----

My first instinct is to protect those with the least amount of power. In this case that includes players and anyone below VC rank.

In situations like this it is really hard to learn the full story; people have different views and it is next to impossible to assemble one distinct story thread since everyone has their personal views, values and concerns.

There are two ways this situation will be remembered, either people will assume that a good meaning whistleblower (who might have overreached) has been unfairly punished - thus creating a chilling effect on further actions like this - or that this lead to better rules protecting those that show us that we can be better in our actions and dealings with one another.

But we really can have a discussion; what actions should be ok and what aren’t and we really should be able to at least give VCs some guidance.

---

You mentioned that this is a global campaign, and I very much agree with you. (“Hello!” waves from Germany) Players and GMs like to travel and exchange ideas and stories. Gencon is a pretty great example, gamers from all over the world meet and share stories. This also means they talk about local concerns: which locations got RSP support, how far they have to travel to the next convention that offers a limited release, personnel decisions etc.

It is great to have flexibility for local growth, but there should be a line.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CelestinaAdams wrote:
I completely appreciate that you're trying to broaden the view on the discussion, but the end result is that you're coloring the discussion with your comment that what Eshleman did would be wrong if he were VC under you. However, he's not, and he never had that guidance, so your region's interpretation is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

There are some both here and in other places that suggest, sometimes subtly sometimes overtly, what the powers of the RVC and the VOs in general are. Most players are unaware of the logistics of organizing for OP, especially as a VO. I am merely providing a look behind the curtain if you will, at least as far as it relates to the Great Lakes. I also try to consistently remind people that there is some "table variation" between the regions. If you want to know how something works specifically in your region, you should seek the advice of your RVC.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Sorry Bob, but I feel I have to offer a counterpoint to your post:

** spoiler omitted **...
Those tasks are the job description of an RVC

I am aware of what the published requirements are, but like most "job" requirements, they are the minimum. I have had numerous discussions with Tonya regarding what I do as an RVC and with Mike as a VC before her. I think I know what it is that is expected of me.

My philosophy on leadership has been the same since day one, and if I have ever done or said something inappropriate or violated any rules, they have only to call me on it. Not once has that ever happened*. I am supremely confident that my actions are supported by leadership, if not, I would have hoped to hear otherwise long ago. So, while I appreciate that there is a published list of responsibilities for the RVC position, I posit that it is not exhaustive. Of course, as I said every region is different so your experience may be different.

*EDIT--that is not to say I have not made mistakes. I just haven't done anything grossly wrong or in violation of our community rules as I understand them. My intentions are always with respect to what I think is best for the community.

I am not in a position to question the actions of Michael nor Del. If public forums and social media have taught me anything over the past ten years it is not to take everything I hear/read as the absolute gospel. The only thing I can do is await commentary from Tonya. She alone can definitely say what is/not going to happen going forward. I hope that when the dust clears any action taken is appropriate and the local community can turn its attention on just playing the game we all love.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Noven wrote:
It is crap like this that makes me not want to participate in my local events and stick with the online region.

I really wish you wouldn’t do that. We need good people to participate in local play in all levels. Online does not exist in a vacuum. While there is a good portion of our population that is online-only, many of our people come to online because they experienced play somewhere local and loved it. Many of our GMs are active in both regions. For the online region to thrive, we really need local play to thrive too.

We’re glad you love online, but please don’t quit your local region. It’s got good people, and it needs you in it.

Hugs
Hmm

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Sorry Bob, but I feel I have to offer a counterpoint to your post:

** spoiler omitted **...
Those tasks are the job description of an RVC

I am aware of what the published requirements are, but like most "job" requirements, they are the minimum. I have had numerous discussions with Tonya regarding what I do as an RVC and with Mike as a VC before her. I think I know what it is that is expected of me.

My philosophy on leadership has been the same since day one, and if I have ever done or said something inappropriate or violated any rules, they have only to call me on it. Not once has that ever happened*. I am supremely confident that my actions are supported by leadership, if not, I would have hoped to hear otherwise long ago. So, while I appreciate that there is a published list of responsibilities for the RVC position, I posit that it is not exhaustive. Of course, as I said every region is different so your experience may be different.

