|
Kai Tave posted:Eragon is "Dragon" spelled with an E. It’s one better than a dragon. Please buy my new game Eungeons and Eragons. “It’s legally distinct.” TM
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:It’s one better than a dragon. Pfft, they're just gonna put out Fungeons and Fragons in a couple of years and then all your E&E material will be useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Fungeons and Fragons ..Do not miss the "R" when you're talking about your new game. For the love of god.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:It’s one better than a dragon. Eungeons and Eragons is tabletop Warhammer Online for babbies
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Pfft, they're just gonna put out Fungeons and Fragons in a couple of years and then all your E&E material will be useless. Gonna be honest, that game sounds better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:..Do not miss the "R" when you're talking about your new game. Not gonna lie, I triple checked that before I hit post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Pfft, they're just gonna put out Fungeons and Fragons in a couple of years and then all your E&E material will be useless. I'm going full accelerationist and putting out Zungeons & Zragons. The industry can now gently go to sleep knowing its final destiny has been accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
ungeons & ragons Amateurs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Warthur posted:I'm going full accelerationist and putting out Zungeons & Zragons. The industry can now gently go to sleep knowing its final destiny has been accomplished. Sure, until the Swedes jump in with Äungeons & Äragons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Æungeons and Æragons
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
6ungeons & 6ragons
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
2 Dungeons 2 Dragons
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:It's not the timeline of events they promised, but at least it's something. As far as I can tell Black Hat Matt hasn't said anything about the allegations made against him. - You have a scene-setting paragraph. - You have a mealy-mouthed discussion of whisper networks which both seems to snidely insinuate that they are Part of the Problem, partly by not ensuring that every single woman gets in on them and partly by being quasi-vigilante affairs. - You have criticism of existing harassment policies framed in such a way that more focus is put on "unethical manipulation" and "defamation" of alleged abusers than failures to protect victims. - You have her discussing her own experience in the most general terms and apologising for nothing beyond being somewhat intemperate in her tone. She does not address Suleiman's situation at all and, if this were the only thing you'd read, you'd have no clue that anything with Suleiman had even happened. - She culminates by declaring that she and Green Ronin are going to propose this new STOP Harassment industry-wide policy that they'll encourage people to adopt at GAMA. Because, of course, the best people to propose a new code of conduct for the industry is the company which still cannot find any way to coherently explain and account for its behaviour concerning Suleiman. Gimme a sec and I'll look over the STOP Harassment document itself (here it is).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Gimme a sec and I'll look over the STOP Harassment document itself (here it is). Several problems already, but here's a big one: quote:The first step for a person who believes there has been a breach of this code of conduct should be to communicate in writing (e.g. email) with the individual engaging in the alleged offensive behavior and tell him or her that the accuser finds his or her behavior inappropriate and request that it cease. In the event that the accuser feels a genuine fear of direct approach, he or she can engage an intermediary (friend, colleague, etc.) to make this communication on his or her behalf. If we were talking about workplace harassment from a legal perspective, I don't think that holds up. Contrast the EEOC: quote:Employees are encouraged to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Employees should also report harassment to management at an early stage to prevent its escalation. Or a fact sheet from the NWLC: quote:7. What should I do if I believe that I am being sexually harassed at work? The policy appears to require an action that shouldn't be required, depending on the situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
Also note the weasel wording in "Alleged offensive behavior".
