Paizo Jessica Price (ex Paizo employee) spills the beans

[TheAlkaizer]

1) Unless I'm mistaken, Price is not a journalist. There's no reason to hold her to journalistic standards (which are, themselves, fluid and largely meaningless, since they're really just norms that change over time and are routinely broken, often in good faith). She was essentially talking about something she heard. I will always be more charitable to the person who gets information out, even if it's not 100% correct, than to the institution they're trying to expose. They have resources and can even sue, if they really feel like it's worth it. She has...a Twitter account. And this isn't about you, but people in this thread complaining about not being able to grok Twitter's interface....I mean, imagine a skywriter gradually spelling out the words OK and BOOMER. Twitter is how a ton of news is generated and distributed in 20201. If you can't work out what to click, that's fully on you.

I understand and can work with Twitter very well, thank you. But there's multiple free options that are much better than Twitter for this type of content: twitlongers, blog sites like medium, etc. And no, if I write my novel on a napkin I'm not going to hold it against others when they tell me "well, reading your novel on a napkin is certainly not the best way to read it". Twitter was not designed and is not the primary vessel for denunciations (or any long message) of the sort. Seeing a link to a twitlonger or to a medium article is much more common and a better way to do things. No matter the platform you're using, no matter what year you're writing something, if you want to be heard and your message to come across, you make it accessible, well formatted and well presented.

2) Courts are almost never going to surface or settle these kinds of issues. Even if these matters do wind up in front of a judge and/or jury, do courts have a perfect track record? And what happens when a suit ends with a settlement that doesn't involve an admission of guilt and where all parties are barred from discussing it further? Unless you're talking about the most heinous abuses, ala Harvey Weinstein, the courts aren't going to solve this for you. The only thing most of us can base any decisions or opinions on are the info we have available to us, however we can get it. That'll never be perfect and we'll all make tons of mistakes based on necessarily incomplete evidence (the "truth" being about as relative as anything can be), but that's the best we can do.

I'm not going to engage in a talk about juridical insitutions. My point was that getting cancelled is not something new and limited to social medias. It happened before social medias and is a normal process.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm really not trying to get into the middle of this argument, and I see your point, but I have read through this thread and I did not notice you posting any examples, except the original tweet. So I feel it is probably easy to miss without intentionally "ignoring" them.

The guild wars thing was already posted, so I didn't need to repost it again. In that example, she called someone paid to pay GW games a sexist for simply disagreeing with her. That's why she was fired from there. I don't think Gradine has followed that link and read the twitter exchanges that prompted that scenario, because their responses to me aren't accurate as to what happened, as was also pointed out to them a few posts above by another user.

I get why Price is angry. And I get the justification behind it. But if someone has a record of calling anyone who disagrees with them a sexist for simply disagreeing, and then makes incorrect loaded accusations later again, mistake or not, I don't think it's unreasonable to say you want collaborative sources before you automatically believe them.

That's how misinformation spreads, and once it's out, it's hard to close the barn door.

That's the other example.

 

[Gradine]

The thing about everyone who has been "cancelled" is that... they are all still working within their respective fields. Every single one. I mean, unless the ones who are behind bars (and sometimes even that doesn't stick!)

 

[Ancalagon]

Wait...what!?

there you go. From Thread by @Delafina777 on Thread Reader App

 

[Gradine]

The guild wars thing was already posted, so I didn't need to repost it again. In that example, she called someone paid to pay GW games a sexist for simply disagreeing with her. That's why she was fired from there. I don't think Gradine has followed that link and read the twitter exchanges that prompted that scenario, because their responses to me aren't accurate as to what happened, as was also pointed out to them a few posts above by another user.

Oh yes, because I disagree with you it's because I simply don't know better. Certainly couldn't be that I know very well what happened and that you are grossly mischaracterizing the situation.

