Paizo - Care to rebuttal?


Paizo General Discussion

401 to 450 of 542 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Hard disagree, and it's upsetting how hard people will work to deny discrimination. And also tell people how to feel about things they will never personally experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:
It was prefaced under an asumption, and it was one three possible scenarios following that asumption. While there is no proof that either or none were the case, the reasonable possibilty of an scenario different than systemic transphobia compunded by the lack of specifics in Crystal's accusation should be enough to proof reasonable doubt.

Nope. To prove reasonable doubt you would have to be able to demonstrate that there was a process in place, and that a conscious choice was made to circumvent that process. Since the process may or may not actually exist and you can provide no evidence of its existence, you’ve still got bubkiss.

If this were a legal proceeding and I were countering your argument, beyond just saying “objection: speculation” I would only need to go as far as Jeff’s blog post from Monday that indicates there is no current HR department and that their current reporting process is a free anonymous hotline that they established in 2018 - incidentally the same year Crystal left Paizo.

So your clear paper trail reporting process either did not exist because it had already been replaced by an anonymous hotline - or it was a process so ineffective that an anonymous hotline was deemed a better solution.

Fair enough, I missed that detail. Seems like they were running Paizo as if it were a small family business that grew to quick. However, the burden of proof is still on the accuser and, at the very least, the accusation should be something falsifiable.

Humbly,
Yawar


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YawarFiesta wrote:
However, thhe burden of proof is still on the accuser

Who provided a corroborating witness in the form of the woman who had originally volunteered to share a room with her. The witness substantiated her claims.

EDIT - For final statement:

This is absolutely the last place you get to try to plant the goalpost. If you don’t want to acknowledge that Paizo’s actions are suspect you are welcome to believe what you wish. If you don’t want to discuss the issue any further, you are welcome to abstain. You are no longer welcome to try to shift blame back onto Crystal. You’ve tried a few times already, but it stops here.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd also like to say again that this is not a court of law so things like "innocent until proven guilty" don't actually apply.

The Exchange

Mergy wrote:
Sure. That's why if I see someone using problematic language for the first time, I'll step in with a mind towards educating.

And thank you for that. I still fall into that trap myself sometimes though, when trying to explain why distinctions made by others make no sense to me ore are even plain BS on their part.

(little aside: Here in Germany we have still ongoing discussions about nationality being a matter of birth or a matter of citizenship. And no matter how much I hate the idea of talking about biological Germans ("Bio-Deutsche") because those have never existed anyways, and because it mostly gets used when you want to take away rights from people with a migrational background (which, historically, is all of us), I stumble about using that term myself when talking about it.

Same thing with gender speech. I admire the English language for having that elegant option to adress non-binary people with singular them/they, but especially as a non-native speaker who learned the language when that was nothing but a rare curiosity of how the language could be used, I keep forgetting to use it all the time. Especially when talking, because then I have no chance to correct me before I send it.

Dark Archive

16 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to say that it actually doesn't matter to me at the end of the day if the discrimination I faced was born out of ignorance or malice. It is incredibly harmful either way, and either way it is the responsibility of the ignorant or malicious party to correct themselves.

And on the internet? You usually can't tell if someone is ignorant or malicious: both groups are often "just asking questions"; these questions often start with the assumption that trans = dangerous. It is exhausting.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There should be a care button on these forums next to the favorite button.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I appreciate those words Yoshua.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

True it does not. Hopefully moving forward HR staff can help with coming up with better and inclusive policies. Having managers do this without any knowledge of HR policy presence or laws is not good idea. This is evidence by the denial of room sharing. I think an HR person could have provided better guidance at the time.

As I have said I think they should be allowed to share a room. I also think a person should be able to self identify.

All the post I have made here is not to justify Paizo or the managers actions. Just what the thought process might have been at the time however flawed.