*EDIT--that is not to say I have not made mistakes. I just haven't done anything grossly wrong or in...

Again I have to apologize, I should have made my point much better.

The problem, if the public job description differs from the individual mandates the various RVCs/VCs/VLs/VAs have received, is that the only way to check if your superior officer has been telling you high-class bovine waste is to go over their head and ask their boss. which regardless if you CC the person in question or not seems likely to poison the relationship.

So players/VAs/VLs/VCs have two options:

1. Believe everything the person above tells you (honestly I don't want to write any examples here, real or imaginary) and ideally get everything in writing.

2. Go over their head and ask their boss, potentially poisoning the relationship with the next link in the chain of command, and maybe even forcing the boss to ask your superior how he came to the assumption that e.g. you are not allowed to run a convention while your superior is on vacation.

-

Asking other officers of the same or higher rank does not work since they might not have received the same mandate.

If you trust your supervisor everything might be fine, but it also might result in mistakes replicating (i.e that is how my old VO told me this was resolved).

Honestly, the number of times where I was absolutely wrong when it came to Pathfinder rules, only to do some research and learn that I had believed older GM months or years ago has been high enough that these days I usually prefer to check things for myself.

I am happy, that my VA challenged me on one of those rules and frankly, it taught me a lot - and I view the current topic quite similar.

There is a better way to communicate issues like this, and we should always strive to be better and as transparent as possible.

Scarab Sages 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Transparency is not a skill any iteration of PFS leadership has had.

5/5 5/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

While I am happy to see some of the comments here that help clarify what happened, I think that we are venturing into territory where this thread might also get locked and I would prefer not to see that happen. In that spirit, I would like to return to the original intent of this thread.

Who is Michael Eshleman? Well, in full disclosure, I should start by saying I count myself lucky that he is a personal friend. He brought me into Pathfinder. He asked me to help out and I became a regular GM at out local game store and at conventions across the state. He makes mistakes. We all do. He is not the type to complain publicly about injustice (unlike me), but is rather the type who will just continue to do his best to quietly serve his community. While I have become discouraged by recent events and cut back severely on my GMing, Michael has continued at the same amazing pace. If I weren't so bitter, I would feel guilty. He is not bitter.

He is the type of person who VOs in the region who are not under his leadership will go to when they think they were getting nowhere with their own VC and RVC. He is the type of person who, when he hears disturbing allegations, will check to make sure they are true before forwarding them. He is the type of person who, when confronted with obvious prejudice and unfairness, believes that there is a chance that things will change and so will refrain from saying anything bad about the people above him who have mistreated him. I look at a situation and see obvious ill will that has little likelihood of ever changing and that people saying you will be given another chance are clearly lying through their teeth, but Michael believes the best in people and just keeps his head down and keeps plugging away.

That's who Michael Eshleman is.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

8 people marked this as a favorite.

All:

I have tried very hard to avoid weighing in, but this conversation has gotten to a point where I don’t feel I can remain quiet.

For me, this issue isn’t about Michael (who I know personally, who was a big help to me as I was learning the ropes as a VO, and who I think highly of), and it’s not about Del (who I have never met personally and have only had a brief electronic conversation with a couple of years ago.). Rather, it is about transparency and how much, if any, information should be shared in a matter of discipline.

For my part, I have been heavily involved in the recruitment, training, oversight, and discipline of volunteers for more than 20 years. This stuff isn’t new to me.

As a general matter, disciplinary matters ought to remain private. The fact that someone has been disciplined generally is public, but not specific reasons why - which is how it should be. The biggest reason for this is the privacy of all individuals involved. Yes, we all may want to know the details, but none of us has a right to those details. It’s not about the NDA (though under some circumstances it could be), it’s not about personalities or how great someone has been in their local community (but those ARE factors to be considered). Certainly if someone has been disciplined, he or she should be allowed to talk about it, except in very specific circumstances.

It would be my hope that we can all let this die down, at least for the present, and let the immediate storm blow over. With the anger, hurt feelings, lack of understanding of all of the facts in the present case, it is unlikely that most of these conversations will yield a productive, positive result for the community. Until the conversations can do that, we should all just back away for a bit.

