WotC New WotC Statement on Orion Black

[Enevhar Aldarion]

After this travesty it might be a long time until WotC feels safe to hire someone who isn't a white male.

They have several women working there. They have Jeremy Crawford, who is gay. There are probably other LBGT+ staff, who we just do not know are. So male and not straight is not the issue. I have no clue who on staff may be non-white, though. And Orion was not full staff, but rather on a contract for either a specific amount of time or for a specific number of products. One or the other requirement was probably fulfilled and the contract was not renewed and thus the toxic rantings on toxic Twitter. The accusation of not getting proper credit for work done is the one thing I am waiting to hear more about before deciding if any of this was valid or just a big temper tantrum.

But aside from all that, WotC has had hiring announcements where they were specifically looking for all types of applicants, so that they can be inclusive in their hiring. The problem is that almost no one knows who many non-white, non-male, non-straight people even applied. Or how many of them were even qualified for the jobs that were open. Quota hiring is bad. Token hiring is bad. Hiring the most qualified person for the job is generally what is required of US law. If two people apply and are close enough in qualifications that it is basically a tie between them, then going with the person who seems a better fit personality-wise is the next qualifier. Having two people who are equally good in all ways for a job opening, but where one is white and one is black, or one is male and one female, or one is straight and the other LGBT, that is the modern minefield of hiring.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To think that they closed their own (pretty popular) forum some years ago, because clearly, Twitter was the future. I wonder if they're regretting that choice now.

Doubtful. the forums were a mess with toxic posters. SOOO many people upset with the move to 5e (not to pick the 4e fans, because every move to a new edition had the same thing). Accusations of WoTC betraying them, ruining the game, etc. Just wasn't worth the hassle to keep the forum open, would be my guess.

 

[Olrox17]

Doubtful. the forums were a mess with toxic posters. SOOO many people upset with the move to 5e (not to pick the 4e fans, because every move to a new edition had the same thing). Accusations of WoTC betraying them, ruining the game, etc. Just wasn't worth the hassle to keep the forum open, would be my guess.

The forums survived the 3e-4e edition wars. The 4e-5e transition was quite mild, in comparison. In any case, as they say, out of the frying pan, into the fire: Twitter is way worse.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The forums survived the 3e-4e edition wars. The 4e-5e transition was quite mild, in comparison. In any case, as they say, out of the frying pan, into the fire: Twitter is way worse.

Sure. But I just think they were tired dealing with it, and other forms of social media were just a convenient excuse to not have to deal with it any longer.

 

[Mistwell]

I love how many people are rushing to the defense of a non-human corporation, which has had multiple complaints about being an old boys club.

Do you not see the irony inherent in that sentence you wrote?

 

[Mistwell]

Doubtful. the forums were a mess with toxic posters. SOOO many people upset with the move to 5e (not to pick the 4e fans, because every move to a new edition had the same thing). Accusations of WoTC betraying them, ruining the game, etc. Just wasn't worth the hassle to keep the forum open, would be my guess.

It wasn't worse than the "they made fun of gnomes and now WOTC is dead to me!" freak out!

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It wasn't worse than the "they made fun of gnomes and now WOTC is dead to me!" freak out!

That was such an innocent time.

 

[Mercurius]

I just don't see how people can take a strong stance on this without making assumptions.

I personally can't get on the "Orion Black was wronged, and WotC is an Evil Corporation" bandwagon without more information. There are enough red flags about their behavior and just exercising common sense that I just can't make that leap. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of corporations and "corporate culture" as a general rule, and realize that such issues exist.

With all that in mind, WotC did the predictable--and understandable--thing. I just don't know what else they can or should do, without going down a rabbit hole of one kind or the other and potentially making matters worse.

 

[humble minion]

But aside from all that, WotC has had hiring announcements where they were specifically looking for all types of applicants, so that they can be inclusive in their hiring. The problem is that almost no one knows who many non-white, non-male, non-straight people even applied. Or how many of them were even qualified for the jobs that were open. Quota hiring is bad. Token hiring is bad. Hiring the most qualified person for the job is generally what is required of US law. If two people apply and are close enough in qualifications that it is basically a tie between them, then going with the person who seems a better fit personality-wise is the next qualifier. Having two people who are equally good in all ways for a job opening, but where one is white and one is black, or one is male and one female, or one is straight and the other LGBT, that is the modern minefield of hiring.

