Roll20 users; are my impressions right or wrong on this

[LordEntrails]

As I continued to read the thread throughout the morning/afternoon, I was seeing that referenced in many of the posts. I'm having a hard time digesting someone with that much invested in the company would have screwed up that badly - banning someone without any concrete evidence when it's not even his own site. Risking his money by enforcing a 'hunch' ban on some other property related to his? Just... man.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - another example revealed, I suppose.

Nolan, and the other staff of Roll20 have behaved in this way for years on their own forums and reddit. This attitude and type of behavior comes from the top. It's simple that this time they did it to someone who documented it thoroughly, went public, and it went viral.

I know personally two other people who have had similar experiences with Nolan and his staff. But never went public with it. This is the way the Orr Group operates, and one of the reasons I chose FG years ago. I won't support such business practices and attitudes.

 

[jimmifett]

The ban wasn't on having or wanting "single gender games" (which I suspect many Roll20 games are going to be anyway), the ban was on using the Roll20 to advertise games as "No girls allowed".

And yet, other "no males allowed" groups exist without fear of banning. I don't care if it's "no miniature space hamsters allowed" games, if that's how a group chooses to play, respect how they choose to associate or apply bans evenly without exception. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[Gradine]

And yet, other "no males allowed" groups exist without fear of banning. I don't care if it's "no miniature space hamsters allowed" games, if that's how a group chooses to play, respect how they choose to associate or apply bans evenly without exception. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

Anti-discrimination clauses are pretty sensible policies for any platform operating on the internet, but it's also important to recognize that not all cases are equal and there can sometimes be worthwhile reasons to consider and/or accept exceptions. There is not, for instance, anything remotely approaching parity in the relative amount of sexual harassment (up to and including stalking and/or doxxing) faced by men or by women, especially on the internet. Until such parity exists (or better yet, dudes stop being ing creeps on the internet) the need for female-only spaces on an internet platform is perfectly reasonable in a way male-only spaces cannot hope to similarly justify. Not to say that there couldn't be a perfectly justifiable explanation for such a space to exist, but the bar is considerably higher, for the previously stated reasons that should be patently obvious to anybody who has spent any degree of time basically anywhere on the internet.

Edit: I would encourage anybody who is upset by the above double-standard do something to actually make the internet a safer place for women without having to create "no-men-allowed" spaces.

Not that any of this has any bearing on what this thread is about, which seems like a mind-boggling double-down of a horrible mistake that has turned into a justified PR nightmare.

 

[Derren]

not all cases are equal and there can sometimes be worthwhile reasons to consider and/or accept exceptions.

Nope, sexism is sexism, no matter what sexual organs you have.

 

[Gradine]

Nope, sexism is sexism, no matter what sexual organs you have.

If only we lived in a world where we could afford to treat it that way.

Edit: I'll note that the possibility could exist to justify a seemingly discriminatory policy (in this case a woman-only space) is neither a controversial nor an unprecedented position; no less a legal authority than the Supreme Court of the United States has well-established guidelines for how strong of a justification is needed by the state be able to curb and curtail Constitutional rights, including those established by the 1st and 14th Amendments.

 

[MNblockhead]

I personally found roll20 a nightmare to use, even paid, as a GM. I gave them a month paid, wasted money. FG, I used the heck out of that for a variety of games.

roll20 also wanted to ban a paying user for wanting to have a single gender game, whilst allowing other single-gender games to exist without any such threat, just bc of differing genders. Wanting a single gender game does not automatically make the players, organizers, or the game itself sexist, but roll20 apparently publicly has double standards. Another reason for them to not get any more of my money.

The whole banned user is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Sure, sucks for that user, and the company could have handled it better, but this is not something that would sway me either way. There are a lot of causes in this messed up world that deserve my attention. This one is way down at the bottom.

I'm more interested and concerned by the ban on players based on who they want to include in their game. I feel like I'm missing something. Is this a public game that uses their gamers-wanted posting service? If so, I could see them not allowing certain types of games to be advertised on this service. They are not moderating and censoring personal games, are they?

 

[Ovinomancer]

To the OP. Long time roll20 user. Hadn't heard anything, don't much care -- this doesn't affect how I use the platform.

 

[Gradine]

I'm more interested and concerned by the ban on players based on who they want to include in their game. I feel like I'm missing something. Is this a public game that uses their gamers-wanted posting service? If so, I could see them not allowing certain types of games to be advertised on this service. They are not moderating and censoring personal games, are they?

You are correct; the ban/policy implementation occurred in the public gamers-wanted posting service.

 

[MNblockhead]

As I continued to read the thread throughout the morning/afternoon, I was seeing that referenced in many of the posts. I'm having a hard time digesting someone with that much invested in the company would have screwed up that badly - banning someone without any concrete evidence when it's not even his own site. Risking his money by enforcing a 'hunch' ban on some other property related to his? Just... man.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - another example revealed, I suppose.

As someone who has co-founded and owned small businesses, I can see how this happens. You really invest a great deal of your self-identity in your company. You also tend to wear many hats and are more likely to get involved in the weeks of public relations, legal issues, etc.

Generally when dealing with customer service, threatening them is usually an ineffective way to get your way. But at worst that may mean the underpaid customer service person ignoring your and dragging their feet. This can backfire, but you at least have the ability for management to step in and apologize. The problem here is that you have a successful person with their ego wrapped in his company being threatened. He didn't get to where he is by being a pushover. He feels disrespected. He also may have just had a bad day, or he could be an A-type personality or an old a*hole. He needs to distance himself from situations like this.

If they can't afford a social media manager or to add this to their customer-service reps' plates, they need to find someone at a lower level in the company who can take this. Let that person step into the landmines. That way, if it blows up, you can come and have a manager apologize and make things right. Even if Nolan does apologize and make things right, it will be hard to repair his and the company's reputation.

It would probably be best to have another owner step in. Nolan should still apologize, but another spokesperson can discuss any changes that they will make to their social media policies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

According to the top post on the roll20 subreddit (I went and looked after this post), NolanT has turned moderation over to lfg and removed all roll20 employees from the moderation of the subreddit. Also, all banned users were reinstated. That seems to address the issue.