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Also note the weasel wording in "Alleged offensive behavior". To be fair I'm sure they'd rather not get sued for publicly calling someone a sexual harasser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
OK, so STOP Harassment is itself trash. The introduction kicks off by attempting to give equal weight to the problems of harassment and false or misleading accusations. ("However, a consequence of this power is the risk of destroying the careers and families of innocent persons, either because the accusations are false or because the conduct at issue does not fit the definition of “harassment,” and such risks can lead to severe consequences of irreversible public shaming.") That's typically a red flag in my experience - not that a policy should necessarily discount the possibility of false accusations, but at the same time the one is clearly far more prevalent than the other. (In particular, in the light of the Suleiman stuff, it kind of leaves me wondering whether Green Ronin actually believe what's been reported about Suleiman at all, or whether - despite their apparent later backpedalling - they still think it's all false.) Their actual definition of sexual harassment is not unreasonable, though I can see people trying to weasel their way towards arguing that their behaviour isn't covered by it (and the policy seems very concerned with coming up with a really tight definition of harassment which is objectively testable, which may be the wrong approach to begin with). It says "Discrimination or harassment that is based on race, age, sex, gender, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, religion, or sexual orientation would also be addressed under this policy", but only gives a detailed description of what sexual harassment is, so how you're supposed to assess the rest of that stuff is immediately unclear. The definition ends with "Harassment is behavior which focuses unwelcome attention on a person, inappropriately crosses objectively reasonable expectations of social boundaries, and continues after a request to desist", and to be honest they could have quite happily stopped at that (save for that pesky "objectively" there), but as it is the definitions paragraph is confusing: it starts with one definition of a specific type of harassment, continues to say that you can apply it to all different types, and then closes with a different but overlapping definition of harassment in general. If they wanted this policy to generate objectivity and clarity that's the wrong way to go about it. They seem particularly keen on making this an industry standard, which would seem to rule out people choosing to be more stringent or giving more weight to the victim's account than the policy mandates here. That's concerning. There's a free speech clause: "Tabletop gaming is an inherently creative industry and this policy shall be implemented in a manner that recognizes the importance of the freedom of speech and expression: no provision of this policy shall be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is legitimately related to fiction, teaching methods, or public commentary of an individual member or the educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of members in games, fiction, and public venues." By my reading this means that if Zakula decides to throw in a degrading parody of a trans designer he's clashed rhetorical swords with into a product, that's absolutely fine because it's part of the fiction. Non-retaliation section is fair enough. What puts it beyond the pale is the requirement for accusers to, directly or via an intermediary, privately raise their concerns with their harasser before they make a report. "If such behavior does not immediately cease, or if direct communication is insufficient, the behavior may be reported. Such a report should include the substance of the complaint, date(s), a list of witnesses, and/or reference URLs, where appropriate." What happens after reporting is that an investigative board is put together, which shouldn't include any friends or family members of the accuser or accused. (So they're treating this like a quasi-judicial procedure, which is not the point of a harassment policy. Companies, conventions, LARP events, tabletop meetups and gaming clubs do not have to hold themselves to a judicial standard!) Incidentally, given how interconnected the industry is, good luck making a viable board at all. The investigative board then is supposed to spend 60 days investigating and come up with a report within 90 days. Note that "Hearsay should not be considered. Hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while attesting during a hearing, and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible by law in both civil and criminal trials." Green Ronin got fleeced by the legal experts they supposedly paid to review this because depending on the venue hearsay evidence can absolutely be admissible; here's the UK's Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on it, which I found with literally five seconds of Googling. Finally, look at this laughable statement on standards of proof: "A finding of harassment or false reporting can have consequences for the accuser and/or accused, and so a finding of harassment or false reporting should be based on a clear and convincing standard of evidence. In a typical civil dispute, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence (50.1% or more). In a criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of evidence and less than beyond a reasonable doubt." So, rather than choosing one or the other standard of proof - each of which, whilst poorly understood by the general public, is at least something people can research and gain an understanding of - they vaguely wave at the hazy borderland between the two without making any positive statement about where the standard of proof lies within that zone. That is loving terrible and will