Markdoc

Part of me goes "Eh". As speaker he was neither effective nor effectual - he basically got nothing done during his tenure. The other part of me suspects that his sucessor will make him look pretty good.
 
cheers, Mark

Great news.
But the article is right, this is a big problem in the US: it's not just one sleazebag financier. This is a growing problem, and it's got little to do with the pharma industry per se: these specialist drugs have been around for decades without companies trying to pull this kind of ****. The reason is that for a real pharma company that makes and sells multiple products, the damage to their brand is not worth the relatively small, quick profit off one niche drug like this.
 
But over the last 15 years, we've seen an influx of guys like the one in this case, who are actually financiers. Thier business model is to find a single product that has a monopoly, borrow a bunch of money and buy it, jack the price up as high as they possibly can and skim off as much profit as possible. Typically, what will happen is that when the price goes skyhigh, another generics company will get in on the action, but, as noted, that takes a few years. The new generic competitor can make a decent profit by undercutting the skyhigh price, but of course that price is usually way above the initial starting price.
 
When that happens the financier usually jumps ship at his own company. Burdened with the debt he took on to buy the product, but without the skyhigh prices needed to sustain that debt, it crashes and burns, the financier walks off with a huge profit, and goes looking for another drug to repeat the process.
 
The sytem is like a rachet, inevitably forcing up the prices of all kinds of products. It's not just medicines: this happens throught the US healthcare system. We recently went through a similar process with the special cleaning fluid used to clean and disinfect a lot of machinery like dialysis machines and blood pumps.
 
I should note though, that this is a US problem, not a global one. It doesn't happen in other developed countries. Fixing the problem requires two things the US healthcare industry will fight to the death: pricing transparency and open markets.
 
Cheers, Mark

I've taught a lot of people to play hero system, having started up no less than 5 groups over the years, plus converted a number of fellow GMs over to Hero. I've also successfully run Con games. The players in those have ranged from a few people with some Hero experience to people who had never played an RPG before, not even on the computer. The games I've run tend toward epic fantasy games (epic in the sense that they run for 4-5 years real time, not that they involved earth-shatteringly powerful characters), but I have also run shorter games: fantasy, pulp, WH40K, horror and the occasional supers game. I even ran a short, but popular fantasy supers campaign, based very, very loosely on Nine Princes in Amber, and most recently a game (detailed here http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/88214-impromptu-hero-old-school-adventures-with-indie-style/?do=findComment&comment=2335876) where a bunch of Hero noobies generated new characters from scratch and played a full game, all in the course of a single evening.
 
I have found the following guidelines to be indispensible.
 
1) As GM, you have to be prepared to do the heavy lifting initially. That includes character generation and combat during play. The character generation pathway for new (or even experienced) players always starts with me explaining what kind of game I am going to run and then discussing what kind of character the player wants to play, so that we get something that fits. I also try to get the player to give me a reason their PC will become an adventurer. I use example characters a lot as illustrations - normally using cinematic or fantasy characters that the player knows as an example, rather than a character sheet. Only once we have a general archetype and rough background do I even begin to consider mechanics and with new players I build the character, with as much input as I can get. There is also an explicit agreement with the player that the design can be tweaked during the first few sessions, so it perfoms the way they want.
 
2) It is far easier, for everyone involved, to start with lower points totals and fairly simple constructs. I typically start fantasy games at 75 points (50 + 25 disad.s) and supers games at 250 points.
 
3) This should be self-evident, but if you want to hook your players you have to have a good game. If you are starting with players who have little or no RPG experience (especially adults), sending them into a hole in the ground to slaughter and loot random monsters simply may not cut it. I like to try and hook the players' interest in the story, rather than  worrying about the game mechanics initially. I find that mysteries or specific tasks (deliver the Mcguffin to the NPC, find out what happened to a missing person, etc) work well for this. The last campaign I ran started with all the PCs coming to a small town to compete in a series of games at a festival, and then solve a murder mystery that occurred during the festival. That let me highlight the mechanics of play in an environment that was unlikely to kill anyone off, while planting the seeds for the subsequent story arc. The campaign before that started with an assignment to find a a missing person and a lot of strangely unhelpful villagers. The one before that started with a lethal jack-in-the box and a rain of fishes ...
 
