Call to Action: #PAIZOACCOUNTABILITY needs your voice


Paizo General Discussion

451 to 500 of 554 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:
The fact that Paizo provided a job and somebody accepted it means that somebody's living situation was improved by that job.
Could also mean that somebody had no choice than to accept the offer.

That would mean that the alternative, not working for Paizo, was worse. And if pay is that bad, they would leave as soon as they find something better. Then Paizo would have to find and train a replacement and that would cost them extra money so they would probably pay extra to the person to avoid them leaving until they stop leaving.

Humbly,
Yawar

Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.

You know the invisible hand of the market and trickle down economics are both fake, right?

Customer Service Representative

20 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello again! Here is your friendly reminder to please stop quoting content that has been or will be flagged for removal, as it then snowballs into large amounts of content being removed.

Sadly, once again I have to let people know that this is not the place for bickering and insulting each other. We truly want our forums to be a welcoming place, where opinions can be discussed without devolving into a pointless back and forth full of insults.

Please be kind, and if you can't be kind, please be quiet.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Heather F wrote:

Hello again! Here is your friendly reminder to please stop quoting content that has been or will be flagged for removal, as it then snowballs into large amounts of content being removed.

Sadly, once again I have to let people know that this is not the place for bickering and insulting each other. We truly want our forums to be a welcoming place, where opinions can be discussed without devolving into a pointless back and forth full of insults.

Please be kind, and if you can't be kind, please be quiet.

Thank you Heather!


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

Thanks Heather! I will try to be better :)

Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NightTrace wrote:

Thank you Heather!

You're welcome. :)

Dark Archive

Thank you! Sorry for my part in stuff. I get passionate and then I get impulsive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
You know the invisible hand of the market and trickle down economics are both fake, right?

In regards to the invisible hand, it is an allegory about how several independent actors can apparently coordinate and optimize the distribution of resources without a central authority dictating them how to.

Trickle down economics is originally a term to repudiate given handouts to the wealthy so as to have them spend in the economy and reactivated. While it kinda works is extremely inefficient and usually cronyism.

Humbly,
Yawar


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YawarFiesta wrote:
In regards to the invisible hand, it is an allegory how several independent actors can apparently coordinate and optimize the distribution of resources without a central authority dictating them how to.

No, it's a metaphor for the idea that there are unseeable factors that will allow the market to find it own equilibrium. The idea that the market is a force unto itself that can balance itself. The kind of marketing manipulation you're referring to doesn't have a name I'm aware of, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
Lobbying is legal though. Doesn't that make it okay?

I am really not sure. In one part it can be a form of bribery. On principle, a politician should only be able to take money from its potential voters. However, it is virtually impossible to stop, a politician could have a family member paint modern art and sell it for an exorbitant amount of money, write a book and sell 500k to some warehouse that will be able to write it as loss, put a family member in a non profit that take donations, etc. There are so many work around that I would rather it be as transparent as possible as to know which politicians not to vote for and primary against, but I am not really sure.

Humbly,
Yawar


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YawarFiesta wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Lobbying is legal though. Doesn't that make it okay?

I am really not sure. In one part it can be a form of bribery. On principle, a politician should only be able to take money from its potential voters. However, it is virtually impossible to stop, a politician could have a family member paint modern art and sell it for an exorbitant amount of money, write a book and sell 500k to some warehouse that will be able to write it as loss, put a family member in a non profit that take donations, etc. There are so many work around that I would rather it be as transparent as possible as to know which politicians not to vote for and primary against, but I am not really sure.

Humbly,
Yawar

That's not what lobbying is. Lobbying is when a constituent group advocates for a bill. You're talking about soft money, and a little bit of bribery, which is a whole separate thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:
In regards to the invisible hand, it is an allegory how several independent actors can apparently coordinate and optimize the distribution of resources without a central authority dictating them how to.

No, it's a metaphor for the idea that there are unseeable factors that will allow the market to find it own equilibrium. The idea that the market is a force unto itself that can balance itself. The kind of marketing manipulation you're referring to doesn't have a name I'm aware of, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

So no, but yes? By force of offer and demand, the actions of independant selfish individuals, markets reach equilibrium, maximizing the social good.

By apparently coordinate, I meant that cobblers and seamstresses end up charging each more or less the same despite no guild cobblers or seamstresses setting the prices. And how wheat goes to mills, and flour to the bakeries.

Humbly,
Yawar


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Lobbying is legal though. Doesn't that make it okay?

I am really not sure. In one part it can be a form of bribery. On principle, a politician should only be able to take money from its potential voters. However, it is virtually impossible to stop, a politician could have a family member paint modern art and sell it for an exorbitant amount of money, write a book and sell 500k to some warehouse that will be able to write it as loss, put a family member in a non profit that take donations, etc. There are so many work around that I would rather it be as transparent as possible as to know which politicians not to vote for and primary against, but I am not really sure.

