D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

Elfcrusher said:

Not calling you a liar, and not saying colleges don't base admissions on that, but that would be highly irregular for them to admit that to a rejected candidate. Unbelievably, egregiously, mind-bogglingly irregular.

Click to expand...

So by not calling me a liar but then saying my story is "highly irregular" and "Unbelievably, egregiously, mind-bogglingly irregular." you certainly are implying I am lying.

Just like all those people who dismissed stories about Larry Nassar, Harvey Weinstein, Ben Veeren, Charlie Sheen, John Besh... Need I go on?

Dismissing or belittling a story because you find it unlikely, especially when you normally seems to purport thoughtful consideration, is shameful. I hope you hang your head low for at least a few seconds after you consider what you almost got away with.

DocMoriartty said:

So Mike Mearls whose entire job depends on people buying his products decided to swing a massively broad brush and insult 90% of his customer base because of the actions of a couple percent of his customers?

Mike Mearls, you didnt just FAIL at customer relations, you EPIC FAILED.

Do everyone a favor and stay off Twitter, your offensive.

Click to expand...

Nah, I think he insulted less than 10% of his customer base. The rest of us agree with him.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

DocMoriartty said:

No, but it could be used as a reason for people to ask more and more questions about her qualifications to join WOTC that have nothing at all to do with her gender.

Would a guy whose stated that his preferred play style get the same questions? Quite possibly, just like if Ford hired a new engineer for the Mustang design team and that designer was quoted as saying "the only good car is one with an Inline 4" you would expect an avalanche of questions by Mustang fans afraid that their car is going to turn into the new Ford Focus.

The problem is somewhere along the way someone said something, or someone decided to infer that all the questions were due to her gender and Mike Mearls fired off a hasty tweet. Maybe there were lots of questions that made it obvious that gender was an issue, maybe it was inferred by Mike Mearls and others. I do not know, I am not going to read through the entire firestorm of comments to find out.

You also have the fact that someone people DO use gender, age, race, orientation as the root of their attack, just like you will some people use the same gender, age, race, orientation as the core of their defense. Try critiquing the actions of Israel without getting called a racist jew hater and you can see how it goes both ways.

In the end WOTC hired someone whose preferred game type as stated by that person is different from most games being played. Questions arose and it all eventually became a storm. I think the fears are overblown, I serioualy doubt the hire of one role-play heavy designer is suddenly going to turn DnD into Vampire: The Masquerade.

Click to expand...

I think her statement about her games tending to be more roleplay heavy versus combat heavy are being exaggerated.

I don’t think it’s a problem to have a preferred mode of play. Or even to prefer that a designer share that preferred mode. But just because a single new hire has stated that her playstyle is slightly less combat heavy than what’s “typical”, I don’t think it’s cause for alarm.

I wouldn’t say that everyone who expresses such concerns is doing so due to misogyny. But it certainly does seem to be happening to slme extent.

Ultimately though, Mearls is specifically calling out people who are being sexist.

jgsugden said:

Read the tweet again. Ask what connection he draws, and then ask what it says about people that want a strategy focus over lore focus. Then read my argument again. Then mail me a check for $320. (Worth a shot).

Click to expand...

The connection he draws is people who are gatekeeping and people who are sexist. Two behaviors with clearly negative connotations.

Yes, he mentions complex rules and lore, but only in the context that gatekeepers can use those as obstacles to keep others from entering the hobby. So a preference for or enjoyment of complex rules or intricate lore are not problems in and of themselves, but only when they are used to keep others from the hobby.

So yeah....no check for you.

redrick said:

Being called a sexist, or, as is mostly the case, being told that something I did was sexist, is like being told my fly is down, or that I stink. It's mortifying. It hurts. And I think the instinct, for me, at least, and for a lot of people I know, is to get defensive. "I'm not sexist!" But, really, of course, the response should be to go find the nearest shower, to zip my fly up, to think about what I did that was sexist, racist, discriminatory, and take that as an opportunity to learn.

That's the invitation I would make to people. Being told to "check your privilege" as the phrase goes, is like being told to check your fly. It's embarrassing, but it's, ultimately, an opportunity. Or, hey, stare that jerk down and keep walking around with your fly open for all the world to see. It's a free country, gosh darnit!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant it more along the lines of something like 'willfully sexist'.

This is why it is important to recognize our privilege. It isn't about being ashamed about having privilege, it is about recognizing that we have different lived experiences which will likely cause us to behave poorly from time to time. Then when someone comes along and lets us know about it we can check ourselves.

I'm better than I used to be, and in 10 years time I will hopefully be better than I am today.

hawkeyefan said:

...Yes, he mentions complex rules and lore, but only in the context that gatekeepers can use those as obstacles to keep others from entering the hobby. So a preference for or enjoyment of complex rules or intricate lore are not problems in and of themselves, but only when they are used to keep others from the hobby...