4) Ideally, mechanics should be transparent or invisible to players, unless they actually want them. To that end, I like to keep character sheets as simple as possible (the example linked to above was kind of an extreme in this regard) . This also means more heavy lifting for the GM. You really need to be able to adjudicate combat and skill use on the fly. I can totally identify with the players who want fantasy combat to be fast furious and easy to play. With Hero system and a good GM, it both can be and (IMO) should be. I play regularly in a Pathfinder group and can guarantee you that fantasy hero combat in my game runs faster and more fluidly. Partly that's because there are fewer temporary modifiers to track  in Hero system, but largely it's because I don't require players to deal with the minutae of combat - they can tell me what to do in plain language and I handle the mechanics, with some feedback like "You're really going to have to run as fast as you can to hit him over there - that's going to make it hard to land a hit". As time goes on, those who are interested get the mechanics, so they can do their calculations themselves, those who don't want it don't need it. They know what a haymaker or a moveby means in combat, so they can use it, even if they can't calculate it themselves. To make life easier on myself and the players I have simplified combat a bit, but nothing drastic.
 
5) Actually, I don't think there is a point 5. That's basically it.
 
cheers, Mark

I've taught a lot of people to play hero system, having started up no less than 5 groups over the years, plus converted a number of fellow GMs over to Hero. I've also successfully run Con games. The players in those have ranged from a few people with some Hero experience to people who had never played an RPG before, not even on the computer. The games I've run tend toward epic fantasy games (epic in the sense that they run for 4-5 years real time, not that they involved earth-shatteringly powerful characters), but I have also run shorter games: fantasy, pulp, WH40K, horror and the occasional supers game. I even ran a short, but popular fantasy supers campaign, based very, very loosely on Nine Princes in Amber, and most recently a game (detailed here http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/88214-impromptu-hero-old-school-adventures-with-indie-style/?do=findComment&comment=2335876) where a bunch of Hero noobies generated new characters from scratch and played a full game, all in the course of a single evening.
 
I have found the following guidelines to be indispensible.
 
1) As GM, you have to be prepared to do the heavy lifting initially. That includes character generation and combat during play. The character generation pathway for new (or even experienced) players always starts with me explaining what kind of game I am going to run and then discussing what kind of character the player wants to play, so that we get something that fits. I also try to get the player to give me a reason their PC will become an adventurer. I use example characters a lot as illustrations - normally using cinematic or fantasy characters that the player knows as an example, rather than a character sheet. Only once we have a general archetype and rough background do I even begin to consider mechanics and with new players I build the character, with as much input as I can get. There is also an explicit agreement with the player that the design can be tweaked during the first few sessions, so it perfoms the way they want.
 
2) It is far easier, for everyone involved, to start with lower points totals and fairly simple constructs. I typically start fantasy games at 75 points (50 + 25 disad.s) and supers games at 250 points.
 
3) This should be self-evident, but if you want to hook your players you have to have a good game. If you are starting with players who have little or no RPG experience (especially adults), sending them into a hole in the ground to slaughter and loot random monsters simply may not cut it. I like to try and hook the players' interest in the story, rather than  worrying about the game mechanics initially. I find that mysteries or specific tasks (deliver the Mcguffin to the NPC, find out what happened to a missing person, etc) work well for this. The last campaign I ran started with all the PCs coming to a small town to compete in a series of games at a festival, and then solve a murder mystery that occurred during the festival. That let me highlight the mechanics of play in an environment that was unlikely to kill anyone off, while planting the seeds for the subsequent story arc. The campaign before that started with an assignment to find a a missing person and a lot of strangely unhelpful villagers. The one before that started with a lethal jack-in-the box and a rain of fishes ...
 
