Premier Event Coordinator
|
I admit that I do not have direct experience with stalking, so I don't see how it applies. If someone is hiding or at least trying to conceal their activities for whatever reason, I cannot resolve how attending re-occurring public events would be aiding in that effort.
Using your example, a stalker hacks my phone. Ignoring that they will likely get information about me that is infinitely more important than my gaming history, what on that sheet will give them any benefits they wouldn't already have if they are stalking me?
If their target is someone else, then they already know we game together otherwise they wouldn't have hacked my phone. Again, what information on the reporting sheet is going to be of any meaningful use?
EDIT--I feel like this would be like not putting your house/street number on your house because you don't want anyone to know your address.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m going to take most of my responses to the private conversation, because I feel like it’s more productive there where we can talk about specific incidents. It’ll probably be a few hours before I get back to that.
What I’ll say here is that victims of crimes should not be expected to be shut-ins, and not everyone who has been targeted by a stalker is aware of it until it’s too late.
And more generally, whenever a topic like this comes up on the boards, there seems to be a common response of “It’s not an issue for me, so it shouldn’t be an issue for you.” Or that if you can punch a hole in someone’s hypothetical, that means the larger issue doesn’t exist. I wish that more often when multiple people express being uncomfortable with something, the response would be to take a step back and think about whether or not what is being gained is worth making that many people uncomfortable, whether or not you understand why they feel that way or believe that they should. And that it’s also not their responsibility to convince you that they have a reason to feel that way.
And then of course there are people who will jump in and say that they don’t care how they make other people feel, as long as they get their AcPs reported correctly.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly don't want to dismiss the concerns of a player, and I don't think most people do. We live in a time where limiting access to our personal information is incredible important. However, we also need to balance that against what is an actual issue that needs to be protected. I agree that a person's private information should be protected. I just don't agree that a player's character name/number/faction meets the threshold of personal information. Maybe if we are talking about an online reporting sheet, it would be different since the player is not physically present for the event. However, if you go and attend an event in person, you are making yourself available to everyone at that table, and in some respects everyone at that event. A lot of people keep written records of all the players with whom they play for a variety of reasons. There is no difference between taking a photo of the reporting sheet and someone writing down the information related to the other players at the table. In that regard records were being kept long before we started encouraging photos.
It doesn't seem like you have an issue with this practice at Gen Con, so much as at local events. IMO, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two, but it is not an OPF directive to photograph reporting sheets. We encourage it at Premier Plus events for reasons already shared. It is up to the individual local areas and lodges to determine for themselves what is appropriate for their players.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this debate even happening? Is it IMPOSSIBLE to just take a photograph of a sign-in sheet before the person signs it, or cover their name with some dice, if they ask you not to?
YOUR personal experiences are likely different than someone else's — even if you have been stalked too, or had similar traumatic experiences.
You don't get to decide what others should/should not be comfortable with in PFS. "I've been stalked too, and I feel safe signing sheets so you should too," or "I don't see why this could be possibly harmful" do not replace consent.
Even if that person is wrong or their wishes won't make them any safer, just act like a mature adult human being and respect their wishes and then move on. Simple respect in the Organized Play setting should not be this complicated or challenging for anyone.
|
|
Is it IMPOSSIBLE to just take a photograph of a sign-in sheet before the person signs it, or cover their name with some dice, if they ask you not to?This is a huge component of what people have been railing on for two pages now, and the idea that it is impossible to find a middle-ground has been a driving factor in this thread.
Further, people are debating the merits of the person's concern in detail. But those merits do not matter: don't do something if the person doesn't want you to. Whether they are right or wrong doesn't matter.
Your experiences, the VO's opinion on whether someone should be justifiably concerned with privacy or not, have nothing to do with another individual's right to consent. These arguments do not support any reason to go against someone's consent in PFS.
For some reason, I only received 1 point for a game I ran..AcP is currently incorrect, tabulating at 1 per game right now.
|
|
Is it IMPOSSIBLE to just take a photograph of a sign-in sheet before the person signs it, or cover their name with some dice, if they ask you not to?That's not what has been presently debated--or ever debated, I believe.
