Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the FLG website:


No word has come out on what has led to him being let go at this time, nor if the Chapter Tactics podcast will continue under a new host, but with his involvement in the US tournament scene I felt it was worth sharing.

Who? And what did he do?

 Mr. Grey wrote:
Who? And what did he do?

He hosts the Chapter Tactics podcast, used to do event coordination for FLG and ran FLG's second hand model shop.

And we don't know what he did.

I gotta be blunt, that's a really poor way to handle the situation. Either you say nothing beyond "he doesn't work for us any more, we won't be saying any more about it than that", or you say it all re: what he did and let people draw their own conclusions.

The halfway house of making vague, unspecified but clearly serious allegations against someone but not substantiating or even explaining them in any way is basically just a character assassination. He may well have done something really bad, but from that statement, all you get is "FLG hereby expels Pablo from the tribe! Shun him!" and that's not a professional way to do business.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I gotta be blunt, that's a really poor way to handle the situation. Either you say nothing beyond "he doesn't work for us any more, we won't be saying any more about it than that", or you say it all re: what he did and let people draw their own conclusions.

The halfway house of making vague, unspecified but clearly serious allegations against someone but not substantiating or even explaining them in any way is basically just a character assassination. He may well have done something really bad, but from that statement, all you get is "FLG hereby expels Pablo from the tribe! Shun him!" and that's not a professional way to do business.

There's a few reasons to stay quiet, like if there is some kind of legal proceedings tied to the problem, or if they're trying to let him save face out of respect of their past work relationship. But yeah, no idea what caused this and the fact they didn't say anything for two weeks doesn't help either.

He used one thick coat.

You might say nothing beyond "he no longer works for us" because of legal issues. You wouldn't say that. And you also wouldn't say that to try to let someone save face, that sort of unspecified allegation is the most damaging of all because it can't be refuted or even engaged. That is an unspecific broadside against someone's entire character, even complete with "don't trust him if he approaches you." It's just a poor way to handle the situation, even if he did do something really bad.

Agree with Yukishiro.

"Behaved in a manner not in keeping with our values" could mean "Told an off colour joke." or it could mean "Raped and murdered someone."

If you want to make accusations, make clear accusations, otherwise just use one of those well tuned PR cliches "We have decided to part ways to pursue other projects." or some such.

Anybody who ever says 'Normally, we wouldn't be writing about this sort of thing' while writing about that sort of thing is exactly the sort of person/organisation who would totally write about that sort of thing.

A dubious man that takes the shape of a rhino. He must have done a horrible thing, because generaly if something happens and you end up getting kicked out, the school or employer wants zero info being spread around about it. They only do it, if someone can go up to them with question of the , what have you been doing when this person was doing those illegal and aweful things, followed by law suit for not having employee under control.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You might say nothing beyond "he no longer works for us" because of legal issues. You wouldn't say that. And you also wouldn't say that to try to let someone save face, that sort of unspecified allegation is the most damaging of all because it can't be refuted or even engaged. That is an unspecific broadside against someone's entire character, even complete with "don't trust him if he approaches you." It's just a poor way to handle the situation, even if he did do something really bad.

I couldn't agree more.

You don't make an implication against someone professionally, without some kind of justification. This statement is full of implicit implication against the guys character, yet there is no such justification. Did he simply hurt the companies bottom line, or did he do something outright illegal?

They've literally stated that customers need to be protected from him and what he did. Alright, thanks for that - so as your customers, exactly what is it you are protecting us from?

It feels like slander intended to damage a reputation, if just left like this.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You might say nothing beyond "he no longer works for us" because of legal issues. You wouldn't say that. And you also wouldn't say that to try to let someone save face, that sort of unspecified allegation is the most damaging of all because it can't be refuted or even engaged. That is an unspecific broadside against someone's entire character, even complete with "don't trust him if he approaches you." It's just a poor way to handle the situation, even if he did do something really bad.

So do you just let him quietly use his association with you (even if it's clear that he's no longer affiliated with you, he certainly has connections, resources, and social capital built up from when he was that wouldn't go away with a simple 'he is not affiliated with us anymore') to possibly do more untoward things in the future?