I’m not trying to cover anything up, or trying to ignore this issue, but I think emotions and the like are running so high right now, no one is *really* listening to each other. So, maybe take a breather before you post, and ask “will the stuff I am about to post really help advance this issue to a positive conclusion?” If the answer is “no” then maybe think twice about posting. I’m not saying you shouldn’t post, but rather really think about it before you do.

And remember, we have a charge the Society gives us: Explore! Report! Cooperate! On this issue, we’re all doing a pretty poor job on the last one - maybe we should focus on that.

Good journeys, everyone.

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not about transparency about the disciplinary process for me, but rather the process for how everything works. But there has been, and still is a system that is different for every individual based on a lot of private conversations and such while claiming everything is run the same. Some get immediate attention while others wait weeks. Some have special rules that nobody knows about while others are reprimanded for breaking ambiguous protocol.

Now I agree that with the differences between regions, each one should have slightly different rules, protocols, and such. But don't hide the fact.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
As a general matter, disciplinary matters ought to remain private. The fact that someone has been disciplined generally is public, but not specific reasons why - which is how it should be. The biggest reason for this is the privacy of all individuals involved. Yes, we all may want to know the details, but none of us has a right to those details. It’s not about the NDA (though under some circumstances it could be), it’s not about personalities or how great someone has been in their local community (but those ARE factors to be considered). Certainly if someone has been disciplined, he or she should be allowed to talk about it, except in very specific circumstances.

Mark, you and I have known each other for the better part of 20 years, I respect your opinion a lot because I know you have a wealth of experience in this and similar matters though the other organization for which we share membership but I couldn't disagree with the sentiment you're expressing here more.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. By advocating that specifics of discipline be kept private you allow bad actors to continue acting badly if they are the ones in charge of discipline without proper oversight. Which means the absence of an appropriate appeals or other review process. In the absence of such a process, the only way to effectuate positive change is via public outcry (like this thread), which is impossible if people do not know the details of issues that have arisen.

I would agree that private matters should be kept private if we had a functioning system in place to prevent abuse, that does not appear to be the case here(hopefully it will be soon) but absent that process, I just can't get behind this idea, it just allows Paizo(or any organization really) to hide their malfeasance or nonfeasance under the rug.

It's troubling because none of the many problems exposed here, conflict of interest, abuse of process, etc. would have been exposed if we followed your proposed course of action of keeping a disciplinary matter private.

I do agree that emotions are running high but I don't think letting it cool down is the right answer, emotions are running high because of people view as an injustice which is being met with platitudes and locked threads, heck there's even now a whole Reddit devoted to this issue because even the Pathfinder reddit locked the thread regarding this issue, if people are going to stifle debate and discussion in such a manner in what way can there ever be trust that would allow for private matters of discipline to remain private.

I am heartened by the fact that you do agree that the individual parties should be allowed to speak on the matter, since one of the parties involved here has allegedly tried to make sure that that was not the case through abuse of the NDA. He has not been disciplined, to my knowledge, for doing so, and I highly doubt he will ever be.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

First, in separate discussions I have had with other VOs, I have talked about the need for policies related to conflicts of interest, a formal investigation/disciplinary process, etc. Let us not presume that my posting here only once or twice is the sum total of my conversations on this topic. This has already consumed an excessive amount of my free time over the past several days.

Second, the mere fact that people view something as an injustice does not make it necessarily so (and I’m not commenting about this specific situation, just speaking in general terms.)

Third, my request to let this storm blow over wasn’t made the day this situation was posted here and the conversation started; no, it was after several days of conversation, multiple posts, etc. It isn’t fair to characterize my comments as such that none of these things would have happened had you followed my course of action. We all know the general issue here, we know what people are upset about - there isn’t any reason for people to continually come here to beat against the gates, as it were.

In another thread, Tonya talked about a Task Force to develop some policies. I don’t know what, if any, impact that will have on Michael, but it addresses some of the very things you mentioned.

It’s time for people to let the jets cool for a bit and see what happens. We’re still in the middle of major convention season, with Origins this week and Gen Con about 8 weeks away. Let’s all just let this play out, not enflame or exacerbate the situation, and let it resolve itself.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
First, in separate discussions I have had with other VOs, I have talked about the need for policies related to conflicts of interest, a formal investigation/disciplinary process, etc. Let us not presume that my posting here only once or twice is the sum total of my conversations on this topic. This has already consumed an excessive amount of my free time over the past several days.