This is a huge component of what people have been railing on for two pages now, and the idea that it is impossible to find a middle-ground (or that it's difficult to acquire consent) has been a driving factor in this thread.
Further, people are debating the merits of the person's concern in detail. But those merits do not matter: don't do something if the person doesn't want you to. Whether they are right or wrong doesn't matter.
Your experiences, the VO's opinion on whether someone should be justifiably concerned with privacy or not, have nothing to do with another individual's right to consent. These arguments do not support any reason to go against someone's consent in PFS.
And public games can be safe places (as safe as any public space) if we respect one another's boundaries. Don't be exclusionary to other victims or people with privacy concerns, please.
For some reason, I only received 1 point for a game I ran..
AcP is currently incorrect, tabulating at 1 per game right now.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
For some reason, I only received 1 point for a game I ran..
Until the system is fixes, a lot of people are going to see incorrect AcP awards. It is nothing to be concerned about. Eventually, we will be notified the system is functional. At that time, either everyone's points will be correct, or there will be a process by which you can get them corrected in a similar fashion as reporting errors. We just have to be patient. We're getting closer, just not quite there.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
You know, a scanning system would address a lot of the privacy issues. It would also address reporting issues in many ways. But to get it we have to report the games that are being played now so we can show to Paizo that Org Play drives a significant percentage of their profits.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
example...
I still fail to see the issue. Your name is not private information if its shared freely by all those in attendance or appears on an event badge you are displaying around your neck. If you write your name on a reporting sheet, it is already public info for five other players at the table, the GM, and the reporter if said person is different than the GM. I'm sorry, but you cannot share your name with upwards of seven other people and expect it to be considered private information. It simply does not make any sense. If for some reason you needed to keep your real name private, you would not share it with the other players at the table and you certainly would not write it down on a piece of paper that would immediately go beyond your ability to control.
|
|
This is a huge component of what people have been railing on for two pages now, and the idea that it is impossible to find a middle-ground (or that it's difficult to acquire consent) has been a driving factor in this thread.Is it IMPOSSIBLE to just take a photograph of a sign-in sheet before the person signs it, or cover their name with some dice, if they ask you not to?That's not what has been presently debated--or ever debated, I believe.
No, that is the one sided argument that you have been having after foisting the opposite opinion, which nobody has stated, upon everyone.
Nobody has said you can't ask permission of you fellow players.
Nobody has said you can't cover the names.
Nobody has said that the concerned individual can't leave their names off.
Nobody has said that the concerned individual can't use a pseudonym.
However, it has been said that photographing the reporting sheet should never been done--except when they realized that it's official recommendation of GenCon--and doing so is an objectionable thing.
Furthermore, nobody is debating the merits of anyone's concerns. What is debated is the reasonable expectations of privacy at a public gaming event and by association what level of privacy is reasonable to expect the organizers of that public event to provide and police.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
example...I still fail to see the issue. Your name is not private information if its shared freely by all those in attendance or appears on an event badge you are displaying around your neck. If you write your name on a reporting sheet, it is already public info for five other players at the table, the GM, and the reporter if said person is different than the GM. I'm sorry, but you cannot share your name with upwards of seven other people and expect it to be considered private information. It simply does not make any sense. If for some reason you needed to keep your real name private, you would not share it with the other players at the table and you certainly would not write it down on a piece of paper that would immediately go beyond your ability to control.
The problem with the way you're looking at this is that you're assuming the person is trying to hide from someone.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
...show to Paizo that Org Play drives a significant percentage of their profitsSorry to be a cynic, but if after a dozen years of organized play Paizo does not consider it to drive their profits, nothing we do now is going to change that.
We can always try. We can also just build the scanning system ourselves if necessary. I mean, after all these years, an addition to the Org Play team was finally made. It's progress. Glacially slow progress, but still progress.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody has said you can't ask permission of you fellow players.
Nobody has said you can't cover the names.
Nobody has said that the concerned individual can't leave their names off.
Nobody has said that the concerned individual can't use a pseudonym.