Humbly,
Yawar

That's not what lobbying is. Lobbying is when a constituent group advocates for a bill. You're talking about soft money, and a little bit of bribery, which is a whole separate thing.

Dude, it was a response to an espcific hypothetical example and I was listing common workarounds to Lobbying regulations.

Humbly,
Yawar


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and before someone trots out the "innocent before proven guilty" thing, this isn't a court of law.

But even if it was, we seem to have, like, at least five corroborating witnesses, just off the top of my head. I don't really understand what more you're expecting to get. A signed confession of wrongdoing from the entire Stevens family, including Jake, Marvin and Amiri? A black-and-white polaroid of Jeffery Alvarez cackling and twirling his mustache as he ties James Jacobs to the train track? Maybe a tape recording from Erik Mona's office where we hear Sara Marie storming out declaring, "You'll all be sorry for this! You'll rue this day! Now I'm going to go and lie about all of you on the internet, along with my multiple accomplices!"

Sure, we're always open to new information. But at a certain point, demanding everyone slow down and wait for leadership to hold a press conference before we make any criticisms is, well, just that: an excuse to slow things down indefinitely so nothing gets better.

Tangent:
I could go on. A police report of Jessica Price, Sara Marie and Crystal Frasier trying to break into the DoubleTree? For Vic to tweet out, "Help! The entire Paizo management team got replaced by their not-very-good-leadership twins!"? For Lisa Stevens to reveal that every single Paizo staffer or ex-staffer who's spoken out happens to have the exact same mental barrier where they always think April Fools Day is happening multiple days in a row in September, and they all have really weird senses of humor? For a construction worker to come along and admit that the Star Wars house remodeling was a pro bono job organized by a charity group created to help impoverished game company CEOs? For Jeff Alvarez to patiently explain that the reason Crystal Frasier wasn't sent to conventions was actually because a prophecy from Odin once stated that when next she returned to the Paizo offices, she would bring death and tragedy in her wake? etc etc

The Exchange

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, and before someone trots out the "innocent before proven guilty" thing, this isn't a court of law.

No, it isn't but it still is a very good rule to live by, especially when it is about allegations made by people I don't know personally that I only can judge based on what I read them say. Even when it's said by what I see as beloved cornerstones of this community.

Do I believe what Crystal said? Yes, I do, I'm just on the fence about how to interpret what went wrong. And yes, given what I know about the Paizo people in power, I have a hard time interpreting it as wilful or even systematic transphobia. I also believe what Lissa said about it, but that leads me to believe that the personal hurt Crystal had to endure might hav led them to the wrong conclusion about what's going on.

Do I believe what Liz said? Absolutely, and to be honest, what she said is the biggest bummer to me in the whole situation. And as much as Paizo can do about improving on those issues, they should ASAP. Given the industry we're talking about and especially given the country Paizo operates in (and I can't say more because that would violate all the "no politics" rules ), I am a bit sceptical about how much that is especially with regards to increased wages. I trust Liz that the example she gave about increasing prices is one that could be taken, because I don't think she would have brought up that example otherwise.

I have no firm stance on the Sara Marie situation. There's no way you can make me believe that she did something so wrong that Paizo had no choice but to fire her. And I have a lot of respect for Diego to stand up for her. Still doesn't mean that this firing couldn't have other reasons that we don't know about that are not someone being the big villain of this story.

And then we Jessica Price. Don't know her personally, so again, benefit of the doubt and all that, but just from seeing how she behaved while here at Paizo and how she behaved in several controversies she seems to like to stir up all by herself, I basically don't believe anything she says about places she used to work at or persons she has an axe to grind with. And saying this is the best that I can do about staying respectful.

And with all due respect to anyone who thinks otherwise, if you (KC, not you personally) want me to reconsider my stance, you have to do much better than be derisive about it, trying to paint me in a corner I don't belong or putting things I say out of context and ignoring every other thing I'm saying because it doesn't fit the narrative you've built up for yourself.

TL;DR I'm not your enemy and never have been. But I also won't let anyone tell me how to judge things or not to use my own brain, so if you want me to be your ally, you better stop doing so.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m distraught, but I don’t need them to find a villain.

This is about corporate culture in my mind - not about finding a baddy. In a company the size of Paizo with the longevity it has, there will inevitably be people who don’t get along and people who are unethical. The point of a strong, decent corporate culture, with written policies that are adhered to and decent grievance procedures is that the inevitable conflicts and abuse are able to be dealt with.