lead to loving terrible decisions if implemented. And what happens if they find someone is guilty of harassment? Well, then the company, convention, or organisation who received the complaint just sort of decides by themselves what happens. "Remedial measures should be designed to stop the harassment, correct its effects, and ensure that the harassment does not recur. These remedial measures need not be those that the complainant requests or prefers, as long as they are effective." So the classic "we'll move them to a different department, which may constitute a promotion, and take you off their projects which may constitute a de facto demotion for you" move is absolutely in play here. As far as the listed examples of sanctions go, "getting your rear end fired from the company" isn't on the list. On confidentiality, they say "Every reasonable effort should be made to conduct all investigations into allegations of harassment, intimidation, or discrimination in a manner that will protect the confidentiality of all parties. Notwithstanding the above, confidentiality is not absolute, and those with a legitimate business reason to know and to be informed of the allegations will be so informed. Parties to the complaint should treat the matter under investigation with discretion and respect for the reputation of all parties involved." In other words, the accuser and accused alike are expected to remain quiet, but if someone with a legitimate business interest asks they might be told about what's going on. Ick. Lastly, on "false accusations": "It is a violation of this policy for a member to knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently disregard the truth when making a claim of harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Failure to prove a claim of unlawful harassment is not, by itself, equivalent to a false claim. Neither should a thorough investigation to be sure a claim is not being made for other reasons (e.g. political disagreement, competitors, racial bias, gender bias) be taken as assumption of the claim being false." The bolded bit a) makes me convinced that they wrote this entire policy whilst thinking about the accusations of antisemitism that Holden levelled at Suleiman and b) sounds like a near-guarantee that accusers should expect a "thorough investigation" (which may well resemble intrusive pestering) to see if they're really legit. Nice. I hope that the other people at GAMA recognise this for the dangerously shoddy policy that it is, and I hope Green Ronin sober up fast and stop pissing what's left of their goodwill down their leg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
That... is not a good policy, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
cargohills posted:To be fair I'm sure they'd rather not get sued for publicly calling someone a sexual harasser. This is before a third party is even involved. They're basically saying "if you're offended by someone's behavior you need to go through a jury of your peers to decide if it's actually offensive first."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Warthur posted:(So they're treating this like a quasi-judicial procedure, which is not the point of a harassment policy. Companies, conventions, LARP events, tabletop meetups and gaming clubs do not have to hold themselves to a judicial standard!) Yeah, I left this point out of my post. By comparing the policy to (US) workplace harassment legal stuff, I'm not saying that the policy should be quasi-judicial; I'm saying that it fails to be reasonable even by those overly strict standards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:This is before a third party is even involved. They're basically saying "if you're offended by someone's behavior you need to go through a jury of your peers to decide if it's actually offensive first." The Green Ronin bubble have absolutely lost their minds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Again I feel like this has to be contrasted with the This STOP concept not only seems like it would require an even greater commitment of resources to enact while being way less effective. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Mar 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
For one of our old monthly design contests, I wrote up Dungeons of Dr.agony, which I probably should finish as a single- page rules set someday...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Again I feel like this has to be contrasted with the Critical Role situation, which had an wildly unexpected outcome but because of the pains they took to create reasonable standards and avoid conflict of interest, that outcome remains credible. Did you actually mean the One Shot situation, or did Critical Role also have a harassment claim that they managed well that I didn't hear about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Did you actually mean the One Shot situation, or did Critical Role also have a harassment claim that they managed well that I didn't hear about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Meanwhile on RPG.net armchair pedants are nitpicking and deflecting and talking like this is a good faith attempt that's worth seriously discussing and debating to see if it can be refined into something useful. gently caress that noise. You do not watch what's been going down in this community as long as Green Ronin have, and make the progressive noises that Green Ronin have for as long as they've been making them, and then turn around and turf out a squalid poo poo of a policy like that and then get to claim ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Is there not, like, a Model Sexual Harassment Policy somewhere, written by a women's organization, that you could just copy and paste? That seems like something that probably exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Note that "Hearsay should not be considered. Hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while attesting