D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Xeviat]

Actually... The way that language is used in everyday affairs is what is correct. Grammarians have to play catch up to actual usage... Silly notions of what they once concidered proper be damned. If language wasn't constantly evolving, we'd still be speaking whatever pre-Proto-European language that all languages (presumably) evolved from.

The common statement in my circles is that grammarian nitpicking is often seen as a microagression and a form of racism, or in this case sexism.

 

[HJFudge]

...I read this whole thing, not realizing until halfway through that most of the posts were from a year ago. I had to finish just to finish.

I caught up to the 'recent' stuff and, well, I dunno. I have mixed feelings on all this guys. Mearls judgment of character due to the Zak S fiasco is pretty suspect. When the whole Zak S thing went down, people were 'shocked, SHOCKED' but the signs had been there for *years*. It came as no surprise to me, personally. "Yeah, that tracks" was pretty much my reaction. Still, sometimes people can be fooled...but then Mearls seemed to double down on the defense of Zakky and it just made me cringe.

His righteous outrage and indignation (well meant, in the original tweet this post was started on) seems more like posturing in hindsight.

Another takeaway from this thread: A lot of people really hate gatekeeping, because they don't realize that gatekeeping is what everyone does on a daily basis to keep them and their social circle safe. I 100% gatekeep at my tables. I vet every player to ensure they won't be an issue and that they'll play nice with my tables expectations. This is for both my benefit and the benefit of the person being 'gatekept'. I have expectations at my table that there will be a high level of respect shown to me and my players. I also have expectations for niggly things like 'I do not allow you to just pick up and roll dice willy nilly, I will tell you when to roll.'

Basically, its not a table everyone would be comfortable at. So its best that I curate who is a good fit and who is not. That is gatekeeping. It, like any tool, can be used with ill intent and for nefarious purposes. But don't knock the tool: It's too useful to get rid of.

 

[the Jester]

1) The thing that most people are upset with Mearls about here isn't the "firing gatekeepers" thing. Rather, people were upset by the fact that when noted vile garbage person Zak Smith was brought on to consult playtest consult for D&D 5e Mearls repeatedly stood up for and defended Zak. Then insulted the people who claimed to have been hurt personally by Zak as "attention seekers". Then forwarded privately sent messages warning Mearls about Zak directly to Zak, a man who, it bears repeating because this was common knowledge even back then (with much worse stuff only coming to light later) with a history of leading harassment campaigns against his detractors. In other words, Mike Mearls did a series of bad things, some of which may or may not have been defensible given what information he was privy to at the time and some of which almost certainly are not.

I keep seeing this allegation, but the only thing that I have seen to back it up was a poorly-worded tweet from Mearls and the same accusations running round and round the interwebz. So to be clear, this is the take on it a bunch of people online have. But I haven't seen anything to back up the accusation that Mearls forwarded emails to Zak S, despite asking repeatedly when the topic comes up.. If he did, that was awful; however, that's an accusation that is, to the best of my knowledge, lacking evidence. That's not to say this take is wrong, but rather to point out that it seems to be assuming a lot.

2) WotC responded to (much later) revelations that Zak S was a rapist and abuser along with being an obnoxious internet bully and made a weaksauce statement insisting that Zak was only a consultantplaytesterconsultantplaytester and that his special thanks in 5e PHB credits would be removed in future prints, and people were upset because they didn't think it was enough.

I'm not really sure what else people wanted them to do. He doesn't work for them.

 

[Gradine]

This is the evidence most people point to when making that claim, which is, admittedly, not exactly a smoking gun. The truth seems to be less "Mearls forwarded people's complaints to Zak" and more "Mearls inadvertently name-dropped two critics to a man who is notorious for launching harassment campaigns against his critics" at least as far as the evidence lies, which is definitely not the same thing, but... it's still pretty terrible. Just less intentionally so, I guess.

In case it hadn't been clear, I'm honestly largely ambivalent on this crap at this point. Fred Hicks was doing almost exactly the same awful crap at around basically the same time-frame (though at least Fred apologized for it later), back when OSR was the Big Hot Thing and bigger designers were desperate to pander to that audience in any way possible. Again, a direct apology or some indication a lesson was learned by all this would be really, really nice, but it appears to be asking for too much from WotC or Mearls at this point and it's pretty obvious the pressure for it just doesn't exist anymore.