Not saying this is the correct way to deal with it but I can see why they would want to do something more severe than 'he no longer works for us'.

But that again raises the question of why?

FLG don't want him to go around being a "regular" ex-employee that just doesn't work there anymore (but may continue to use his contacts and reputation in the hobby to maybe do his own thing) and evidently want it to be "known" that there was something bad/unsavoury/character-related, not just a regular employer-employee-split, but also don't say what the "bad act" in question is/was? Did he use a naughty word at Reece? Did he defraud the company and embezzle money? Did he start a Tau army? Now it's all up to speculation, which IMO isn't ideal.

Why don't they just go face to face to him and tell that if he keeps using their stuff and contacts, they will take the stuff to court or snitch on him to the police?

That is at least how it works here. Either you leave and your papers stay clean, but you are never allowed name your employer. Or you yapp around, but then you get a visit from the police and the tax police, and if the employer really doesn't like you, they send our version of the FDA after your mother, and make her life a living hell.

ERJAK wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
You might say nothing beyond "he no longer works for us" because of legal issues. You wouldn't say that. And you also wouldn't say that to try to let someone save face, that sort of unspecified allegation is the most damaging of all because it can't be refuted or even engaged. That is an unspecific broadside against someone's entire character, even complete with "don't trust him if he approaches you." It's just a poor way to handle the situation, even if he did do something really bad.

So do you just let him quietly use his association with you (even if it's clear that he's no longer affiliated with you, he certainly has connections, resources, and social capital built up from when he was that wouldn't go away with a simple 'he is not affiliated with us anymore') to possibly do more untoward things in the future?

Not saying this is the correct way to deal with it but I can see why they would want to do something more severe than 'he no longer works for us'.

That would be a reason to make a specific statement re: what he did. There are valid reasons both to do the safe "he no longer works for us any more and doesn't represent us in any way" and the "this is what he did and why we fired him." The only thing there is never a good reason to do is what they did, make vague defamatory accusations against someone's character without providing the details necessary for anyone to evaluate the situation. Like an angry facebook post from a jilted lover, it just comes across as an effort to make everyone take sides in what could be nothing more than a personal dispute.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
But that again raises the question of why?

FLG don't want him to go around being a "regular" ex-employee that just doesn't work there anymore (but may continue to use his contacts and reputation in the hobby to maybe do his own thing) and evidently want it to be "known" that there was something bad/unsavoury/character-related, not just a regular employer-employee-split, but also don't say what the "bad act" in question is/was? Did he use a naughty word at Reece? Did he defraud the company and embezzle money? Did he start a Tau army? Now it's all up to speculation, which IMO isn't ideal.

It sounds deadly serious, I am afraid we can’t rule out the worst offense possible… Yes… He may very well have started a TAU ARMY !!!! That leads a man straight to Death row

He better have done something obviously (and provably) extremely serious, else I cannot imagine this isn't a law suit waiting to happen.

I don't know how things work in the US, but here you can't legally so much as give an employee a 'bad' reference without opening yourself up to serious problems (if they were awful, you tend to simply confirm the dates they worked for you and pretty much nothing more). This statement surely is going to affect anything he tries to do in this industry going forward, and possibly any other.

 addnid wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
But that again raises the question of why?

FLG don't want him to go around being a "regular" ex-employee that just doesn't work there anymore (but may continue to use his contacts and reputation in the hobby to maybe do his own thing) and evidently want it to be "known" that there was something bad/unsavoury/character-related, not just a regular employer-employee-split, but also don't say what the "bad act" in question is/was? Did he use a naughty word at Reece? Did he defraud the company and embezzle money? Did he start a Tau army? Now it's all up to speculation, which IMO isn't ideal.

It sounds deadly serious, I am afraid we can’t rule out the worst offense possible… Yes… He may very well have started a TAU ARMY !!!! That leads a man straight to Death row

Or he shaved Reese's mustache while Reese was sleeping?

Lord Damocles wrote:Anybody who ever says 'Normally, we wouldn't be writing about this sort of thing' while writing about that sort of thing is exactly the sort of person/organisation who would totally write about that sort of thing.