I have no doubt you'll try your best because I've always known you as an agent of positive change, I had mostly let it die down to wait for the process to work itself out and only became involved again when I saw more of the same misinformaiton appearing in this thread as appeared in the previously locked one.

Beyond that though, people are still angry, so I'm not sure that waiting for however long for a committee to come up with a set of recommendations that may or may not be acted upon by OP management is going to really solve this issue, especially not in the Southeast region which in certain parts seems to be in crisis.

Mark Stratton wrote:
Second, the mere fact that people view something as an injustice does not make it necessarily so (and I’m not commenting about this specific situation, just speaking in general terms.)

Sure, but the appropriate answer to angry people who see something as an injustice isn't "take a breather before you post..." I know you didn't intend it as so but I viewed that line as very condescending and judgmental.

Mark Stratton wrote:
Third, my request to let this storm blow over wasn’t made the day this situation was posted here and the conversation started; no, it was after several days of conversation, multiple posts, etc. It isn’t fair to characterize my comments as such that none of these things would have happened had you followed my course of action. We all know the general issue here, we know what people are upset about - there isn’t any reason for people to continually come here to beat against the gates, as it were.

We only know the general issues here because people fought for days in a thread trying to get information to be allowed to come out, the parties involve until these thread blow ups were under the impression through misinformation from the RVC involved that they could not discuss the issues.

I viewed your comment as a path forward, namely that in the future we should allow these things to continue to remain private, or even as backward looking that these things should remain private, if that was what happened here then we never would have had public discussion on these issues because people would have continued to believe that they could not discuss the issue for fear of violating their NDA. You likely would not be having these conversations with fellow VOs and nothing would have changed from the inadequate status quo.

Mark Stratton wrote:
In another thread, Tonya talked about a Task Force to develop some policies. I don’t know what, if any, impact that will have on Michael, but it addresses some of the very things you mentioned.

I can only hope so.

Mark Stratton wrote:
It’s time for people to let the jets cool for a bit and see what happens. We’re still in the middle of major convention season, with Origins this week and Gen Con about 8 weeks away. Let’s all just let this play out, not enflame or exacerbate the situation, and let it resolve itself.

Maybe, I've been told by people they've seen this before, Paizo will do something controversial, it will blow up in a thread the thread will get deleted and we'll never hear about a resolution of the issue, I don't know if its true or not, but I'll be doing my darndest to follow up on this one because abuse of NDAs(and process generally) and conflicts of interest are two things that really rile me up and can kill even the greatest organization.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no faith that anything will happen with any timeliness. Things tend to move at glacial paces.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
We’re still in the middle of major convention season, with Origins this week and Gen Con about 8 weeks away.

Mark could you please post a time of year where we COULD discuss some of these matters?

Because as I see it we go from convention season to "cooldown after con season" to holiday season to preparation for the next convention season.

Quote:
Admittedly, that is not expressly listed in the Guide or in the NDA, but I have expressed this concept to my VO team and explained on numerous occasions my ideas on the philosophy of chain-of-command and the escalation process to the VCs.

Bob it is nice that your region has a procedure like this but could you please post the paragraph of the OPF contract or the written and to VO available source of your confidence that an RVC has the right to do this and the VC have to follow this?

After Sebastians post I reviewed all materials available to me and I could not find a single point that gives the RVC more powers to order (Weisungsbefugnisse) the VCs or VLs except for the following:
Discuss local Growth/Local problems (See the emphasis on discuss)
Compile information on the Region by the information provided By the VOs (Here you can argue for a right to order the form of the information because we STILL do not have forms)

I am posting here NOT because of any involvement in the discussion about the incident itself, I am on another continent and my contact to Del is limited to around 5-6 posts here in the forums. This issue is something that shows that while the current ways of PFS-issue control has its flaws and FAR too much of it relies on unwritten rules the VO in question might have never heard of. Also I find it highly disturbing that apparently these unwritten rules take precedent to any written rule we are provided.