I suspect that is missing here, at least in some aspects. It’s clearly very strong in others, but a company shouldn’t be relying on the goodwill of its employees to keep it all together, in my view.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And about this, we are very much in agreement, Steve.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I’m distraught, but I don’t need them to find a villain.

This is about corporate culture in my mind - not about finding a baddy. In a company the size of Paizo with the longevity it has, there will inevitably be people who don’t get along and people who are unethical. The point of a strong, decent corporate culture, with written policies that are adhered to and decent grievance procedures is that the inevitable conflicts and abuse are able to be dealt with.

I suspect that is missing here, at least in some aspects. It’s clearly very strong in others, but a company shouldn’t be relying on the goodwill of its employees to keep it all together, in my view.

I'm not sure how much that's true in this case. It certainly is for some companies: You can see cases where existing company culture makes it hard for even a determined executive push to get the intended changes to happen. But Paizo is a pretty small and young company in comparison to many. And the problems here seem to mostly be coming from the top down, if there's much truth to these allegations. A strong, decent corporate culture might be able to help fix that, but it's a rare corporate culture that can rein in problems with executive management supported by the ownership.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it’s worth aiming for rare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think it’s worth aiming for rare.

I suppose, but it would be the management that's the problem that would have to put that system into place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We’re getting int the weeds really but yeah.

They have to appreciate its good for the company even if it cedes some of their personal power to the process and structures.


I mean, if I’m right.

Who knows?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I mean, if I’m right.

Who knows?

Only The Shadow.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

At the end of the day, my concern is the employees. I just want them to be treated better. They're responsible for the stories and the game that we all love and it breaks my heart to hear that they're being mistreated. If paizo can't improve things for the employees im not sure ill be able to support their products anymore


12 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:

And with all due respect to anyone who thinks otherwise, if you (KC, not you personally) want me to reconsider my stance, you have to do much better than be derisive about it, trying to paint me in a corner I don't belong or putting things I say out of context and ignoring every other thing I'm saying because it doesn't fit the narrative you've built up for yourself.

TL;DR I'm not your enemy and never have been. But I also won't let anyone tell me how to judge things or not to use my own brain, so if you want me to be your ally, you better stop doing so.

I can't quite tell if this is directed personally or not, because these last two paragraphs give me mixed signals. But I wasn't really targeting you in particular--I actually didn't know that all this was your position. I was trying to avoid specifically targeting any one poster in part because I don't really want to start anything with anyone.

That said, I stand by everything I said. I think we have enough data--like I said, keep waiting if you want, as long as you don't try to tell us we're wrong for drawing conclusions with the absolute bounty of information we've been given so far. And yeah, I trust Jessica Price's reports, not least because multiple other Paizo staffers and freelancers have spoken out to confirm what she's said.*

I also feel a little weary of this conflation of Paizo's leadership with Paizo as a whole. Paizo as a whole has done a lot of very progressive things, but a lot of that was thanks to the employees who made up Paizo, several of whom are no longer employed at Paizo at all. I don't like the implication someone made earlier that simply hiring Crystal Frasier is evidence that Paizo has progressive leadership. Like, talk about a low bar. Especially considering a lot of Paizo's more diverse hires were done using a "blind test" that Jessica Price herself helped implement.**

Corporations are the sum of their parts. This following point definitely isn't targeting you in particular, but to be clear: Everyone who says "I support Paizo" to mean "I support a small cluster of individuals in Paizo's leadership and management team" is being pretty disrespectful to all the other employees and ex-employees who made Paizo what it is today.

*Also because 80% of the rhetoric against her is basically, um, let's say really overhyped so we don't have to talk about how right-wing cancellation works. There is valid, good-faith criticism of some of the things Jessica Price has done and said. I haven't seen a lot of that happening here. I desperately, urgently don't want to turn this whole issue into a litigation of Is Jessica Price A Bad Person, which I think a lot of management's defenders really want it to be because she seems to the most polarizing of the ex-employees who've spoken out, but I do want to acknowledge that I'm not really personally on board with "Jessica was rude to me in an argument once so I think she just lies about everything". If you despise her, cool, I think we've sufficiently discussed that angle of this, so let's move on. I do not plan to respond to anyone who tries to tell me how awful she is, because that's not the point of this thread. I'm just saying, in this case, don't mistake silence for a consensus.

**This is just a fact. She and I believe Wes Schneider gave a panel talk about it at one point at PaizoCon, which I attended. So either I hallucinated it, Paizo's management just gave them a whole panel to lie for no reason, or it's true. This is actually the process that saw Crystal Frasier getting hired. Also, Jessica Price has tweeted her understanding that this whole testing system is no longer being consistently applied, and may not be in use at all anymore. So, you know, believe that or don't.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I can't quite tell if this is directed personally or not, because these last two paragraphs give me mixed signals.