4) Ideally, mechanics should be transparent or invisible to players, unless they actually want them. To that end, I like to keep character sheets as simple as possible (the example linked to above was kind of an extreme in this regard) . This also means more heavy lifting for the GM. You really need to be able to adjudicate combat and skill use on the fly. I can totally identify with the players who want fantasy combat to be fast furious and easy to play. With Hero system and a good GM, it both can be and (IMO) should be. I play regularly in a Pathfinder group and can guarantee you that fantasy hero combat in my game runs faster and more fluidly. Partly that's because there are fewer temporary modifiers to track  in Hero system, but largely it's because I don't require players to deal with the minutae of combat - they can tell me what to do in plain language and I handle the mechanics, with some feedback like "You're really going to have to run as fast as you can to hit him over there - that's going to make it hard to land a hit". As time goes on, those who are interested get the mechanics, so they can do their calculations themselves, those who don't want it don't need it. They know what a haymaker or a moveby means in combat, so they can use it, even if they can't calculate it themselves. To make life easier on myself and the players I have simplified combat a bit, but nothing drastic.
 
5) Actually, I don't think there is a point 5. That's basically it.
 
cheers, Mark

That parallel hasn't escaped the media or the politicians over here either. Why do you think Germany has stepped up to the bat, to take by far the largest number? They're saying they'll accept 800,000 refugees. The US and the UK have grudgingly said they'll take 10,000 each, with many other countries even further down the list.
 
But there's another interesting parallel to the 1930s - private citizens are forming refugee support groups, offering food, money legal help, even accomodation in their homes. By themselves, they won't be enough, but they are already having a wider effect by helping shame the politicians.
 
cheers, Mark

Agreed. The whole idea that there is such a thing as a "real geek" and a "fake geek" is so precious as to be laughable. There's a crapton of fandoms/hobbies out there, and people are immersed to a greater or lesser degree in some/many of them. There are also many geekdoms that have nothing to do with gaming or fantasy at all. There doesn't exist some platonic ideal  ubergeek who masters every geekdom in depth.
 
I like scifi and fantasy, medieval music, play RPGs and videogames. Have done since long, long before any of those things were cool. But I'm otherwise pretty straight-up: I also like most of the the things that white middle class males are supposed to like.  Does that make me a "real" geek? Or not? I'm pretty sure some people would say yes, and some would say no, but the smart ones would say such a question is, at base so asinine as to not waste any time worrying about it.
 
Personally, when I check my give-a-**** meter, it's not registering this question at all.
 
cheers, Mark

Get off my fandom, you darn kids!
 
I get the point you're making, but I absolutely don't buy it.
 
Star wars fandom, Star trek fandom - they're each a teeny-tiny piece of a very big universe. Geekery is far bigger (and far older) than that. When I was a kid geek, I was into (as well as fantasy/SF) medieval music. It was incredibly hard to actually get hold of, since the internet didn't exist and accessible catalogues were tiny. What mailing lists existed were, you know, actual mailing lists that were made on paper and  - well, they were mailed. We used to exchange cassette tapes, that we had made of material found wherever. Mailing someone a recording of a recording of a recording of a recording of a concert someone somebody knew had recorded at some castle in Wales ... that's pretty damn geeky right there.  And it's a geekdom that had virtually no overlap with my other music geekdom at the time - which was African music - despite the fact that it operated in precisely the same way. Divisions in geekdom have a long and dishonourable history.
 
On the comics/movie side of things, there were fandoms built around different comics (especially anime, but also eurocomics and British comics) complete with conventions and cosplay dating back decades. The earliest big comic cons started in the UK and the US in the '60's. Movies and books were the same, as were gaming cons. Fandoms have not become more isolated since the turn of the millennium - speaking as someone who has experienced it up close and personal, I can promise you that the exact reverse is true. As comics and movie geekery has been mainstreamed (and profitable!), the fandoms have become more accessible (and also much bigger) - and also broader in their range. It's a lot easier to be a geek in multiple fandoms when it's readily accessible online.
 
I think you are right that the "real geek/fake geek" thing is a grognard attitude (not all grognards are old) - it's a desire to have a little area all of your own where the other kids can't play. That's not new. I met people like that in fandom 30 years ago, and I don't doubt that the attitude is much more ancient. But that attitude didn't define or determine fandom back then and it doesn't today either. Because of course, real fans - like real geeks - by which I mean people who are really interested in some kind of fandom - welcome people with an interest in their pet topic, even though not all of them are (or will become) hardcore. They always have, in my experience.
 
cheers, Mark

Get off my fandom, you darn kids!
 
I get the point you're making, but I absolutely don't buy it.
 