All possible, but it's not up to you how (or whether) the other person solves their own problem. They should be able to use their name if they want to and tell other players not to photograph it. If they still say "no" that means "no."
However, it has been said that photographing the reporting sheet should never been done--except when they realized that it's official recommendation of GenCon--and doing so is an objectionable thing.
Quote that, please.
To my knowledge, no one has suggested anything so extreme. Only thing being advocated for here is asking first and respecting those who say "no."
I actually think that I was one of the most extreme people advocating that it not be done at all if someone said "no," instead of bringing up other solutions. But I also advocate for other solutions such as covering the name.
Furthermore, nobody is debating the merits of anyone's concerns. What is debated is the reasonable expectations of privacy at a public gaming event and by association what level of privacy is reasonable to expect the organizers of that public event to provide and police.
Uhhhhh… Yes, they are; read the dozens of posts telling people they shouldn't be worried or they have no cause to be concerned. Responding to a concern with "You're too paranoid! It's fine, you have nothing to worry about" is textbook dismissal of the problem.
And yes: reasonable expectations at a con or gaming event include consent.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
The problem with the way you're looking at this is that you're assuming the person is trying to hide from someone.
Then what I said is even more applicable. I'm sorry, but you cannot share information publicly and then expect it to be kept private. That is not at all reasonable.
I can only address this issue as it relates to Premier Plus events. The information on the official reporting sheet (character name/number/faction) is not private information. It is potentially being shared with any number of people from the ones at the table to the upwards of 40 members of the HQ team. There is no expectation of privacy of that information. Perhaps in the future, the reporting system will be such that we no longer have to be concerned with this issue, but until then, we strongly encourage it. Its still up to the individual to decide to do so or not. Taking a picture is probably the most convenient, but handwriting for your own records is just as effective. If you want reporting and therefore AcP to be recorded accurately, that is what needs to happen. Otherwise, there is a good chance we will be unable to correct a reporting error.
Unless someone wants to discuss this issue specifically in how it relates to the Premier Plus events, I am going to bow out. Whether or not this practice is appropriate for local communities or across the entire campaign is outside my purview, so I don't want my comments to be misinterpreted as such.
|
|
I'm sorry, but you cannot share information publicly and then expect it to be kept private. That is not at all reasonable.
Keep in mind the original concern here was unknown players taking pictures of the sheet, not the GM. I think that context matters here.
Whatever you personally think doesn't matter, though. If the player says they do not give their consent, then do not take a picture of their information — even if you think they are being unreasonable.
For conventions and premier events, I would recommend GMs talk to the organizers about the player's needed accommodation (this way organizers are aware, and can prevent it from becoming a big issue at other tables); the GM can then simply put a piece of scrap paper over the player's name when they take the photo… and have players do likewise if needed. This can achieve convention directives while accommodating the player's consent.
Doing as the player asks can help indemnify both yourself and the Premier Event against any future problems or legal issues.
If you, or Paizo, or Premier Event organizers are concerned about policy and wish to always be "better safe than sorry," this seems like the most reasonable course of action.
|
|
The GM can then simply put a piece of scrap paper over the player's name when they take the photo… and have players do likewise if needed. This can achieve convention directives while accommodating the player's consent.
You just wrote that that wasn't good enough if the player still feels threatened.
but it's not up to you how (or whether) the other person solves their own problem. They should be able to use their name if they want to and tell other players not to photograph it. If they still say "no" that means "no."
And I have yet to understand the distinction between an unknown GM and an unknown player. There is no screening for GMs.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully support Paizo removing the persons name from the new session sheets. I am not sure why that was even added, it is not needed.
Without that there is no personal identifiers.
The main use for me has been in handling unreadable PFS-#s.
If someone writes an unclear number, or if I fill in the number and the character name doesn't appear, I don't know if I'm reporting against the right number. It could be that the base player ID is wrong, or that they just haven't made that character yet (because players don't do that very much).
Using the player's real name to reach out to them and get the correct number is the only way I have to fix it.