History lesson, kids! See, what happened wasn't that someone was disagreeing with her. What happened is that she complained about a thing she was struggling with at work on Twitter (which is... perfectly normal) and some dude came in and told her how to do her job for her. This is called "mansplaining" and it's problematic at best (FWIW, the man in question stated this was not his intent, but in instances like this intent doesn't actually matter) She reacted angrily (justifiably so) to that, which led to a rant about mansplaining which got the nascent KIA crowd (I don't remember if KIA existed then, but it was the mob that would later make up KIA) complained about it to ArenaNET and that is what got her fired. Reacting angrily to mansplaining online. This is patently sexism, blatantly so.

And even if you disagree with that (it's okay ot be wrong) does not make Price a bad or malicious actor, nor does it make her a liar.

 

[darjr]

edit to add: I'm being way to accusatory here. I think Sacrosanct responded well and you should read that. Even if I don't agree with them.

The person who quit and wasn't actually fired disagreed with her and she didn't call them a sexist. Why do you insist that she calls ANYONE that disagrees with her sexist? I think it's because, for whatever reason, you have an agenda to discredit her. I'm getting sick of it.

The guild wars thing was already posted, so I didn't need to repost it again. In that example, she called someone paid to pay GW games a sexist for simply disagreeing with her. That's why she was fired from there. I don't think Gradine has followed that link and read the twitter exchanges that prompted that scenario, because their responses to me aren't accurate as to what happened, as was also pointed out to them a few posts above by another user.

I get why Price is angry. And I get the justification behind it. But if someone has a record of calling anyone who disagrees with them a sexist for simply disagreeing, and then makes incorrect loaded accusations later again, mistake or not, I don't think it's unreasonable to say you want collaborative sources before you automatically believe them.

That's how misinformation spreads, and once it's out, it's hard to close the barn door.

That's the other example.

 

[Ancalagon]

That's how misinformation spreads,

And this is how threads about sexism, transphobia etc get derailed.

I don't think you are doing this intentionally, but this is what you are doing.

 

[darjr]

And this is how threads about sexism, transphobia etc get derailed.

I don't think you are doing this intentionally, but this is what you are doing.

Oh? Right now I'm almost certain it's intentional.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh yes, because I disagree with you it's because I simply don't know better.

Not at all, and I resent the implication that's what I was saying. I said what I said because based on your posts, it doesn't seem like you actually read those tweets. Because...

Certainly couldn't be that I know very well what happened and that you are grossly mischaracterizing the situation.

History lesson, kids! See, what happened wasn't that someone was disagreeing with her. What happened is that she complained about a thing she was struggling with at work on Twitter (which is... perfectly normal) and some dude came in and told her how to do her job for her. This is called "mansplaining" and it's problematic at best (FWIW, the man in question stated this was not his intent, but in instances like this intent doesn't actually matter) She reacted angrily (justifiably so) to that, which led to a rant about mansplaining which got the nascent KIA crowd (I don't remember if KIA existed then, but it was the mob that would later make up KIA) complained about it to ArenaNET and that is what got her fired. Reacting angrily to mansplaining online. This is patently sexism, blatantly so.

And even if you disagree with that (it's okay ot be wrong) does not make Price a bad or malicious actor, nor does it make her a liar.

That's not what happened. At all. Which has been pointed out to you by someone else already. Seriously, go read that Twitter exchange again.

Or are you saying that ANY time someone who happens to be a male disagrees with someone who happens to be a female is mansplaining, or that a female can never be wrong? Well, it can't be the latter since you already admitted she was wrong in her first tweet, so does that mean if a male points out how she was wrong and Diego wasn't fired, they were mansplaining to her?

Either way, we seem to be at an impasse. So I won't be responding further. All I'm doing is repeating myself and no one wants to keep reading the same posts, especially if you're insistent in mischaracterizing my posts.

 

[Ancalagon]

Oh? Right now I'm almost certain it's intentional.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Heck, I used to (edit, strange typo) derail discussions sometimes just like this without even realizing it! We aren't as self-aware as we should be - all of us.

Now, strategically, why would I give them he benefit of the doubt? Because it's more productive. If they are a bad actor, it is 99% certain that I cannot change or affect their behavior. But if this is a lack of awareness, I am giving them an opening, a way to save face AND perhaps improve in the future.

Attacked people get defensive. And then you have a fight, not a discussion