It wasn't. Should have been more clear on that, while writing I though the parenthesis phrase would suffice. I was writing to a general audience, some of them most probably knowing exactly that I meant them.

But yeah, I should really stop to use a quote from someone to continue talking about something else. Just remembered I had a similar situation with Steve Geddes once, but as I said to him then, if something sets my mind in motion, I just start writing, and as I tend to think of myself as being able not to assume malice when there is none, I automatically assume that everyone sees the same in me. So my wrong, and I apologize if you felt attacked in any way.

I admit that I was a bit triggered by the sentence I quoted about "innocent before proven guilty" and this not being a court of law, because I've seen this so often being abused just to throw dirt at people.

But the rest was just me trying to clarify my stance on this, because I am a bit fed up with having to justify everything I say just because a few people automatically assume I am against them when I do not agree with them 100%.

This said, I also stand by everything else I wrote. I mostly had refrained from talking about specific people so far, but I felt that in order to clarify how I think about the different allegations made by different people, I needed to do so. And of course, I don't expect anyone to agree with me on that. I just expect people to understand that while I might think less than favorable about one person, that doesn't automatically extend to other people making the same point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't feel attacked, so no worries! I could tell I wasn't reading it quite right, so I wanted to clarify. I've spent long enough in the "Rules Debate" section of the forums to know that the second an argument gets personal, it basically becomes useless for anyone else trying to learn anything from it. Except, um, "don't make things personal", I guess, clearly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, and before someone trots out the "innocent before proven guilty" thing, this isn't a court of law.

No, it isn't but it still is a very good rule to live by, especially when it is about allegations made by people I don't know personally that I only can judge based on what I read them say. Even when it's said by what I see as beloved cornerstones of this community.

Do I believe what Crystal said? Yes, I do, I'm just on the fence about how to interpret what went wrong. And yes, given what I know about the Paizo people in power, I have a hard time interpreting it as wilful or even systematic transphobia. I also believe what Lissa said about it, but that leads me to believe that the personal hurt Crystal had to endure might hav led them to the wrong conclusion about what's going on.

Do I believe what Liz said? Absolutely, and to be honest, what she said is the biggest bummer to me in the whole situation. And as much as Paizo can do about improving on those issues, they should ASAP. Given the industry we're talking about and especially given the country Paizo operates in (and I can't say more because that would violate all the "no politics" rules ), I am a bit sceptical about how much that is especially with regards to increased wages. I trust Liz that the example she gave about increasing prices is one that could be taken, because I don't think she would have brought up that example otherwise.

I have no firm stance on the Sara Marie situation. There's no way you can make me believe that she did something so wrong that Paizo had no choice but to fire her. And I have a lot of respect for Diego to stand up for her. Still doesn't mean that this firing couldn't have other reasons that we don't know about that are not someone being the big villain of this story.

And then we Jessica Price. Don't know her personally, so again, benefit of the doubt and all that, but just from seeing how she behaved while here at Paizo and how she behaved in several controversies she seems...

I'm sorry, but who's the "Liz" you refer to? Didn't see anyone by that name on the reddit page showing allegations.

I'll also note that the lady at the center of this, Sara Marie, has repudiated Jessica Price.

Silver Crusade

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

Liz Courts. She's posted on these forums in these threads with her own additions to the talk of the former working environment at Paizo.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cori Marie wrote:
Liz Courts. She's posted on these forums in these threads with her own additions to the talk of the former working environment at Paizo.

Thank you. She makes a lot of sense.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't like the implication someone made earlier that simply hiring Crystal Frasier is evidence that Paizo has progressive leadership. Like, talk about a low bar.

I don't think Paizo gets brownie points for having a trans person on staff when the trans person in question was Crystal Frasier, who was prevented from attending a convention because she was trans.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Keller wrote:
I'll also note that the lady at the center of this, Sara Marie, has repudiated Jessica Price.

I'm not sure why that matters. The things Jessica said can still be true regardless of whether someone doesn't want to be associated with her, or not approve of the way she went about posting what she did.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't like the implication someone made earlier that simply hiring Crystal Frasier is evidence that Paizo has progressive leadership. Like, talk about a low bar.
I don't think Paizo gets brownie points for having a trans person on staff when the trans person in question was Crystal Frasier, who was prevented from attending a convention because she was trans.

Yeah, but it's an extra-laughable idea when Crystal Frasier appears to have been hired under systems implemented by two people who no longer work at Paizo--systems that were designed to be stripped of the potential for human bias.

451 to 500 of 554 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Call to Action: #PAIZOACCOUNTABILITY needs your voice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.