D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

Elfcrusher said:

.Because, you know, people pretending to love D&D in order to further their careers and get dates with supermodels are lurking behind every Settlers of Catan display rack.

Click to expand...

Just so you know, and only slightly off topic, if hiding behind Settlers of Catan would get me those results....

FrogReaver said:

Here's what I think. WOTC hired whoever they thought would benefit them the most in a combination of marketing, design, legal etc. It definitely looks right and good to have more women on their team especially in an environment where tech companies are constantly coming under fire for their stats on women. I have no problem with that given todays environment. There's a lot of reasons to bump a woman to the top of the list even if her expertise in her direct area of hire may not be quite as impressive as someone elses. Anyways we can speculate endlessly on why, and maybe she was hired solely based on merit, but I honestly don't care either way because it's fine they hired whoever they felt would give their company the most success for whatever reasons those were.

The issue I have is a bit broader. It's that we have gotten to the point where diversity (something outside an employees control) is often touted as more important than meritocracy (the one thing they can control). That's the root cause of people questioning many women and minorities that get hired for high and important positions. If it makes such good business sense to hire such people (as I believe it does for the reasons I outlined above) then it opens up many doubts about whether it was actually because of merit or because of sex or race.

It's socio-political-legal push for diversity in the workplace that is causing the doubts about merit. I do believe in a diverse workplace, but even moreso I believe in a merit based workplace. Diversity is great but never at the expense of merit.

Click to expand...

You may very well be genuine in your use of 'meritocracy' but be aware that the meritocracy argument has become a favorite tactic of the alt-right in defending white supremacy. What is merit? Well, if you are measuring the things that the dominant socio-demographic group has has the most access to, then guess who is going to have the most merit? It's a self-perpetuating definition of merit.

Again, maybe that's not what you were thinking. I'm just saying that the meritocracy argument has become a euphemism, and is suspect.

You wrote:

It definitely looks right and good to have more women on their team especially in an environment where tech companies are constantly coming under fire for their stats on women.

Click to expand...

In other words, the fact that she is a woman brings nothing to the table other than external optics. Because "merit" would be: RPG publishing experience, deep knowledge of complex rule systems, DMing skill, etc.

What that doesn't leave room for is that the people doing the hiring may have a very different definition of merit. They may have said, "Gosh, we have a ton of expertise about mechanics and adventure writing and game publishing, but for years we've been lacking A, B, and C, and we would put out much better products, and maybe evolve the genre as a whole, if we could bring in some new ideas and new points of view."

The world is full of examples where far-sighted leaders brought in "unqualified" outsiders, much to the consternation of their short-sighted underlings, who then started a revolution.

Example: Jony Ives had never designed a computer before he started consulting to Apple. I'm sure a bunch of people who had designed computers grumbled about this.

So, yeah, anyway, I'm all for meritocracy as well. But merit can easily be defined too narrowly, and sometimes it is done so intentionally or subconsciously in order to restrict access.

Elfcrusher said:

You may very well be genuine in your use of 'meritocracy' but be aware that the meritocracy argument has become a favorite tactic of the alt-right in defending white supremacy. What is merit? Well, if you are measuring the things that the dominant socio-demographic group has has the most access to, then guess who is going to have the most merit? It's a self-perpetuating definition of merit.

Again, maybe that's not what you were thinking. I'm just saying that the meritocracy argument has become a euphemism, and is suspect.

You wrote:

In other words, the fact that she is a woman brings nothing to the table other than external optics. Because "merit" would be: RPG publishing experience, deep knowledge of complex rule systems, DMing skill, etc.

What that doesn't leave room for is that the people doing the hiring may have a very different definition of merit. They may have said, "Gosh, we have a ton of expertise about mechanics and adventure writing and game publishing, but for years we've been lacking A, B, and C, and we would put out much better products, and maybe evolve the genre as a whole, if we could bring in some new ideas and new points of view."

The world is full of examples where far-sighted leaders brought in "unqualified" outsiders, much to the consternation of their short-sighted underlings, who then started a revolution.

Example: Jony Ives had never designed a computer before he started consulting to Apple. I'm sure a bunch of people who had designed computers grumbled about this.

So, yeah, anyway, I'm all for meritocracy as well. But merit can easily be defined too narrowly, and sometimes it is done so intentionally or subconsciously in order to restrict access.

Click to expand...

When someone start talking ALT RIGHT I tune out. It's liberal attack gibberish IMO. It has no place in any productive discussion with anyone.

Parmandur said:

Kate Welch Tweeted today about the table she is DMing at ECCC:

hey... wanna play D&D with me at ECCC?? two tickets left at my table at https://t.co/yTvNyRpbRD (and one ticket left at [MENTION=13127]chrisp[/MENTION]erkinsDnD's table if you're into that or whatever)

So, she is a known DM in the Seattle D&D community.