Click to expand...

He draws the connect between the two. The CLEAR implication is that the criticism of her strategy/lore balance is indicative of sexism.

He talks about how many of the "fans" focused on rule complexity over lore density ALSO have a problem with women in gaming. He DIRECTLY correlates them. He is saying that criticizing her focus on lore over strategy is indicative of sexism - that the vast majority of people unwilling to support hiring people with limited rules focus are doing it because they're sexist. As I discussed, that is unfair and - in my experience - unfairly applied. I know a number of brilliant female strategists - rules lawyers, field generals, tricksters, and gamers of many colors. They might very well have doubts about her (I have not asked, but will). Isn't that counter indicative of his postulated correlation between 'people that prefer their game makers to be rules focused' and 'sexism'?

I also accept Paypal.

Sacrosanct said:

Am I the only one who is getting really sick and tired of every white man who complains against AA saying they were refused admission to their top college because they were white (which never is actually proven to be true and yet literally every single white guy has that story), and white guys acting like they are the oppressed anytime the workforce even starts to reflect what the actual demographics are?

Click to expand...

Since I'm the only one I've noticed who brought up college admissions, I'll respond. Not to your venomous and toxic attitude, but rather to what you are apparently trying to say.
1) I did not complain about affirmative action. I said it sucked to be a victim of discrimination.
2) Yes, in fact discrimination against white males has been proven to be true. Not as often as discrimination against minorities, but it is part of the reason that racial quotas in college admissions are illegal. Do your homework actually question the "facts" you are given that support your firmly held beliefs.
3) I acknowledged that I had benefited from the circumstances of my birth. What you call "White Male Privilege".
4) I never stated or implied that I was complaining or felt repressed because I have been discriminated against.
5) I actually strongly implied that the discrimination I have faced is minimal and near trivial compared to that which the majority of the population has faced.
6) I stated personal facts, you are the one implying some social agenda behind them.

Sacrosanct said:

... So you trying to silence me based on your own inaccurate assumptions of my motivations and what WMP actually is, is not only not your place to do so, but is actively harmful. ...

Click to expand...

Actually, I felt [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION] was trying to help you by pointing out your venomous attitude (he was much more considerate in his terms) is not productive to furthering your argument or views. That by being so aggressive in your statement and accusatory of others that don't immediately line up with your viewpoints, means that your arguments are not going to sway those who hold views different than you towards your viewpoint. All they will do is get those that already share your views to stand behind you and cheer, while those not already with you will withdraw, and either become more adamant in their views, or simple withdraw from conversation with you. Neither of which helps your cause.

aaa

ad_hoc said:

Yeah, I meant it more along the lines of something like 'willfully sexist'.

This is why it is important to recognize our privilege. It isn't about being ashamed about having privilege, it is about recognizing that we have different lived experiences which will likely cause us to behave poorly from time to time. Then when someone comes along and lets us know about it we can check ourselves.

I'm better than I used to be, and in 10 years time I will hopefully be better than I am today.

Click to expand...

There might even come a time where you're willing to admit male white Jews and Muslims (for example) can be subject to racism! [This is calling back to a few days ago when you said white males cannot be subject to racism in a white and male dominated society - making most Jews and Muslims boggle at being all of white, male, and routinely subject to discrimination]

jgsugden said:

He draws the connect between the two. The CLEAR implication is that the criticism of her strategy/lore balance is indicative of sexism.

He talks about how many of the "fans" focused on rule complexity over lore density ALSO have a problem with women in gaming. He DIRECTLY correlates them. He is saying that criticizing her focus on lore over strategy is indicative of sexism - that the vast majority of people unwilling to support hiring people with limited rules focus are doing it because they're sexist. As I discussed, that is unfair and - in my experience - unfairly applied. I know a number of brilliant female strategists - rules lawyers, field generals, tricksters, and gamers of many colors. They might very well have doubts about her (I have not asked, but will). Isn't that counter indicative of his postulated correlation between 'people that prefer their game makers to be rules focused' and 'sexism'?

I also accept Paypal.

Click to expand...

That's not what he says, though.

He correlates gatekeeping, specifically via rules complexity and lore density, to having a problem with women in tabletop gaming. "Rules complexity and lore density" are together, lumped in his tweet. He doesn't imply a preference of one over the other, he refers to both as a means of gatekeeping. To parse his logic to a ridiculous degree, neither rules complexity nor lore density are criticized, it is only when both are used together to enforce "gatekeeping" that they correlate to problems with women in gaming.

He doesn't suggest that a focus on one over the other creates gatekeeping, it's both. Therefore, nothing in Mike's tweet has anything to do, expressly or impliedly, with a strategy/lore balance.

I'm not set up for PayPal, but if you want to send me money I'll go set it up real quick...