Star wars fandom, Star trek fandom - they're each a teeny-tiny piece of a very big universe. Geekery is far bigger (and far older) than that. When I was a kid geek, I was into (as well as fantasy/SF) medieval music. It was incredibly hard to actually get hold of, since the internet didn't exist and accessible catalogues were tiny. What mailing lists existed were, you know, actual mailing lists that were made on paper and  - well, they were mailed. We used to exchange cassette tapes, that we had made of material found wherever. Mailing someone a recording of a recording of a recording of a recording of a concert someone somebody knew had recorded at some castle in Wales ... that's pretty damn geeky right there.  And it's a geekdom that had virtually no overlap with my other music geekdom at the time - which was African music - despite the fact that it operated in precisely the same way. Divisions in geekdom have a long and dishonourable history.
 
On the comics/movie side of things, there were fandoms built around different comics (especially anime, but also eurocomics and British comics) complete with conventions and cosplay dating back decades. The earliest big comic cons started in the UK and the US in the '60's. Movies and books were the same, as were gaming cons. Fandoms have not become more isolated since the turn of the millennium - speaking as someone who has experienced it up close and personal, I can promise you that the exact reverse is true. As comics and movie geekery has been mainstreamed (and profitable!), the fandoms have become more accessible (and also much bigger) - and also broader in their range. It's a lot easier to be a geek in multiple fandoms when it's readily accessible online.
 
I think you are right that the "real geek/fake geek" thing is a grognard attitude (not all grognards are old) - it's a desire to have a little area all of your own where the other kids can't play. That's not new. I met people like that in fandom 30 years ago, and I don't doubt that the attitude is much more ancient. But that attitude didn't define or determine fandom back then and it doesn't today either. Because of course, real fans - like real geeks - by which I mean people who are really interested in some kind of fandom - welcome people with an interest in their pet topic, even though not all of them are (or will become) hardcore. They always have, in my experience.
 
cheers, Mark

What the heck is an "actual sports fan"? Is there an exam? Some kind of certificate? Are you still allowed to attend sports events if you don't have the certificate? I've known plenty of sports fans who meet exactly the same criteria that you fulfill yourself. It doesn't seem to stop them  - or other people - identifying them as sports fans.
 
This makes the point that it's a ridiculous argument to start with. I know that there are people who actually feel that if you are not expert in their particular hobby, then you are not worth talking to - heck, I've met a few. But just as there is no such thing as an actual sports fan, there's no such thing as an actual geek. People have a gradient of interest (in sports, in games, in electronics, in whatever) - just like they have always had a gradient of interest, and frankly anyone who suggests that maybe you shouldn't take part because you know, you aren't an expert (as defined by a totally arbitrary personal scale) deserves a repeated slapping in the face with a well-aged fish. They're not fans and they're not geeks - they're just d***s.
 
There is no fast line defining a fan, or a geek, and there never has been. In reality, there never will be, because of course every fan started out with a less than comprehensive knowledge of their area of interest.
 
cheers, Mark

Get off my fandom, you darn kids!
 
I get the point you're making, but I absolutely don't buy it.
 
Star wars fandom, Star trek fandom - they're each a teeny-tiny piece of a very big universe. Geekery is far bigger (and far older) than that. When I was a kid geek, I was into (as well as fantasy/SF) medieval music. It was incredibly hard to actually get hold of, since the internet didn't exist and accessible catalogues were tiny. What mailing lists existed were, you know, actual mailing lists that were made on paper and  - well, they were mailed. We used to exchange cassette tapes, that we had made of material found wherever. Mailing someone a recording of a recording of a recording of a recording of a concert someone somebody knew had recorded at some castle in Wales ... that's pretty damn geeky right there.  And it's a geekdom that had virtually no overlap with my other music geekdom at the time - which was African music - despite the fact that it operated in precisely the same way. Divisions in geekdom have a long and dishonourable history.
 
On the comics/movie side of things, there were fandoms built around different comics (especially anime, but also eurocomics and British comics) complete with conventions and cosplay dating back decades. The earliest big comic cons started in the UK and the US in the '60's. Movies and books were the same, as were gaming cons. Fandoms have not become more isolated since the turn of the millennium - speaking as someone who has experienced it up close and personal, I can promise you that the exact reverse is true. As comics and movie geekery has been mainstreamed (and profitable!), the fandoms have become more accessible (and also much bigger) - and also broader in their range. It's a lot easier to be a geek in multiple fandoms when it's readily accessible online.
 