Enabling a serial harasser and abuser is pretty awful mistake that ends up getting a lot more people hurt, and that deserves an apology, but at the end of the day, it's still just a mistake. You learn from it and do better in the future.

I just... I just hope they actually learned from it.

Edit: By the by, I apologize for my own part in perpetuating a rumor that didn't seem to have much leg to stand on. I've taken the liberty to edit the wording in my previous post to more accurately describe the bad thing Mearls did in this instance.

 

[Morrus]

Another takeaway from this thread: A lot of people really hate gatekeeping, because they don't realize that gatekeeping is what everyone does on a daily basis to keep them and their social circle safe. I 100% gatekeep at my tables. I vet every player to ensure they won't be an issue and that they'll play nice with my tables expectations. This is for both my benefit and the benefit of the person being 'gatekept'. I have expectations at my table that there will be a high level of respect shown to me and my players. I also have expectations for niggly things like 'I do not allow you to just pick up and roll dice willy nilly, I will tell you when to roll.'

Basically, its not a table everyone would be comfortable at. So its best that I curate who is a good fit and who is not. That is gatekeeping. It, like any tool, can be used with ill intent and for nefarious purposes. But don't knock the tool: It's too useful to get rid of.

That’s not what people mean by ‘gatekeeping’.

It’s not about keeping problematic individuals from your home game. It’s about keeping demographics from your hobby.

Gatekeeping is about demographics, not individuals.

 

[Azzy]

Then it should be pretty easy to provide a link to it.

It would be equally easy for you to read the thread. But, since that's hard, have a link regarding his behaviour and another one. If you think that I'm being snide, it's because every time this subject comes up on ENWorld, someone inevitably calls out "where's the evidence" while not having read the whole thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Gradine]

I'm not really sure what else people wanted them to do. He doesn't work for them.

They repeatedly publicly defended him when multiple people tried to tell them what an awful toxic person and harasser he was, and then, as if that wasn't enough, Mearls specifically was caught bad-mouthing and insulting said accusers behind their backs. You don't think that warrants, at bear minimum, a "We're sorry?" Maybe a "We should have listened, and we will do a better job of that in the future?"

They won't, of course, because corporate lawyers and culpability and yadda yadda but I think it's a little much to say that "So it's JUST NOW COME TO LIGHT that one of our many playtesters was a bad person, we'll be removing their credits in future prints, that's all we have to say on the subject" ought to be sufficient to the people Zak hurt that spent years trying to warn them, if not the broader community.

 

[HJFudge]

That’s not what people mean by ‘gatekeeping’.

It’s not about keeping problematic individuals from your home game. It’s about keeping demographics from your hobby.

Gatekeeping is about demographics, not individuals.

They may not MEAN that. However, then I'd kindly request they use a different word that doesn't mean that. Because that is what the word Gatekeeping refers to.

It is, by definition, the activity of controlling (and usually limiting) access to something.

I think the word/phrase that probably should be used is 'Being a Dick'. Or 'Oppressing.' They are not gatekeepers, but Oppressors. Gatekeeping has no negative context. I guess maybe it does now to some? I guess I missed the memo! But it just sounds like a bunch of people who didn't know what the word actually means decided to weaponize it and then when someone pointed out they were using the word incorrectly they decided to double down rather than admit a minor error. A common thing on the internet, to be sure, and its whatever.

Anyway, anyone who uses gatekeeping in that context is probably better off using the word Oppress/oppressor.

 

[Gradine]

It would be equally easy for you to read the thread. But, since that's hard, have a link regarding his behaviour and another one. If you think that I'm being snide, it's because every time this subject comes up on ENWorld, someone inevitably calls out "where's the evidence" while not having read the whole thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To be fair, I think the thing they were asking for evidence for was the "Mearls doxxed accusers to Zak S" trope, which is oft-repeated but less backed-up (to the extent that I couldn't find anyone who claims to be a victim of said doxxing, which would at least be a start). The truth, in this case, seemed to be more an inadvertent naming, which, given the things Zak S was being accused of and was frankly well-known for before this whole thing even started, was something Mearls should have never done in the first place.

 

[Morrus]

They may not MEAN that. However, then I'd kindly request they use a different word that doesn't mean that. Because that is what the word Gatekeeping refers to.

It is, by definition, the activity of controlling (and usually limiting) access to something.

I do not think that the world will acquiesce to your request. Sorry. You’ll just have to shout at the clouds.