Finally the labor Board and EEOC references are not so much for staff who have left but current staff who may not have means for a lawyer. It is another avenue for them to pursue if facing similar situations.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

LoL. As I said in the other thread, IIRC, HR at Paizo was nonexistent until recently and the person who now heads it up also doubles as the director of accounting or some such role. HR is not something you do as a hobby/side gig. That shows a clear disregard towards the importance of human resources. Is it no wonder that Paizo has the personnel issues they have?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
All the post I have made here is not to justify Paizo or the managers actions. Just what the thought process might have been at the time however flawed.

This might be why you were having such passionate reactions to your arguments. To me it wasn't clear whether these were your own thoughts and feelings on the matter, or the hypothetical thoughts and feelings of others.

Dave2 wrote:
Finally the labor Board and EEOC references are not so much for staff who have left but current staff who may not have means for a lawyer. It is another avenue for them to pursue if facing similar situations.

That's a good resource to plug. I think we were responding to arguments (though I don't believe you were the poster introducing these elements) where if a complaint had not been made, nothing wrong had occurred, which I'm sure we can agree is not a realistic argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well not my own thoughts. As I stated no issues at all with self identification and I would have no issues within sharing a room. As far as ongoing issues going on Labor Board and EEOC are some avenues for help.

As far as passionate argument was trying for dispassionate, but I guess failed. I have always been more of phone or phase to phase person. It is hard to see the emotion behind emails or post.

The reality is I have no idea what happened with that situation. Was the managers decision based on bad advise from someone (HR Consultant). If so this could be corrected by HR staff and training. If it was based on discriminatory view. This is more problematic and may need intervention of Labor Board or EEOC.

The arguments were hypocritical thoughts of others. Maybe the advise the manager was given (If they were given any advice. I do know if they were).

As far as nothing happening. I do think something did happen. I could have worded better by not saying loses credibility due to not filing grievance. I would hope they were aware of the two groups (EEOC and Labor Board) maybe not. Even if they were aware and choose not to file that does not mean nothing happened. I would hope they would have, but I am not in their situation and have all the details of why or why they did not file a complaint with Labor Board or EEOC.

Customer Service Representative

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Thread locked while I pull my hair ou...I mean, moderate.

Customer Service Representative

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I have cleaned up this thread to the best of my ability. I'm honestly getting a little tired of repeating myself, so please, BE KIND.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for all the hard work (& humor!) you put into moderating these forums. ! <3

--C.


Paizo is not going to directly address any of this or make any public mea culpa. They're going to run out the clock as community engagement/interest in this wanes over time. I'm not sure how effective or healthy it is to continue to hang-wringing over this.


Ill Gotten Gains wrote:
Paizo is not going to directly address any of this or make any public mea culpa. They're going to run out the clock as community engagement/interest in this wanes over time. I'm not sure how effective or healthy it is to continue to hang-wringing over this.

They have directly addressed some claims already so clearly there has been some effectiveness already seen. Whether they do more is a cost benefit analysis based on whether doing more is more profitable in the long run or not.

So far, hand-wringing has already gotten an HR employee on the table as the bare minimum.

Argh! Darn it. I fell for a throwaway account.


Scavion wrote:
Ill Gotten Gains wrote:
Paizo is not going to directly address any of this or make any public mea culpa. They're going to run out the clock as community engagement/interest in this wanes over time. I'm not sure how effective or healthy it is to continue to hang-wringing over this.

They have directly addressed some claims already so clearly there has been some effectiveness already seen. Whether they do more is a cost benefit analysis based on whether doing more is more profitable in the long run or not.

So far, hand-wringing has already gotten an HR employee on the table as the bare minimum.

Argh! Darn it. I fell for a throwaway account.

I'll be interested to see how everything has shaken out after the dust settles in a few months.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

“We have no comment” is still a response. I hope and expect they’ll do more than that.

It’s definitely going to take time though - if they were announcing changes now it would mean they haven’t done much thinking and consulting.

It’s part of my skepticism of the “everyone will have their own room from now on” oblique response to claims of historic transphobia. The fact it was enacted prior to the consultation process means it may well have missed the point of the complaint. Several trans members of the community have articulated that this feels like sweeping the claims under the rug and preventing one specific event from recurring without addressing any underlying issue.