---
I believe we should make reporting easier. But this thread is showing that there are big legitimate privacy concerns that any solution needs to take into account.
I think one conclusion to draw is that if we don't want names going around, we need to:
- Make sure we get numbers filled in more accurately. In that regard, the current sheet with a tiny number box is a disaster.
- Get people to fill in character names on paizo.com more so numbers can be checked.
If we solve those things, that enormously reduces the need for privacy-problematic names on the sheet.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just a simple Paizo reporting app that gets passed around the table and completed online faster than it'd take to have everyone fill everything out by hand.
While this would be wonderful it doesn't seem likely it is ever going to come out of Paizo. Good technology is not their strong point
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM can then simply put a piece of scrap paper over the player's name when they take the photo… and have players do likewise if needed. This can achieve convention directives while accommodating the player's consent.You just wrote that that wasn't good enough if the player still feels threatened.
but it's not up to you how (or whether) the other person solves their own problem. They should be able to use their name if they want to and tell other players not to photograph it. If they still say "no" that means "no."And I have yet to understand the distinction between an unknown GM and an unknown player. There is no screening for GMs.
I’m not sure if you’re too emotional to get my point here, but I never meant to say that covering a name might not be good enough. I don't even see where I said that. But then again, other people don't get to decide what's "good enough" for someone else — not when it comes to basic consent from another human being.
The distinction between GM and player was also discussed above specifically and in detail by someone else. I'm not going to re-hash their comment.
If someone does not give consent don’t do it. Even if you do not understand why or think they are wrong.
|
|
And I have yet to understand the distinction between an unknown GM and an unknown player. There is no screening for GMs.
1) 1 point of information as opposed to 2 or 6
2) for say, warhorn, you know the DM you're signing up with
3) you get the DMs name in return
4) For all you know the dm isn't unknown. They could know the DM personally , be friends or be married.
5) I think a LOT of things people do aren't rational, if the only downside to the behavior being it's not rational its usually easier to just accommodate it somehow and move on. Geeks can be a pretty quirky bunch, its easier to just adapt.
|
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I have yet to understand the distinction between an unknown GM and an unknown player. There is no screening for GMs.
If I give my name to one person, and something happens the odds are the person I gave my name to is a good place to start. Plus that person gave me information that if push came to shove, could be used to identify them and hold them responsible.
If I give my name to 3-8 strangers, then it’s in the wind and I’m out of luck if something happens.
If taking pictures is official policy for premier plus events, I at least understand the need at that scale and with how error prone the process seems to be. I still don’t see the need to make a bid deal out of someone asking for their info to be left off. It isn’t hard to ask, it isn’t hard to accommodate, and it isn’t time consuming. If it’s official policy, that should be published and put out instruction that those who don’t want to put a name on the sheet don’t have to. That way the main personally identifying information is optional.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
If a convention is using Warhorn, aren't the names of all the participants visible through that anyway? Much more easily in fact than through a photographed chronicle sheet, which only shows their presence after the fact.
I mean, I'm on board with reasonable protection of privacy, but this looks a bit futile?
|
|
If a convention is using Warhorn, aren't the names of all the participants visible through that anyway? Much more easily in fact than through a photographed chronicle sheet, which only shows their presence after the fact.
I mean, I'm on board with reasonable protection of privacy, but this looks a bit futile?
Many people on Warhorn use aliases or nicknames, even if they are not worried about privacy.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even though we use Warhorn for our convention scheduling, its not accurate enough to use for reporting purposes; quite apart from all the no-shows, last minute changes, etc., it doesn't show any of the walk-ins (which can be as many as 25% of the seats).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sidenote: one of the reasons I've never taken a VO position (and quite possibly THE reason) is because I would lose the Forum handle Nefreet in place of my real name. Not only that, but it would list which city I lived in.
Now, I'm certainly a public person. I even link my Instagram and Facebook account on my profile. But I can think of at least one person from my past (who shares my passion for gaming) that I'd prefer wasn't aware of that information.
If they happened to stumble across this Forum, and were reading a thread I was involved in, the likelihood that they'd realize who I actually was becomes a sure thing if my name and city is plastered across my header.
