Paizo Jessica Price (ex Paizo employee) spills the beans

[darjr]

Ope, sorry responded to someone who can't post here.

 

[darjr]

 

[Justice and Rule]

So I take it you're browsing the Megathread as well, since I think I found this moments before you posted it.

 

[darjr]

Which mega thread?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Which mega thread?

On the PF2 reddit. Sorry, I suppose I was assuming more crossover at the moment. But that post does a good job at summing up a lot of reactions at the moment.

 

[darjr]

On the PF2 reddit. Sorry, I suppose I was assuming more crossover at the moment. But that post does a good job at summing up a lot of reactions at the moment.

ah.

No I think I follow her partner on twitter.

 

[Eltab]

1) We're not a jury; this isn't a courtroom where we are weighing whether to issue criminal or financial penalties to Paizo. The idea that we are not allowed to have opinions on things others tell us until a jury or administrative body has issued a formal ruling on their claims is ridiculous, and nobody operates that way in their ordinary lives.

2) False dilemma, counselor; people who post things on Twitter are not doing so because they had to choose between Twitter or a courtroom and chose the former. People are allowed to - and do - talk about things on Twitter whether or not they are able to take legal action about those things.

That's not helpful or an accurate description of the situation.

Courts have to work with people who are fully truthful and tell what they saw / did / felt accurately; people who are lying all the way; people who are mostly honest but want to diminish their role in an event in some way; people who like the spotlight; everything you can imagine between 100% truthful and 0% truthful. And the Court has to figure out "what happened" from all that. The Court's methods have evolved over hundreds of years to better attain that goal.

Anybody who wants to can emulate (as your resources will permit) the Courts' methods of ferreting out Fact from Fiction. You do not have to wait for a Court to render a verdict before you are allowed to research on your own. One simple principle is "let all things be determined by the testimony of two or three witnesses". One person alone making a claim is weaker than several people whose statements reinforce each others'. And we have that now. So we can move forward, not fuss at each other about 'who do you believe' and/or 'you are not allowed to disbelieve Person X'.

The next place I would look is physical evidence: let's see that carpet. The off-color gifts / pictures. This step will help clear out smoke and mirrors, determine what is a solid accusation. Importantly: delivering incontrovertible physical evidence of misbehavior to Person Z's boss is more likely to result in firings and policy changes than just the Internet flamethrower running on hot emotion.

There is more than one way to achieve an objective; prefer the ones that work best.

 

[darjr]

 

[SkidAce]

Read the whole thread. He apparently is really into Theosophy, a 19th century racist religious movement, and would display art with Nazi-adjacent symbols over his desk where it was visible during work meetings. After being told it made employees uncomfortable.

I had't heard of Theosophy so I looked it up.

I dont see the racist connection, but may have missed it. In fact there was a line about respecting all regardless of race, creed, sex etc?

Theosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Parmandur]

I had't heard of Theosophy so I looked it up.

I dont see the racist connection, but may have missed it. In fact there was a line about respecting all regardless of race, creed, sex etc?

Theosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is some controversy around this, particularly people wanting to salvage the ideas after WW2 in spite of theosophy being part of the soup of the Fascist scene, but you can find a bit more on this wiki:

Theosophical mysticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org