It’s a good change anyway - the staff are professionals on a work trip. But there’s a lot of work required in any serious, consultative reform process.

Grand Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
“We have no comment” is still a response

And its such an effective one that they use it on a regular basis. Many a complaint and/or allegation has faded into memory as they dutifully ignored it until the outrage petered out and people became dazzled by the next published "shiny." The ol' if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I have a different view.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dirtypool wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:
However, thhe burden of proof is still on the accuser

Who provided a corroborating witness in the form of the woman who had originally volunteered to share a room with her. The witness substantiated her claims.

I note that I have not seen any corroboration. If there is, it should be put on the allegations reddit.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
I'd also like to say again that this is not a court of law so things like "innocent until proven guilty" don't actually apply.

That is a very poor standard. Remember, that type of thinking has lead to real life violence.

Humbly,
Yawar


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The type of thinking that public relations matters aren’t legal proceedings has led to violence? Not sure that’s accurate.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please don't forget that our courts even have different standards depending on the case. 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' are used in criminal courts only. In civil courts, the standard is much lower. I'm not sure the technical words lawyers use for it, but it's something like 'more likely than not,' i.e. you weight the evidence on both sides and conclude which is more likely.

In terms of public opinion, I feel like many people are trying to use the standard for criminal cases, and basically saying 'it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' Others are using the civil standard, and saying they thing the problems are more likely than not true based on their analysis of the claims that have been made and corroboration by others.

Personally, I think that in this example, the civil case standard is the more appropriate one. To talk about 'proven' makes no sense until you say what your standard of proof is.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Redelia, I'm not disagreeing, and while standards between criminal and civil courts in the U.S. differ, they also differ between the U.S. and other countries, which might confuse things even more.

But it wasn't YawarFiesta or me that brought that point up to outrightly dismiss the possibility of the allegations ("systemic transphobia") to be true. In this case, it was brought up to dismiss the possibility that there might be other reasons for why things happened the way they did.

And that basically turns "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head. "Guilty until proven innocent"? very much not the world I want to live in.

Silver Crusade

This is a thread about accountability, if you’re refusing to talk about it or ignore it then there is little point in you posting in it.

Paizo did in fact fire Sara Marie, that is not up for discussion.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Paizo did in fact fire Sara Marie, that is not up for discussion.

And unsurprisingly, (nearly) no one does.


Redelia wrote:

Please don't forget that our courts even have different standards depending on the case. 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' are used in criminal courts only. In civil courts, the standard is much lower. I'm not sure the technical words lawyers use for it, but it's something like 'more likely than not,' i.e. you weight the evidence on both sides and conclude which is more likely.

In terms of public opinion, I feel like many people are trying to use the standard for criminal cases, and basically saying 'it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' Others are using the civil standard, and saying they thing the problems are more likely than not true based on their analysis of the claims that have been made and corroboration by others.

Personally, I think that in this example, the civil case standard is the more appropriate one. To talk about 'proven' makes no sense until you say what your standard of proof is.

The legal term is "preponderance of the evidence", which basically is "more likely than not", but in fancy speech.

Even in the courts, it only applies in criminal cases, which none of this is. Civil cases take a similar, but much less stringent approach. The plaintiff needs to show some evidence, but the burden isn't entirely on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Paizo did in fact fire Sara Marie, that is not up for discussion.

There is no disagreement about whether or not she was fired. The question, if there even needs to be one, is why she was fired.

Ultimately, it's almost certainly a non-issue. It's impossible to know with any precision but I doubt that even .5% of Paizo's total user/customer base has any idea who this woman is.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So injustice only exists when it is done to people with world-wide name recognition? Is that your argument here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I just don't get why its big deal to ask why? We want Paizo to stand out. We want them to be the best right? I think it is really dodgy how she was fired and this is a time for us to ask Paizo to be better. Sara Marie was the person a lot of people DID know. She modded these said forums. But in the end I just thing the community is asking Paiso to be better and have outlined specific ways in which we want to see it.

401 to 450 of 542 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Paizo - Care to rebuttal? All Messageboards