Much less likely than reading the made up amalgam of "N + Efreet".
|
|
I already conceded that adding the actual player’s name to the PFS2 reporting sheet could be a problem (though I don’t believe it actually is) so it should be left blank and/or the form should be changed.
Does the concession include being more careful about recommending people take pictures of reporting sheets until the sheets are as good as the ones at Gen Con?
Privacy is a chain that's as good as its weakest link. Even if I trust a GM with my real name, I'm not by default convinced that he won't accidentally upload the picture to an unsecured cloud storage account - or post it to his Instagram to celebrate his 100th game GMed.
The rules for privacy should be strict because not everyone is like you. Unless we have strict privacy rules that are disseminated and enforced on an institutional level, sooner or later, someone's going to find a weak link in the chain. As long as we keep advocating for things that could be dangerous, we'll eventually find the corner case where they are.
We play with minors in PFS. Privacy rules and behavior rules should be stricter than "use your common sense" because sometimes 13-year-old girls give their real names to Facebook. We shouldn't encourage (and should probably discourage) people to take pictures of their potentially personal information.
(We shouldn't encourage people to take pictures at conventions, period, because of facial recognition software, but that's another fight.)
|
|
Personally I think most social software should be tossed into a bonfire for the problems it's caused in making people paradoxically even *more* anti-social.
Having been a target for someone who managed to determine my RL identity through a computer game (but not ALL of my identity) I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.
That being said, from the limited running I did at Gencon last year, I do not recall a lot of privacy-breaching issues?
Back on topic, though, does this current drawdown via social distancing help the teams work on the ACP or hurt them?
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have asked the OP team to remove the real name box from the 2E reporting sheet. We can certainly advise players who do not wish their real name to be recorded by other players to refrain from writing it on the reporting sheet. The real name does little to nothing for us in the reporting process so it is not necessary. However, the GM and player vital data must be on the sheet. That data being character name, OP#, and character faction. Assuming that Gen Con runs as scheduled we will continue to encourage GMs and even players to record the information from the reporting sheet. Taking a picture remains the most convenient way or recording so we will continue to recommend it.
If a record is in error after the fact, we will not simply add a player to an existing table they did not actually participate with nor will we create a table with incomplete information to correct a reporting error. We need enough information to review the history and either correct an existing table or create a complete new table if the evidence shows it was never created in the first place. To do otherwise creates new error points. So, if you want to be sure that your reporting is accurate, be prepared to provide complete information. The alternative is to turn to your RVC/VC to see if they will edit your play history. The convention staff does not have the authority to alter reported sessions outside their convention. Likewise, an RVC/VC should not be altering session history for events outside their area of oversight. Whether or not they do, is outside my purview. I can only provide oversight for the things we are authorized to work on.
tl;dr help us help you. If you cannot provide accurate information about the table that you participated in, we cannot be expected to fix the error. With the correct information, finding and correcting an error is easy to accomplish.
All of this becomes a moot point if Paizo begins to watch the error reporting email account they created once upon a time. If they want to be responsible for error reporting, that is fantastic. The con staff can take that task off our very busy list and use that time for other tasks. It would also mean Paizo would have their own guidelines for what information they require to process a reporting error.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
does this current drawdown via social distancing help the teams work on the ACP or hurt them?
Only a Paizo staffer can confirm for sure, but based on their public statements and my interaction with the OP team, it hurts them significantly. Staffers tend not to have full system access when they are out of the building. If this extends to the tech team, they may be unable to work on program scripting which means only essential tech functions are being performed. I’m sure they have someone on call to run into the building on short notice if a sever takes a dump, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright... Since 6 weeks ago when this was posted. The update that set pf2 boon points equal to scenarios gmed/played, ignored quests. Disabled spending playtest points, messed up pf1/sfs table count and star/nova displays.
I believe we've had an update from Tonya saying the solution failed Q/A.
...
We could discuss when we think Paizo is going to have this working. If you have any other ideas I'm all ears.
Personally 2020 is starting to seem iffy to me.