during a hearing, and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible by law in both civil and criminal trials." Green Ronin got fleeced by the legal experts they supposedly paid to review this because depending on the venue hearsay evidence can absolutely be admissible; here's the UK's Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on it, which I found with literally five seconds of Googling. Yeah, that policy makes no sense. "Hearsay" is only a thing in the context of an actual court proceeding. Hearsay evidence also (in the US at least, dunno about the UK/Commonwealth/whatever) by definition does not include "an admission by a party opponent," which includes, e.g. the defendant in a criminal case. quote:Finally, look at this laughable statement on standards of proof: "A finding of harassment or false reporting can have consequences for the accuser and/or accused, and so a finding of harassment or false reporting should be based on a clear and convincing standard of evidence. In a typical civil dispute, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence (50.1% or more). In a criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of evidence and less than beyond a reasonable doubt." "Clear and convincing evidence", a/k/a the "middle burden," is a real thing. All of the various standards of proof, from "reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts" (the standard used in the US to decide whether police officers are entitled to pull over someone for drunk driving who hasn't actually violated a traffic law) to "beyond a reasonable doubt" are all hazy borderlands with lovely vague definitions. For example, whoever told them that "preponderance of the evidence" actually means "50.1%" is an idiot. "Preponderance…" means "the greater weight of the credible evidence," which is to say, someone has proven something to the preponderance of the evidence to you if, after you hear all of the evidence that was presented to you, you can say, "well, reasonable people can disagree about this, but based on what I heard, personally I think it's most likely that X, even if it's not by a particularly wide margin." The percentage standards that lawyers bandy about among themselves are not for public consumption as they're shorthand or jargon at best, and conceal the actual work of judging credibility and sorting out inferences that a jury or other factfinder is asked to do. Where they hosed up is that they should have been able to articulate a more principled reason why they selected the middle burden. One reason for imposing the middle burden on a party is that the party seeks quasi-penal consequences from the other party. For example, when someone is trying to have a person civilly committed for mental illness, the middle burden is often imposed. Everything has "consequences," and the policy should have been able to articulate why the particular consequences (here, getting frowned at by gamers for a while maybe?) are bad enough to justify imposing the middle burden. The whole thing makes me wonder who the hell they talked to to draft this policy. What it reminds me of is the administrative screen-in gatekeeper levels that show up in various situations (e.g. reports to child protection are often reviewed and investigated for "substantiation" at a probable-cause level of proof before they are escalated to a full-on judicial process, the National Labor Relations Board also reviews complaints similarly) but that kind of gateway is pretty inappropriate for a captive-shop arbitrator. In fact, speaking of the NLRB, I would like to see how much water the excuse "well we did investigate EMPLOYEE's claim of sexual harassment and we found significant evidence of misconduct by their coworker/superior/other but they were unable to substantiate it to the standard of clear and convincing evidence so we disciplined her for false reporting" would carry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
One Shot's response was amazing and while not every allegation deserves that level of scrutiny it should be what companies go for in serious allegations. Green Ronin is going further in the exact other direction. And Nicole seems to be using her own trauma as a shield for how she handled the whole thing while also putting forward a blanket refusal to discuss the situation, combined with this thing they want to make standard that seems to repeat GR and Lindroos' earlier 'but what about the falsely accused' crap but in actual codified rules. Rules that keep the same bullshit level of opaqueness and uncertainty that made this whole situation worse to begin with. Are they trying to be terrible here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
some loving LIAR posted:"Clear and convincing evidence", a/k/a the "middle burden," is a real thing. quote:All of the various standards of proof, from "reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts" (the standard used in the US to decide whether police officers are entitled to pull over someone for drunk driving who hasn't actually violated a traffic law) to "beyond a reasonable doubt" are all hazy borderlands with lovely vague definitions. For example, whoever told them that "preponderance of the evidence" actually means "50.1%" is an idiot. "Preponderance…" means "the greater weight of the credible evidence," which is to say, someone has proven something to the preponderance of the evidence to you if, after you hear all of the evidence that was presented to you, you can say, "well, reasonable people can disagree about this, but based on what I heard, personally I think it's most likely that X, even if it's not by a particularly wide margin." The percentage standards that lawyers bandy about among themselves are not for public consumption as they're shorthand or jargon at best, and conceal the actual work of judging credibility and sorting out inferences that a jury or other factfinder is asked to do. That said, if you pick a specific, known standard of