D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

ad_hoc said:

''..it is about recognizing that we have different lived experiences which will likely cause us to behave poorly from time to time.''

Click to expand...

See, to me this is just remembering folks are human. Best intentions, sometimes crappy behaviours. It does drive me a little nuts when such phrases used aggressively (and often, passive aggressively) because if there's something you learn in professions where the focus is on helping folks change is that folks will only change if they want to.

It's practically impossible to change someone, long term & healthily. They have to choose to change, want to. And pushing for change is a great way to build resistance in others, fortifying the beliefs and behaviours that those pushing would see changed.

My main critique with phrases like, 'check your privilege' is that, for better of for worse, they've become/becoming a cliche - and actually working against something which I believe has a decent, healthy intent. Perhaps its the popular platforms on which such catch-phrases are presented - and 'check your privilege', if not already, is fast becoming something as trite as a catch phrase).

Or perhaps its the tone of the worst of those that use it and similar phrases - those that don't want to take the time to promote change by encouraging and understanding those they are addressing but would rather shout/scream/stomp - to push and somehow forcibly change another. Yes, it is a vocal minority that engages with such behavior and that's all it takes for the damage to be done.

Ah heck, to each their own. I'm not a religious kinda tree and to my simple mind, forgiveness and compassion comes first before we can engage in a meaningful dialogue with others. And only through such dialogue can we truly encourage change.

Anyway - on topic:

Mearls still needs a beard. Because reasons - many of them. Each more reasonable than the last..

aaa

DocMoriartty said:

...
First off he does directly correlate not liking the new hire with elitism and sexism.
...

Click to expand...

It might have been helpful if he did. I read the tweet without having any idea what the hell he was talking about--it wasn't until I read a few posts down in the thread before I figured out it had something to do with Kate.

Re-reading the tweet with context, here's what I think he meant: "A lot of D&D fans have appointed themselves as guardians of the game's integrity and taken it upon themselves to resist our hiring decision based on their purity standards, which I think are sexist crap. Let me remind you that you don't work here, and don't represent this brand. Shut up."

I think the fact that his message came out in the form of his vague and unfocused little tweet-rant is a pretty clear indication of how much he got worked up over the thing. He's normally pretty careful with written communication.

Tanin Wulf said:

I would contend there are people I think need help with a topic who disagree with me (e.g. my children). I am assuming those folks need me. It's usually on me to know when its appropriate to insist on helping them and when it's better to step back, treat them as equals, or simply let them make mistakes.

EDIT: And I do agree with your last paragraph, quite strongly.

Click to expand...

epithet said:

It might have been helpful if he did. I read the tweet without having any idea what the hell he was talking about--it wasn't until I read a few posts down in the thread before I figured out it had something to do with Kate.

Re-reading the tweet with context, here's what I think he meant: "A lot of D&D fans have appointed themselves as guardians of the game's integrity and taken it upon themselves to resist our hiring decision based on their purity standards, which I think are sexist crap. Let me remind you that you don't work here, and don't represent this brand. Shut up."

I think the fact that his message came out in the form of his vague and unfocused little tweet-rant is a pretty clear indication of how much he got worked up over the thing. He's normally pretty careful with written communication.

Click to expand...

i agree with you.

I'd even add that he might have meant "Hey if you have sexist players at your table, boot them." At least that's one way of interpreting fired.

aaa

Error.

epithet said:

That's not what he says, though.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is.

He correlates gatekeeping, specifically via rules complexity and lore density, to having a problem with women in tabletop gaming.

Click to expand...

Yes. If you want to keep someone out of the game due to lore/rules complexity (which is the underpining of the strategy game discussion - rule sophistication is inherent in strategy game versus role game discussion), you're in a group highly correlated with sexism.

"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.

Click to expand...

This is an ireelevant distinction. We all know how the concepts are referenced in this context, regardless of whether he prioritized or compared them.

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.

Click to expand...

This is not ridiculous parsing. We all understand the reason he referenced lore and rules. He says that people that discuss them in the context of saying someone whould not work for WotC are highly correlated with sexism. I'm caling that unfair and inaccurate an basin that statement on my experience with a lot of gamers.

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.

Click to expand...

Forest for the trees, my man. We all know what comments were being made. Focusing on whether he EXPLICITLY said strategy/rules focuses is hiding the ball. But I'm 100% fine with putting any assumed, implied or obvious balance between these concepts aside. You agree that he is focused on gatekeeping based upon rules/lore. You agree that he correlates that to sexism. There is nothing inherently sexist about gatekeeping based upon rules and lore as they have no gender specific identity. I know men and women that have views across the spectrum as they relate to rules, and lore. His statement is unfair to them. If you refuse to acknowledge a particular valuation of rules and lore present in his statement in the context of this discussion, you can't deny that he is basing the argument on them as an underpining in some fashion... those are his exact words.

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

Click to expand...

Earn your pay.

Put your computer down. Take a break. Go back and read the tweet. What is the first understanding you take from it with fresh eyes?
Mine was something like, "Mearls thinks that people that are criticizing her lack of rules focus, as well as her heavy role playing focus, are just being sexist."

That is wrong. If you don't know many people that violate that presumption, you could benefit from meeting more people.

I wasn't parsing for style or charm, just for clarity. I absolutely feel that if a statement needed to be made in support of Kate and/or against the "gatekeepers," twitter was a poor choice of forum.

But then, I have no love for twitter, so your mileage may vary.

jgsugden said:

...
Earn your pay.

Put your computer down. Take a break. Go back and read the tweet. What is the first understanding you take from it with fresh eyes?
Mine was something like, "Mearls thinks that people that are criticizing her lack of rules focus, as well as her heavy role playing focus, are just being sexist."
...

Click to expand...

Mine was "Mearls thinks you shouldn't have to know what the effect of 3 levels of exhaustion are, the difference between a lich and a demilich, the damage type of a spiritual weapon, the resources restored on a short rest, the members of the Council of Eight, how many masked lords run Waterdeep, whether Lolth is a goddess or an archdemon, or any crap like that in order to be allowed to play Dungeons & Dragons, and to say otherwise is probably an effort to keep girls away."

When I re-read it with context, I figured he meant that D&D didn't need self-appointed guardians of the faith, and that he felt those self-appointed guardians had been sexist and rude and he was mad about it.

We should probably discuss my rates at this point. I'm not cheap.

aaa