I have worked a bit with Michael in a taskforce and I remember that working with him was always productive and provided me with new perspectives to the presented problems. So while I cannot speak for how he is as a GM or as a player (but I would be interested to join him at an online table) I have only good memories of him as a VO.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

9 people marked this as a favorite.
LoPan666 wrote:
That's who Michael Eshleman is.

This goes to a philosophy I started to adopt some time last year. That being the idea that we volunteer our time and effort not for Paizo, but for our community. Things come up from time to time that make people upset, be it receiving their con support late or not at all, new rules we don’t like or the banning of something existing, the announcement of 2E, not getting a timely response to an email you’ve send or not liking the response when you do, recent events in the SE region, etc. For some, these are all incidents that make you comsider quiting Pathfinder. I ask you to consider this, do you volunteer or play for the sake of Paizo or for your community? Sure Paizo is the publisher and issues out most of the rewards, but for me, it’s not for them that I volunteer. If Paizo was to diasappear tomorrow or sell the game to another company it wouldn’t matter to me; I would continue to organize games for the players in my community. If I was to be fired as a VO by Paizo, I would still organize and GM in my community. Why? I play this game because I enjoy it and because I have a fondness for the time I spend with the community. I’ve met some of my best friends through OP not the least of which is the love of my life. This community has been centrally important to me for more than a decade. Would I be upset if I was fired from my role for something I didn’t feel I deserved? I’m sure I would be, but I appauld Michael’s decision to continue to be a leader in the community, to organize, to GM, to play. That is what makes all the difference to his community, not some badge on his shirt. For that, Michael has my respect.

Second Seekers (Roheas) 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia

I absolutely agree with Pete.

I was completely blown away by Michael at this year's Seekerpalooza. I was expecting him to be bitter and unhappy about what had happened. I expected grudges and plans for revenge.

Instead, he was just...Michael. A smile for everyone, serving as an impromptu help at HQ when a gap in the schedule arose. Pleasant to everyone and helpful beyond what you would normally expect. I admit, I don't know the guy that well but this is his character.

We have only met on a handful of occasions at various conventions. But each and every time (other than the one time he totally blew my cover as a pretend-pirate in a scenario because he forgot I was disguised) he was an utter joy to be around and was and seemingly will continue to be an absolutely essential pillar of our community.

He may not have the title; he may not need it to be who he is. But to me he was one of those quintessential Venture Officers.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Admittedly, that is not expressly listed in the Guide or in the NDA, but I have expressed this concept to my VO team and explained on numerous occasions my ideas on the philosophy of chain-of-command and the escalation process to the VCs.
Alexander Lenz wrote:
Bob it is nice that your region has a procedure like this but could you please post the paragraph of the OPF contract or the written and to VO available source of your confidence that an RVC has the right to do this and the VC have to follow this?

As I have said, in numerous discussions with my current and past "bosses" they have never expressed any objection to my understanding of the position or how I intend to discharge my duties, whether it be when I was a VC or RVC. IMO, the following two expectations are compelling...

  • Evaluate VC/VL/VA performance and report findings to the OPC
  • Act as the third step in conflict resolution process, working with VCs to resolve community issues utilizing established guidelines. Up channel any issue that cannot be resolved to the OPC.
Combined with similar language in the other VO expectations it establishes a chain-of-command and an escalation hierarchy. People may have differing opinions on my interpretation, but until the OPM tells me otherwise, I will continue to act in the manner and good faith I always have, as it has served me and my community quite well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
LoPan666 wrote:
That's who Michael Eshleman is.
This goes to a philosophy I started to adopt some time last year. That being the idea that we volunteer our time and effort not for Paizo, but for our community. Things come up from time to time that make people upset, be it receiving their con support late or not at all, new rules we don’t like or the banning of something existing, the announcement of 2E, not getting a timely response to an email you’ve send or not liking the response when you do, recent events in the SE region, etc. For some, these are all incidents that make you comsider quiting Pathfinder. I ask you to consider this, do you volunteer or play for the sake of Paizo or for your community? Sure Paizo is the publisher and issues out most of the rewards, but for me, it’s not for them that I volunteer. If Paizo was to diasappear tomorrow or sell the game to another company it wouldn’t matter to me; I would continue to organize games for the players in my community. If I was to be fired as a VO by Paizo, I would still organize and GM in my community. Why? I play this game because I enjoy it and because I have a fondness for the time I spend with the community. I’ve met some of my best friends through OP not the least of which is the love of my life. This community has been centrally important to me for more than a decade. Would I be upset if I was fired from my role for something I didn’t feel I deserved? I’m sure I would be, but I appauld Michael’s decision to continue to be a leader in the community, to organize, to GM, to play. That is what makes all the difference to his community, not some badge on his shirt. For that, Michael has my respect.