proof people can at least look at the literature on it. These things are studied, discussed, explained in far greater detail than the space in the policy provides. You can educate yourself to understand them. The problem with the way this section was phrased is that it doesn't look like "Clear and convincing evidence" is a real thing - it scans like it's a new thing they've made up which exists between the other two standards. And if it reads that way to someone with an admittedly quite specialised and niche understanding of law, it sure as poo poo is going to read that way to laypeople - which means they don't even know it's a subject they can go research. quote:Where they hosed up is that they should have been able to articulate a more principled reason why they selected the middle burden. One reason for imposing the middle burden on a party is that the party seeks quasi-penal consequences from the other party. For example, when someone is trying to have a person civilly committed for mental illness, the middle burden is often imposed. Everything has "consequences," and the policy should have been able to articulate why the particular consequences (here, getting frowned at by gamers for a while maybe?) are bad enough to justify imposing the middle burden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
"But what about the falsely accused?" "Well if they've been genuinely falsely accused they should be open and honest and provide evidence that needs refuting." "But that's work! Clearly the victims need to bear the bulk of this burden."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Hey, there's that fantastic rpgnet moderation in effect again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Eh, I was genuinely asking for it. Amusing how far Tango Samurai had to go before the moderators even looked sideways at them, mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Asmodee North America's Keynote at GAMA has changed their policy from a minimum advertised price on all Asmodee products of 80% to 90%. They're also putting in a Games Workshop-esque "bestsellers" program where if you carry a minimum level of stock on all the "bestsellers" on the list, they provide some discounts/trade credit, demo units, and free fixtures. Current list of bestsellers are: quote:Catan,
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
It's been reported (and this is a big dose of a pinch of salt) that Eurazeo might be looking to sell Asmodee for 2 billion euros https://www.boursier.com/actions/actualites/news/eurazeo-fin-de-partie-avec-asmodee-759686.html Bad google translate quote:(Boursier.com) - The French game publisher Asmodée is about to leave the fold of Eurazeo . That's at least what Bloomberg learned from a source familiar with the situation, which mentioned an amount of 2 billion euros, a multiple of 20 times the Ebitda 2017 valued at 80 ME (a level very high by industry standards). The holding company had bought the controlling block in Montefiore in 2014. Its investment amounted to 145 million euros, according to the data on the Eurazeo website, which states that it holds a control representing 79.7 million euros. % of the capital and a percentage of interest of 59.8%. The group occupies four of the seven seats on the board of directors. Discussions are still in the preliminary stages and a status quo is still possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Asmodee North America's Keynote at GAMA has changed their policy from a minimum advertised price on all Asmodee products of 80% to 90%. On the plus side for the UK, they can't do those 'minimum advertised prices' in the EU, it's just you lot across the pond who get stuck with them. On the other hand, the claims about their acquisition of FFG was that it would improve the flow of products and availability, and likewise the purchase of Esdevium for distribution, but if anything it's gotten worse. FFG's communication has become non-existant, and there are now star wars rpg books that were announced over a year ago, and still haven't been released (3 books have been 'on the boat' for nearly 4 months, while one other has been released that shifted status at the same time). Esdevium (EU distributors) only shipped enough copies to just about cover pre-orders (which stores had to do in august last year.) And then weirdly, despite the book coming out in the US 3 weeks ago, they slapped a release embargo on it in the UK so stores couldn't get it into people's hands until tomorrow. Similarly about 14 books are 'out of stock' and some have been for 6+ months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
PST posted:It's been reported (and this is a big dose of a pinch of salt) that Eurazeo might be looking to sell Asmodee for 2 billion euros It's a shockingly good Google translate, actually. Only mistake is a rogue "million euros" between 79.7 and % (no idea how it got there). The rest is 100% accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:It's a shockingly good Google translate, actually. Only mistake is a rogue "million euros" between 79.7 and % (no idea how it got there). The rest is 100% accurate. Good google! My back of the napkin maths has them at about 1.5 times WotC size, and 2.5 times GW size in earnings but waaay above them in EBITDA (because they don't have stores and so on).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Does Green Ronin still have some sort of working relationship with Suleiman? I don't get why you wouldn't drop his rear end as fast as possible at this point. Oh right, then that'd be them admitting some kind of serious fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:Does Green Ronin still have some sort of working relationship with Suleiman? I don't get why you wouldn't drop his rear end as fast as possible at this point. Oh right, then that'd be them admitting some kind of serious fault. Because the TG industry is garbage hth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 02:52
|
|