Click to expand...

It's funny, because she's probably now going to be scrutinized for her DMing style. There is 0 requirement that she is a public DM. She would fulfill the requirements for the job if she has only DM'd private games.

It's not always the case, but if a man is posting on forums then not only do people not have a problem with his claim that he DMs, it is mostly assumed that if he is into D&D enough to post on forums he probably DMs.

But here we have a woman who has made D&D a central part of her life. She has been hired for a designer position in D&D which has a requirement of DM experience, and yet people still think she hasn't been a DM before.

Being a DM is also the easiest requirement to fulfill for that job. I am sure it is there to ensure the person has a real interest in D&D and isn't just a game designer.

LordEntrails said:

Nearly 2 decades ago I didn't get into the college of my first choice. The admissions officer told me it was because I wasn't a minority, I wasn't a woman, and I wasn't an athlete. It sucked. Things beyond my control kept me from something I wanted. Just like many woman and minorities have suffered from since the beginning of civilization.

Click to expand...

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.

In any event, I've read recently...and believe, based on observations from my current gig...that legacies (kids of alumni) and athletes suck up more competitive slots than minorities do. Not only is it larger numbers, but there isn't even a social justice argument: it's purely mercenary. Where's all the outrage and lawsuits about those two categories? I mean, you hear some grumbling, but nowhere near on the scale that affirmative action is attacked.

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.

In any event, I've read recently...and believe, based on observations from my current gig...that legacies (kids of alumni) and athletes suck up more competitive slots than minorities do. Not only is it larger numbers, but there isn't even a social justice argument: it's purely mercenary. Where's all the outrage and lawsuits about those two categories? I mean, you hear some grumbling, but nowhere near on the scale that affirmative action is attacked.

Click to expand...

Awareness may be the biggest thing there. There is also a shred of legitimiacy when you say you gave someones kid a slot because they went there. I don't think its "right" but more legitimate sounding than saying we gave X a spot because of a prohibited basis.

Elfcrusher said:

No and we never will. Which leaves each of us to simply believe whatever we find most plausible.

A) Some will believe the worst: that political correctness was a factor, and/or that it's a snub of long-term, hard-core fans, etc.

B) Others will believe that MM & Co. chose who they thought would contribute the most, which may have included the desire to have more women on a team that develops products enjoyed by lots of women.

Where you stand says a lot about who you are.

I'm a B.

Click to expand...

I'm a B too.

FrogReaver said:

When someone start talking ALT RIGHT I tune out. It's liberal attack gibberish IMO. It has no place in any productive discussion with anyone.

Click to expand...

Why? It exists, it's a term used by that group to describe themselves, and we all know what it means. I'm not saying anybody who grumbles about feminism is a card-carrying member, but I think it's fair to ascribe certain tactics and arguments to the alt-right.

But if you have another shorthand term to describe "nationalistic with white supremacist and paternalistic tendencies, dressed up for polite company and with a quasi-intellectual basis" I'd be happy to try it out.

Steven Pinker recently got into trouble for saying at a conference:

...political correctness has done an enormous amount of harm in the sliver of the population that might be — I wouldn’t want to say ‘persuadable,’ but certainly whose affiliation might be up for grabs....the often highly literate, highly intelligent people who gravitate to the alt-right: internet savvy, media savvy, who often are radicalized in that way, who ‘swallow the red pill,’ as the saying goes, the allusion from ‘The Matrix.’

Click to expand...

He was talking about how the arguments of the alt-right seem more intellectual and less overtly racist (e.g. "meritocracy") than the blatant white supremacist stuff, and it is appealing and seductive to people fed up with political correctness. Or maybe who saw 'lesser qualified' students of color get into the college they got rejected from and are bitter and angry and receptive to messages that validate their anger.

(The reason he got into trouble is that Richard Spencer and his ilk cherry-picked the phrases "political correctness has done an enormous amount of harm" and "the often highly literate, highly intelligent people who gravitate to the alt-right" and spread it across the Internet.)

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...

I would agree in today's society. I'm not so sure it was that irregular for them to admit that back 20 years ago. It was fairly common knowledge that minorities had easier admissions in the early 2000's than non-minorities. That information had to come from somewhere and maybe demographic admissions info is public record somewhere or maybe admissions officers did say those things or maybe both.

FrogReaver said:

Awareness may be the biggest thing there. There is also a shred of legitimiacy when you say you gave someones kid a slot because they went there. I don't think its "right" but more legitimate sounding than saying we gave X a spot because of a prohibited basis.

Click to expand...

Why? Purely because of the legal difference? Or because it makes good business sense to admit the children of wealthy alumni?