I think you are right that the "real geek/fake geek" thing is a grognard attitude (not all grognards are old) - it's a desire to have a little area all of your own where the other kids can't play. That's not new. I met people like that in fandom 30 years ago, and I don't doubt that the attitude is much more ancient. But that attitude didn't define or determine fandom back then and it doesn't today either. Because of course, real fans - like real geeks - by which I mean people who are really interested in some kind of fandom - welcome people with an interest in their pet topic, even though not all of them are (or will become) hardcore. They always have, in my experience.
 
cheers, Mark

Get off my fandom, you darn kids!
 
I get the point you're making, but I absolutely don't buy it.
 
Star wars fandom, Star trek fandom - they're each a teeny-tiny piece of a very big universe. Geekery is far bigger (and far older) than that. When I was a kid geek, I was into (as well as fantasy/SF) medieval music. It was incredibly hard to actually get hold of, since the internet didn't exist and accessible catalogues were tiny. What mailing lists existed were, you know, actual mailing lists that were made on paper and  - well, they were mailed. We used to exchange cassette tapes, that we had made of material found wherever. Mailing someone a recording of a recording of a recording of a recording of a concert someone somebody knew had recorded at some castle in Wales ... that's pretty damn geeky right there.  And it's a geekdom that had virtually no overlap with my other music geekdom at the time - which was African music - despite the fact that it operated in precisely the same way. Divisions in geekdom have a long and dishonourable history.
 
On the comics/movie side of things, there were fandoms built around different comics (especially anime, but also eurocomics and British comics) complete with conventions and cosplay dating back decades. The earliest big comic cons started in the UK and the US in the '60's. Movies and books were the same, as were gaming cons. Fandoms have not become more isolated since the turn of the millennium - speaking as someone who has experienced it up close and personal, I can promise you that the exact reverse is true. As comics and movie geekery has been mainstreamed (and profitable!), the fandoms have become more accessible (and also much bigger) - and also broader in their range. It's a lot easier to be a geek in multiple fandoms when it's readily accessible online.
 
I think you are right that the "real geek/fake geek" thing is a grognard attitude (not all grognards are old) - it's a desire to have a little area all of your own where the other kids can't play. That's not new. I met people like that in fandom 30 years ago, and I don't doubt that the attitude is much more ancient. But that attitude didn't define or determine fandom back then and it doesn't today either. Because of course, real fans - like real geeks - by which I mean people who are really interested in some kind of fandom - welcome people with an interest in their pet topic, even though not all of them are (or will become) hardcore. They always have, in my experience.
 
cheers, Mark

What the heck is an "actual sports fan"? Is there an exam? Some kind of certificate? Are you still allowed to attend sports events if you don't have the certificate? I've known plenty of sports fans who meet exactly the same criteria that you fulfill yourself. It doesn't seem to stop them  - or other people - identifying them as sports fans.
 
This makes the point that it's a ridiculous argument to start with. I know that there are people who actually feel that if you are not expert in their particular hobby, then you are not worth talking to - heck, I've met a few. But just as there is no such thing as an actual sports fan, there's no such thing as an actual geek. People have a gradient of interest (in sports, in games, in electronics, in whatever) - just like they have always had a gradient of interest, and frankly anyone who suggests that maybe you shouldn't take part because you know, you aren't an expert (as defined by a totally arbitrary personal scale) deserves a repeated slapping in the face with a well-aged fish. They're not fans and they're not geeks - they're just d***s.
 
There is no fast line defining a fan, or a geek, and there never has been. In reality, there never will be, because of course every fan started out with a less than comprehensive knowledge of their area of interest.
 
cheers, Mark

Agreed. The whole idea that there is such a thing as a "real geek" and a "fake geek" is so precious as to be laughable. There's a crapton of fandoms/hobbies out there, and people are immersed to a greater or lesser degree in some/many of them. There are also many geekdoms that have nothing to do with gaming or fantasy at all. There doesn't exist some platonic ideal  ubergeek who masters every geekdom in depth.
 