Kinda sums up how I've felt about FLG for a long time.

Just come out and say what they did, no beating around the bush.

If they breached your trust, say why.

 StrayIight wrote:
I don't know how things work in the US, but here you can't legally so much as give an employee a 'bad' reference without opening yourself up to serious problems (if they were awful, you tend to simply confirm the dates they worked for you and pretty much nothing more). This statement surely is going to affect anything he tries to do in this industry going forward, and possibly any other.

It is the same in the US. If you (the person taking the call from a prospective employer regarding an awful former employee) are pressed for further information, your reply is, "I'm sorry, but you will have to contact our HR department." If the caller has sufficient experience, they'll understand the "code", thank you for your time and end the call. Have only had to do that once. The other time, the inquiry was about a good former employee so I was happy to give them a good evaluation.

Karol wrote:
Why don't they just go face to face to him and tell that if he keeps using their stuff and contacts, they will take the stuff to court or snitch on him to the police?

That is at least how it works here. Either you leave and your papers stay clean, but you are never allowed name your employer. Or you yapp around, but then you get a visit from the police and the tax police, and if the employer really doesn't like you, they send our version of the FDA after your mother, and make her life a living hell.

The... Food and Drug Administration?

Reads a bit like the sort of messages you see regarding people who have left Scientology - shun the heretic, that sort of thing.

While trying to sound professional, they've ended up sounding the least like it.

Meh whatever. Extremely weird statement, bit at least chapter tactics podcast will likely improve.

One possibility about the lack of details could be for legal reasons. They may not have been permitted to share details but still needed to address this and distance the brand from Pablo.

Voss wrote:

Karol wrote:
Why don't they just go face to face to him and tell that if he keeps using their stuff and contacts, they will take the stuff to court or snitch on him to the police?

That is at least how it works here. Either you leave and your papers stay clean, but you are never allowed name your employer. Or you yapp around, but then you get a visit from the police and the tax police, and if the employer really doesn't like you, they send our version of the FDA after your mother, and make her life a living hell.

The... Food and Drug Administration?

yep. poted plants outside the house or balcony. danger to other people. potatoes in the celler, unregulated storing of food. And God help your mom, if she made some plump juice or jam add too much suger to it, and it turned in to some for of alcohol. Because that falls under production of alcohol without a license, and if they can prove it was shared with other people or that it was made within 400m of a school or church, it can not just be a ticket, but actual prison time. Well more like 2years on probation, but go explain that to your mother. Plus the court costs are going to be huge.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
One possibility about the lack of details could be for legal reasons. They may not have been permitted to share details but still needed to address this and distance the brand from Pablo.

What they did is more legally problematic than just stating what actually happened. No lawyer would advise that sort of vague yet defamatory statement, it's exactly what you don't want to do.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
One possibility about the lack of details could be for legal reasons. They may not have been permitted to share details but still needed to address this and distance the brand from Pablo.

What they did is more legally problematic than just stating what actually happened. No lawyer would advise that sort of vague yet defamatory statement, it's exactly what you don't want to do.

While true it's not like people don't put their foot in their mouths even when lawyers give advice. They clearly wanted to protect the brand from association with Pablo for one reason or another and did so in a poor manner.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
One possibility about the lack of details could be for legal reasons. They may not have been permitted to share details but still needed to address this and distance the brand from Pablo.

What they did is more legally problematic than just stating what actually happened. No lawyer would advise that sort of vague yet defamatory statement, it's exactly what you don't want to do.

While true it's not like people don't put their foot in their mouths even when lawyers give advice. They clearly wanted to protect the brand from association with Pablo for one reason or another and did so in a poor manner.

"He did some stuff that affected our company in a negative way, but instead of giving details we're going to warn you to stay away from him and don't trust anything he says or does for you in the vaguest possible manner without any details whatsoever. He was fired to limit damage to FLG and protect our customers but we're not actually going to tell you what he did so that you have an idea of why to stay away from him. Good luck guys, FLG out!"

It's definitely not a professional way to let go of a former employee, it makes you look a lot worse than the person being fired, especially if you have no context for why that person is getting the boot.