Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9129620" data-attributes="member: 18">It's not holding a grudge, it's being pretty rational, actually.When a company is profoundly dysfunctional that an idea like this filters through to the surface, that's a sign of extremely bad management. Remember WotC themselves talked about it as something they were 100% definitely doing - in fact up until quite late in proceedings, they were using language to indicate "the lady is not for turning", even though the lady later did an impressive 900 degree spin and then ramped off the CCL!You cannot and should not fully trust a company that does that.This is what Unity are now facing. I'd argue they've screwed up much bigger, but it's been a much shorter time. What they've done though is create a situation where nobody can trust them not to do insane things. WotC didn't do something that bad, but it means that not trusting them particularly far is rational, not grudge-holding.With respect, that sounds like the most direct kind of whataboutism. It's thus not a good argument, and you can't really complain about "grudges" as if they're bad, and them simple engage in whataboutism.First off, it's simply inaccurate to say "thought about". The language used in WotC's press about the OGL 1.1 was not that they were "thinking about" it. It was they were doing it. They certainly allowed that some parts might be flexible, but they were very clear it was going to happen. Attempts at revising history to suggest it was merely "considered" as if it were some half-hearted unserious internal discussion are only going to cause people to talk about this more, to clear up that issue.Second off, WotC has also had some "hostile work environment" issues, and outright misogyny issues (Mearls' behaviour re: the Zak S allegation - frankly none of Mearls' business! - was both unprofessional and fit misogynistic patterns, for example), which aren't really brought up any more. So even if we say that the work environment at Paizo was screwed, it doesn't seem like WotC's work environment was great either, so even a whataboutist context, that's maybe not a great angle.Also with Paizo, it's unclear how many of the allegations were founded or not, especially as the vast majority came from a single individual. Every workplace has people who allege hostile behaviour, and in some cases it's deadly true, in others it can a difference in perceptions or even largely fictional. I've worked in environments myself and seen both gaslighting abusers getting away with stuff for far too long, and people with mental health issues or bizarre beliefs who caused gigantic problems for co-workers whilst claiming they were the victims. Indeed I know of first-hand a previously-successful charity that was basically destroyed by a single employee who just made racism allegations against literally anyone who the employee thought "crossed them" - whether it was by pointing out the expensing your commute is illegal and against the rules of the charity (it is under British law - it's a taxable benefit if you do that), or just by failing to agree with them sufficiently loudly at meetings. That person never got fired either - they just left when they'd caused so much carnage that charity was no longer able to operate or fundraise effectively. On the flipside I was aware of (and indeed reported to HR) an individual at a firm I worked at who harassed women, and who attempted to bully co-workers (less effectually than this person might have hoped), and generally was not a good person, but who got a big party and send-off from management when this person "moved away". It was muted as hell because by then everyone except management loathed the guy, and even with management you could tell it was all a front to try and avoid there being some kind of bad press.</blockquote>

Verification