This is more than a bit over-simplistic. 'Better fit personality-wise' is a real double-edged sword, and can lead on you doubling down on an unhealthy culture. If a company has (for example) a culture of going out for 27 beers after work every Friday, then if you only hire people who embrace this culture then you're not going to hire many observant Muslims. Or many people with young kids. Or many people who don't live near the office. And this will not be a good thing, because if you have no employees at your office who are Muslim or have young kids, your products will lack those perspectives. Not to mention that 'better fit personality-wise' is often corporate-speak code for 'will not rock the boat and call us out on our crap'. The history of, for example, workplace sexual harassment complaints is littered with cases where the victim of harassment complained, then was shunned or demoted or let go or whatever for 'not being a team player' or 'not being a good cultural fit', especially when an offender was high-ranking or seen as irreplaceable talent (whether technical or artistic or whatever).

And 'close enough in qualifications' is a tough one too, especially in a creative industry like the space WotC works in. As 20 years of edition wars on this board will tell you, RPG design is a very subjective business. If you're interviewing two people, one of which produces a portfolio of material in genres that are familiar to you and which you could see incorporating into your games, and one produces a portfolio based on completely different cultural/narrative assumptions, which you find strange or unfamiliar or uncomfortable - that's just things being different, not better/worse. But sometimes you need to hire the latter candidate because they might be able to bring new things to the table than the 'good fit' former candidate might not.

Oh, and just dismissing quota hiring as universally bad in also profoundly oversimplified and incorrect. It is often a necessary tool to improve the culture of an organisation that's gotten to be a comfy groupthink boys' club.

 

[MGibster]

Not to mention that 'better fit personality-wise' is often corporate-speak code for 'will not rock the boat and call us out on our crap'

I once interviewed a candidate for a management position who had all the skills we needed and everyone on the panel agreed that he could do the job, but we hired someone else. During the interview, this candidate described his management style as essentially "my way or the highway." And while that works in some places, this particular department had a culture of building a consensus as part of their decision making process. We didn't think he'd be a good fit personality wise and would spend his time banging his head in frustration before ultimately moving on to greener pastures.

I've also interviewed internal candidates for supervisor positions, and while I've only had this happen a handful of times, this is a quick way to get knocked out of consideration during an interview where I work.

Me: Why are you interested in a supervisory position?
Candidate: I like telling people what to do.

Sometimes "better fit personality-wise" is corporate speak for "will make himself and everyone around him miserable if we hire him."

The history of, for example, workplace sexual harassment complaints is littered with cases where the victim of harassment complained, then was shunned or demoted or let go or whatever for 'not being a team player' or 'not being a good cultural fit', especially when an offender was high-ranking or seen as irreplaceable talent (whether technical or artistic or whatever).

Sometimes a corporate culture is toxic, no doubt. More than one company has found out the hard way that "this is just our culture" isn't a valid defense against hostile work environment suits.

If you're interviewing two people, one of which produces a portfolio of material in genres that are familiar to you and which you could see incorporating into your games, and one produces a portfolio based on completely different cultural/narrative assumptions, which you find strange or unfamiliar or uncomfortable - that's just things being different, not better/worse. But sometimes you need to hire the latter candidate because they might be able to bring new things to the table than the 'good fit' former candidate might not.

But this is a decision based on a business need. The hiring manager might be more interested in the candidate who demonstrates a better understanding of the company's current culture, narrative assumptions, etc., etc. On the other hand, if the hiring manager wanted someone who was going to bring a totally fresh perspective that's also a decision based on a business need.

Oh, and just dismissing quota hiring as universally bad in also profoundly oversimplified and incorrect. It is often a necessary tool to improve the culture of an organisation that's gotten to be a comfy groupthink boys' club.

The US Supreme Court said no to quota hiring more than 40 years go (though it may be mandated or allowed by the courts in some cases). These days Affirmative Action revolves around targeted goals rather than hard quotas.