D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

Dausuul said:

Who would have thought that a system specifically designed to encourage people to speak without thinking, that blocks you from expressing anything complex or nuanced enough to require more than 280 characters, and that gets essentially zero moderation would turn out badly?

Click to expand...

That sounds like something a chaotic neutral potion maker might brew up on a Tuesday.

M.L. Martin said:

People are still upset about his handling of the Zak S situation, and the official WotC account doing a Pride-related promo set off the new wave.

Click to expand...

Meh, it's pretty muted at this point. 50 responses to a day-old tweet is not a really a "wave". The post's overall ratio is solid.

Look, Mearls spent his time in the doghouse, and they're not gonna fire the guy who shepherded their most successful version of the game ever.

It'd be nice if anybody admitted to at least learning a lesson from this whole debacle, but I'm sure the lawyers would say that would be akin to an admission of guilt and we absolutely can't have that. Apparently.

You'd think people would learn to stop expecting corporations to actually give a by this point.

This forum doesn't have a necromancy rule?

I wasn't as offended by this as I was afraid I would be. (I'm sure as hell no MRA, but I no longer support Posthuman Games because of their public statement many years ago firing fans who disagreed with them, but I somehow missed this.....BY 78 PAGES? JEEBUS ABOVE.)

This though honestly just feels like a momentary, spontaneous burst of genuine frustration, delivered off the cuff, not a deliberate crafted policy statement, and that makes a really big difference. I don't get the impression that he is actually making the declaration that D&D is so tolerant and inclusive and diverse that everyone who disagrees with him about anything can piss off forever. I did get that impression from the Posthuman's statement years ago.

For what it's worth, gatekeeping is bad (when it's based on someone's demographics: in general, if you're gatekeeping everyone equally, and the level of gatekeeping is not OBNOXIOUS, it's actually logical and socially normal, at least that's my hot take).

Gatekeeping women is especially bad because goddamnit I am so tired of this hobby being a sausage fest, you guys, but all other quote unquote minorities (I read somewhere that women are not, in fact, a minority?) should be welcome in D&D space as well. I'm going to have my first non-binary player (that I know of) soon, I think. Their pronouns are "they/them" which drives the grammarian in me ing CRAZY because those words are meant to refer to PLURAL entities, not SINGULAR entities but respecting people's pronouns is a thing so...am I 100% comfortable with this? Heck no. I'm still not entirely sure what non-binary even MEANS exactly after having done some cursory ignorance-rinsing research (thanks Bill Nye!). But it really doesn't matter if someone is a trans-asian weregoat if they can roleplay, are fun to play D&D with, and aren't a jerkass. Different strokes, folks, etcetera. I don't like actually think there's any need to keep stating this? but I didn't want to be misunderstood.

ParanoydStyle said:

Their pronouns are "they/them" which drives the grammarian in me ing CRAZY because those words are meant to refer to PLURAL entities, not SINGULAR entities but respecting people's pronouns is a thing

Click to expand...

You need to tell your inner grammarian to shut up on that - they has been used to refer to singular entities for centuries. It even appears in Shakespeare. It's really just a political weapon to use against people who don't want to stick with the binary he/she or use the masculine pronouns as generics.

Dausuul said:

Who would have thought that a system specifically designed to encourage people to speak without thinking, that blocks you from expressing anything complex or nuanced enough to require more than 280 characters, and that gets essentially zero moderation would turn out badly?

Click to expand...

I wish you could both laugh at something and give XP to it, but, having picked XP because XP IS LIFE, I want you to know I laughed.
[MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]d: if you just unironically said that "they" being a plural pronoun is "JUST" a "political weapon", as opposed to how the English language works... wow. I'm sorry but...I have no words for that, just laughter and/or tears. Not everything is political.

"they has been used to refer to singular entities for centuries. It even appears in Shakespeare."

Citations please, Citations! Shakespearian AND otherwise.

ParanoydStyle said:

Their pronouns are "they/them" which drives the grammarian in me ing CRAZY because those words are meant to refer to PLURAL entities, not SINGULAR entities but respecting people's pronouns is a thing so...am I 100% comfortable with this? Heck no.

Click to expand...

You're entirely incorrect that "they" only refers to plural entities.

"If the owner of a grey Peugot is in the store, would they please come to the customer service desk!"

Or straight from Wikipedia:

• "Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"
• "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
• "But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."

Mearls' "Firing" tweet

ParanoydStyle said:

Citations please, Citations! Shakespearian AND otherwise.

Click to expand...

Well, if you insist. These from that wiki page.

• "Every one must judge according to their own feelings." — Lord Byron, Werner (1823), quoted as "Every one must judge of [sic] their own feelings."
• "Had the Doctor been contented to take my dining tables as any body in their senses would have done ..." — Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (1814);
• "If the part deserve any comment, every considering Christian will make it to themselves as they go ..." — Daniel Defoe, The Family Instructor (1816);[54]
• "Every person's happiness depends in part upon the respect they meet in the world ..." — William Paley

billd91 said:

You need to tell your inner grammarian to shut up on that - they has been used to refer to singular entities for centuries. It even appears in Shakespeare. It's really just a political weapon to use against people who don't want to stick with the binary he/she or use the masculine pronouns as generics.

Click to expand...

It has been used for 700 years, but that doesn't make it grammatically correct. I recall my English professor who would go nuts at using a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent.

That all said, it's changed in how it's been used (as language is wont to do), and recently has been used for preferred gender identity. Really, there is no reason to not use it if that's what a person prefers. AFAIC, it should be a non issue. Call people what they want to be called. end of story

[MENTION=6984451]ParanoydStyle[/MENTION] [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

According to which style guide? Because there are a lot of them, and not all of them agree with each other over the use of singular they.