I like scifi and fantasy, medieval music, play RPGs and videogames. Have done since long, long before any of those things were cool. But I'm otherwise pretty straight-up: I also like most of the the things that white middle class males are supposed to like.  Does that make me a "real" geek? Or not? I'm pretty sure some people would say yes, and some would say no, but the smart ones would say such a question is, at base so asinine as to not waste any time worrying about it.
 
Personally, when I check my give-a-**** meter, it's not registering this question at all.
 
cheers, Mark

Agreed. The whole idea that there is such a thing as a "real geek" and a "fake geek" is so precious as to be laughable. There's a crapton of fandoms/hobbies out there, and people are immersed to a greater or lesser degree in some/many of them. There are also many geekdoms that have nothing to do with gaming or fantasy at all. There doesn't exist some platonic ideal  ubergeek who masters every geekdom in depth.
 
I like scifi and fantasy, medieval music, play RPGs and videogames. Have done since long, long before any of those things were cool. But I'm otherwise pretty straight-up: I also like most of the the things that white middle class males are supposed to like.  Does that make me a "real" geek? Or not? I'm pretty sure some people would say yes, and some would say no, but the smart ones would say such a question is, at base so asinine as to not waste any time worrying about it.
 
Personally, when I check my give-a-**** meter, it's not registering this question at all.
 
cheers, Mark

Agreed. The whole idea that there is such a thing as a "real geek" and a "fake geek" is so precious as to be laughable. There's a crapton of fandoms/hobbies out there, and people are immersed to a greater or lesser degree in some/many of them. There are also many geekdoms that have nothing to do with gaming or fantasy at all. There doesn't exist some platonic ideal  ubergeek who masters every geekdom in depth.
 
I like scifi and fantasy, medieval music, play RPGs and videogames. Have done since long, long before any of those things were cool. But I'm otherwise pretty straight-up: I also like most of the the things that white middle class males are supposed to like.  Does that make me a "real" geek? Or not? I'm pretty sure some people would say yes, and some would say no, but the smart ones would say such a question is, at base so asinine as to not waste any time worrying about it.
 
Personally, when I check my give-a-**** meter, it's not registering this question at all.
 
cheers, Mark

I think this is the key. It looks to me like you don't want to accept what she says. Fair enough. I look at what she says and run it though a simple mental filter. Is what she says even credible? (It is). Are any of the people accused contradicting her? (They are not). Do other people involved support her claims? (They do). Does she have anything to gain financially? (She does not). Conclusion? She's probably telling the truth. I'll change my mind if contradicting evidence turns up, but for now, there is no reason to do so, unless one actively just doesn't want to. The fact that she's disgruntled means nothing at all, because if she's telling the truth, you'd *expect* her to be disgruntled.
 
Cheers, Mark

There's no problem with having a preference for shaved leg/pubes/face/whatever. The problem only comes into being if a person insists that others have to conform to their preference. I like redheads - always have. But I'm not insisting that women with hair another colour have some kind of problem. My morbid dislike of neckbeards is already documented upthread. I'm not advocating mandatory barbering though (although I can dream ....)
 
So yeah, the assumption that women have some sort of requirement to shave, when men don't is sexist - even more, since it has nothing to do with function but is overtly sexual in nature. And to be fair, any assumption that men have a requirement to shave - even their loathsome back fur* - would be an imposition.
 
Oddly enough, if both genders had a generally accepted requirement to shave unsightly hair, I guess it'd stop being sexist and merely become intrusive .
 
Cheers, Mark
 
*I never claimed to be without body prejudice - I'm just open that these are my own prejudices, not natural laws

I think this is the key. It looks to me like you don't want to accept what she says. Fair enough. I look at what she says and run it though a simple mental filter. Is what she says even credible? (It is). Are any of the people accused contradicting her? (They are not). Do other people involved support her claims? (They do). Does she have anything to gain financially? (She does not). Conclusion? She's probably telling the truth. I'll change my mind if contradicting evidence turns up, but for now, there is no reason to do so, unless one actively just doesn't want to. The fact that she's disgruntled means nothing at all, because if she's telling the truth, you'd *expect* her to be disgruntled.
 