Well said, Bob. Well said.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
People may have differing opinions on my interpretation, but until the OPM tells me otherwise, I will continue to act in the manner and good faith I always have, as it has served me and my community quite well.

While I will not say that this is a problem in your case (I have next to no contact to your region) I am a firm believer in the philosophy that rules are not made for the "good" people to break. They have to apply to everyone. I already saw a region on the verge of collapsing because one VO thaught he did so much good for the region in the past that he could decide what course of action would be best for it (as long as noone told him otherwise) He often would use the words "VC-privilege" to describe his "reasoning" on why stuff was handled the way it was and I have seen the damage a individual with this way of handling his region can have.

We need the WRITTEN rules to apply to everyone because not only gives this everyone a chance to understand what he is in for but also protects everyone from a "bad" superior officer. One of the best things that came out of the restructuring of the VO-corps back when Tonya took over from Mike was that we now HAD definitions on what it meant to be an VO.

Quote:
Act as the third step in conflict resolution process, working with VCs to resolve community issues utilizing established guidelines. Up channel any issue that cannot be resolved to the OPC.

While I agree that this establishes a chain of command this only exists in the area of resolving issues. Also where are the established guidlines to resolving these issues?

Quote:
I’m sure I would be, but I appauld Michael’s decision to continue to be a leader in the community, to organize, to GM, to play. That is what makes all the difference to his community, not some badge on his shirt. For that, Michael has my respect.

I have to completely agree -> Michael does deserve our respect for that. But if he still does the work of an VO why should he not stay one?

2/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


This goes to a philosophy I started to adopt some time last year. That being the idea that we volunteer our time and effort not for Paizo, but for our community.
Spoiler:
Things come up from time to time that make people upset, be it receiving their con support late or not at all, new rules we don’t like or the banning of something existing, the announcement of 2E, not getting a timely response to an email you’ve send or not liking the response when you do, recent events in the SE region, etc. For some, these are all incidents that make you comsider quiting Pathfinder.
I ask you to consider this, do you volunteer or play for the sake of Paizo or for your community? Sure Paizo is the publisher and issues out most of the rewards, but for me, it’s not for them that I volunteer. If Paizo was to diasappear tomorrow or sell the game to another company it wouldn’t matter to me; I would continue to organize games for the players in my community. If I was to be fired as a VO by Paizo, I would still organize and GM in my community. Why? I play this game because I enjoy it and because I have a fondness for the time I spend with the community. I’ve met some of my best friends through OP not the least of which is the love of my life. This community has been centrally important to me for more than a decade. Would I be upset if I was fired from my role for something I didn’t feel I deserved? I’m sure I would be, but I appauld Michael’s decision to continue to be a leader in the community, to organize, to GM, to play. That is what makes all the difference to his community, not some badge on his shirt. For that, Michael has my respect.

Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons that I've suggested maybe we don't need Paizo to be involved at all locally for us to be able to organize games. If we really are just doing the work for ourselves and to facilitate fun with people in our own region, I don't see why we are bothering to submit ourselves under a regime that we disagree with. We have been given no vote as to the people that are in charge and we seem to have no voice when we raise issues. Given the number of people that seem to expect no change from Paizo, I don't understand why we need PFS to be structured under them, the scenarios are bought by almost everyone involved anyway and they are publicly available for purchase. The only response that I've really received that would be an issue is #1 the access to run specials and #2 the ability to receive race boons for GM's at conventions.

"No taxation without representation"

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to offer a small clarification about my "investigation" (I personally like to call it an inquiry, as investigation implies a lot more active effort than I put forth).

The extent of my examination of the affected VO's play history was scrolling to the bottom of the session report and noting the date of the last reported GM session, which I then included in my report to the RVC. I did not look for any other data about the VO.