Cheers, Mark

In Norway, all tax returns are public. Anybody can see what anybody else earns. Doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Some companies have an open pay policy. It also doesn't seem to cause problems. Many companies and institutions have fairly tight salary bands and which band you sit in is public.
 
The obsession with pay secrecy is an artifact of a system that rewards those who control often arbitrary pay awards. It's not naive to note that other systems are possible and appear to work as well or better - that's just recognition of reality. My last job was one were both payscale and bonuses were largely transparent (meaning pay grade and annual bonus were public, though the precise figure was not). My colleagues knew I earned more than they did, but there was no resentment because they also knew why. I knew who earned more than I did, and approximately by how much, but the same applied. So no, not naive - just aware.
 
Just because something is the status quo does not make it inevitable or the best system. I admit I'm hard pressed to think of a good reason for pay secrecy, even though I understand why it's a sensitive topic.
 
Blaming her for the fact that someone else might (but in fact, did not) take her initiative and use it wrongly smells strongly of grasping for a reason to blame her for something. You could use exactly the reason to claim that the accounts department should not release figures internally, because hey, what if someone leaked the company accounts?
 
When a group decision is made (for example company policy), of course there is pressure to join in. That is equally true of the "don't discuss salaries” rule.
 
I'm guessing from what you wrote, that you didn't read anything about this situation before posting, which to be honest, is a bit of a disappointment. To spell it out, the bonus she was denied WAS RECOMMENDED BY HER PEERS PRECISELY FOR SETTING UP THE SALARY SPREADSHEET. The colleague who worked with her to set it up WAS RECOMMENDED THE EXACT SAME BONUS FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON. There is, in this case, not the slightest shred of a reason to assume that he did something different to get his bonus - in fact, we are explicitly told the opposite. And to honest, the amount in question was utterly trivial, which means this whole discussion is almost certainly not about the money but about fairness.
 
To me, it doesn't look like what she did was counter to the company's wishes, but I can see reasonable grounds to disagree. But when one colleague gets a bonus for an initiative, and the other is denied a bonus for doing the exact same thing, that starts to smell a bit dubious. At the very least, it strongly supports her claim that pay is not being awarded on the basis of merit.
 
Cheers, Mark

I think this is the key. It looks to me like you don't want to accept what she says. Fair enough. I look at what she says and run it though a simple mental filter. Is what she says even credible? (It is). Are any of the people accused contradicting her? (They are not). Do other people involved support her claims? (They do). Does she have anything to gain financially? (She does not). Conclusion? She's probably telling the truth. I'll change my mind if contradicting evidence turns up, but for now, there is no reason to do so, unless one actively just doesn't want to. The fact that she's disgruntled means nothing at all, because if she's telling the truth, you'd *expect* her to be disgruntled.
 
Cheers, Mark

I think this is the key. It looks to me like you don't want to accept what she says. Fair enough. I look at what she says and run it though a simple mental filter. Is what she says even credible? (It is). Are any of the people accused contradicting her? (They are not). Do other people involved support her claims? (They do). Does she have anything to gain financially? (She does not). Conclusion? She's probably telling the truth. I'll change my mind if contradicting evidence turns up, but for now, there is no reason to do so, unless one actively just doesn't want to. The fact that she's disgruntled means nothing at all, because if she's telling the truth, you'd *expect* her to be disgruntled.
 
Cheers, Mark

That's bull.
 
Even when I disagree with her assessment, I've watched the "Debunking" videos and they're horsecrap as well. It's hard to look at the industry and not see how female characters are crapped on or objectified or that the industry treats women who make games as well as who buy them with disdain - even moreso than they do the penile bearing gamers. It's not as pervasive and overreaching (in my opinion) as she says it is, but it's also pretty flipping blatant and has been for about 30 years. 
 
Even if you don't like her, think everything she's doing is dumb, let's be honest: she critiques video games, that's it. She's done nothing to warrant death threats, rape threats and flash video games made of punching her face. Having a bunch of jacked up ninja wannabe game defenders throwing her home address on the internet and treating her worse than we do CONVICTED murderers is something I expect from 4chan and the mentally challenged. 

In Norway, all tax returns are public. Anybody can see what anybody else earns. Doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Some companies have an open pay policy. It also doesn't seem to cause problems. Many companies and institutions have fairly tight salary bands and which band you sit in is public.
 