Scarab Sages 5/5

GreySector wrote:

I just want to offer a small clarification about my "investigation" (I personally like to call it an inquiry, as investigation implies a lot more active effort than I put forth).

The extent of my examination of the affected VO's play history was scrolling to the bottom of the session report and noting the date of the last reported GM session, which I then included in my report to the RVC. I did not look for any other data about the VO.

For the record. Without really knowing the situation as to why you felt it necessary to do this, my first thought is, that this was probably a bit of an overreach. That being said, I've done this before myself at the request of a VL who felt their VC wasn't cutting it, so they would have some information more than speculation to send to Mike. Even if this was completely an overreach, I do not feel that the punishment fit the crime.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
For the record. Without really knowing the situation as to why you felt it necessary to do this, my first thought is, that this was probably a bit of an overreach. That being said, I've done this before myself at the request of a VL who felt their VC wasn't cutting it, so they would have some information more than speculation to send to Mike. Even if this was completely an overreach, I do not feel that the punishment fit the crime.

It was reported to me that the affected VO had not run a public game since September 2017. I verified that fact. There were of course other issues reported to me, but this was the one fact which I could personally verify.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreySector wrote:
Tallow wrote:
For the record. Without really knowing the situation as to why you felt it necessary to do this, my first thought is, that this was probably a bit of an overreach. That being said, I've done this before myself at the request of a VL who felt their VC wasn't cutting it, so they would have some information more than speculation to send to Mike. Even if this was completely an overreach, I do not feel that the punishment fit the crime.
It was reported to me that the affected VO had not run a public game since September 2017. I verified that fact. There were of course other issues reported to me, but this was the one fact which I could personally verify.

The only thing I can really blame you for is to not always 100& agree with me when it came to discussions about items or spells, but I admit that I am somewhat argumentative. Other than that it's pretty impressive how often I hear and read that people have quite a lot of respect for you.

Honestly, while you are making me kinda look bad by getting your 5 stars much quicker than me... I kinda owe you a beer someday. Maybe just for your various lists, maybe for the fact that you are still running games, which is damn impressive and maybe just for being keeping up your spirit.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreySector wrote:
Tallow wrote:
For the record. Without really knowing the situation as to why you felt it necessary to do this, my first thought is, that this was probably a bit of an overreach. That being said, I've done this before myself at the request of a VL who felt their VC wasn't cutting it, so they would have some information more than speculation to send to Mike. Even if this was completely an overreach, I do not feel that the punishment fit the crime.
It was reported to me that the affected VO had not run a public game since September 2017. I verified that fact. There were of course other issues reported to me, but this was the one fact which I could personally verify.

One thing I think happened when Tonya created the new criteria for VO's, is that many VO's successfully ran their regions without GM'ing. They organized game days, made sure they had GMs, etc. And there was a lot of consternation when the change happened in January of 2016. A lot of VC's (including myself) really did not like being told how to run our regions, when we worked hard and had very successful regions already. The reasoning I was given, is that there were several VCs that were just getting the rewards of being a VC and not actually doing any work. So I sucked it up and changed a few things on how I was doing things (which remained largely invisible to my region).

I believe there was a wink-wink, nod-nod sort of discussion that as long as you could show you were working hard and your region was successful (you were meeting your goals) that some of the requirements would be "waved" behind the scenes. That being said, just because it was heavily implied, Tonya purposefully did not actually say any of that. Just that if you "didn't meet your goals, you and your RVC would have a discussion about why and what they could do to help you."

So this could be part of why any complaint VL's or members of a region, did not receive the "attention" they wanted it to when sent to the RVC or Tonya in question.

All that being said, if that's all you did (which if said VC was coming to play in your region, you'd be more than within your purview to do the same thing to make sure they haven't played the thing they are coming to play) then I think certainly removing you as VC for doing that was WAY OVER THE TOP.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Locked the thread and removed a couple posts. This is pretty far from the originally stated purpose of the thread and is veering way off into public speculation over individuals in our community. Tonya is back in the office and I'll be discussing this with her as soon as we are able.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

I just found out, Tonya is on her way to Origins already.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Who is Michael Eshleman? Why should you care? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society