The obsession with pay secrecy is an artifact of a system that rewards those who control often arbitrary pay awards. It's not naive to note that other systems are possible and appear to work as well or better - that's just recognition of reality. My last job was one were both payscale and bonuses were largely transparent (meaning pay grade and annual bonus were public, though the precise figure was not). My colleagues knew I earned more than they did, but there was no resentment because they also knew why. I knew who earned more than I did, and approximately by how much, but the same applied. So no, not naive - just aware.
 
Just because something is the status quo does not make it inevitable or the best system. I admit I'm hard pressed to think of a good reason for pay secrecy, even though I understand why it's a sensitive topic.
 
Blaming her for the fact that someone else might (but in fact, did not) take her initiative and use it wrongly smells strongly of grasping for a reason to blame her for something. You could use exactly the reason to claim that the accounts department should not release figures internally, because hey, what if someone leaked the company accounts?
 
When a group decision is made (for example company policy), of course there is pressure to join in. That is equally true of the "don't discuss salaries” rule.
 
I'm guessing from what you wrote, that you didn't read anything about this situation before posting, which to be honest, is a bit of a disappointment. To spell it out, the bonus she was denied WAS RECOMMENDED BY HER PEERS PRECISELY FOR SETTING UP THE SALARY SPREADSHEET. The colleague who worked with her to set it up WAS RECOMMENDED THE EXACT SAME BONUS FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON. There is, in this case, not the slightest shred of a reason to assume that he did something different to get his bonus - in fact, we are explicitly told the opposite. And to honest, the amount in question was utterly trivial, which means this whole discussion is almost certainly not about the money but about fairness.
 
To me, it doesn't look like what she did was counter to the company's wishes, but I can see reasonable grounds to disagree. But when one colleague gets a bonus for an initiative, and the other is denied a bonus for doing the exact same thing, that starts to smell a bit dubious. At the very least, it strongly supports her claim that pay is not being awarded on the basis of merit.
 
Cheers, Mark

In Norway, all tax returns are public. Anybody can see what anybody else earns. Doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Some companies have an open pay policy. It also doesn't seem to cause problems. Many companies and institutions have fairly tight salary bands and which band you sit in is public.
 
The obsession with pay secrecy is an artifact of a system that rewards those who control often arbitrary pay awards. It's not naive to note that other systems are possible and appear to work as well or better - that's just recognition of reality. My last job was one were both payscale and bonuses were largely transparent (meaning pay grade and annual bonus were public, though the precise figure was not). My colleagues knew I earned more than they did, but there was no resentment because they also knew why. I knew who earned more than I did, and approximately by how much, but the same applied. So no, not naive - just aware.
 
Just because something is the status quo does not make it inevitable or the best system. I admit I'm hard pressed to think of a good reason for pay secrecy, even though I understand why it's a sensitive topic.
 
Blaming her for the fact that someone else might (but in fact, did not) take her initiative and use it wrongly smells strongly of grasping for a reason to blame her for something. You could use exactly the reason to claim that the accounts department should not release figures internally, because hey, what if someone leaked the company accounts?
 
When a group decision is made (for example company policy), of course there is pressure to join in. That is equally true of the "don't discuss salaries” rule.
 
I'm guessing from what you wrote, that you didn't read anything about this situation before posting, which to be honest, is a bit of a disappointment. To spell it out, the bonus she was denied WAS RECOMMENDED BY HER PEERS PRECISELY FOR SETTING UP THE SALARY SPREADSHEET. The colleague who worked with her to set it up WAS RECOMMENDED THE EXACT SAME BONUS FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON. There is, in this case, not the slightest shred of a reason to assume that he did something different to get his bonus - in fact, we are explicitly told the opposite. And to honest, the amount in question was utterly trivial, which means this whole discussion is almost certainly not about the money but about fairness.
 
To me, it doesn't look like what she did was counter to the company's wishes, but I can see reasonable grounds to disagree. But when one colleague gets a bonus for an initiative, and the other is denied a bonus for doing the exact same thing, that starts to smell a bit dubious. At the very least, it strongly supports her claim that pay is not being awarded on the basis of merit.
 
Cheers, Mark