D&D General Critical Role Investigation Into Complaint

A couple of weeks ago, Critical Role was accused of commissioning work from one of their community members, but of not paying for that work. The company immediately undertook to investigate the claim, and made this statement, indicating that no work was commissioned or received from the person in question, and no such agreement was in place.

The person who made the complaint referred to online bullying within the Critical Role fandom.

The full announcement reads:

 PRESS RELEASE

---

A couple weeks ago, an individual made statements online claiming that he provided work for Critical Role without payment. Critical Role took these allegations seriously and immediately sought to investigate the situation. After an extensive investigation directed by outside counsel, it has been concluded that Critical Role never established, or intended to establish, any employment, independent contractor relationship, consulting arrangement or any other type of work-related contract with that member of the community.

This individual voluntarily reached out to Critical Role with concerns around his own experience with online bullying. Critical Role does not condone online bullying or harassment of any kind, and an employee within the company listened with the sole purpose of being an understanding ear. The correspondences on Discord reflect an empathetic dialogue with a concerned member of the community and not the providing of any professional services to Critical Role by this individual. Nothing in the communications established any professional, employment, or contractual relationship with Critical Role. After months of casual interaction, the individual made an inquiry to the Critical Role employee about possibly being engaged by Critical Role as a consultant to the company. Upon receiving this request, the Critical Role employee immediately and clearly declined the request.

The importance of helping cultivate and encourage positive and inclusive spaces for Critters has always been a huge priority for us well before this interaction. Although we understand that there is only so much we can control within unofficial online communities and platforms, Critical Role has been working on new policies to ensure that we’re clear with you about what we stand for, and more importantly, what we do not stand for. You’ll hear more about this in the coming months.

Thank you for your ongoing support. Harassment of any kind is unacceptable, so please be kind, and don’t forget to love each other.

Critical Role

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Y

the last thing I would call Mearls is wise, even more so bout social media or emails....

Yeah, but I bet his Dex is 20. Damn munchkin powergamer...

 

[Haldrik]

Reddit - The heart of the internet

www.reddit.com

Reddit - The heart of the internet

www.reddit.com

https://twitter.com/askhistorians

When looking for a relevant topic I usually just Google "askhistorians [TopicName]".

The great thing about Twitter is that you choose who to follow. If you choose bad follows then Twitter will be bad. If you choose good ones then it will be good. It's my favourite form of social media. I find it best for threads and succinctly made points rather than debate though, so perhaps it's not what you're looking for.

Thanks for that!

I dont know what you are talking about but I will try figure it out.

Cool.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It could also be essentially a PR decision - they want to reinforce the idea that they take issues like this seriously, and that they're certain that this complaint has no merit - and they went the extra mile to make sure of that.

In other words, "internal investigation" might not have been a strong enough response, so they went a step further and hired an outside lawyer.

If you have the money to do that, this makes some sense.

Following up on this, I remember hearing years ago (so I'm not sure how things developed) that Mercer was a big voice advocating for the unionization of Voice Actors, getting them a whole bunch of rights and work environment improvements they've been denied by certain studios. Including not receiving proper payment for their work.

If he is still fighting that fight in the background, or at least a major advocate, then having an accusation of doing the same thing within his own studio would devastate his credibility and tank any progress he has made.


Though honestly, from everything I have seen and heard over the years, the idea that Mercer or some of the other crew members could purposefully do this to a fan of their work is just ridiculous. I know they are actors, and I know people change, but imagining the same man who cried over fan letters on a regular basis and has consistently plugged the same charity for years... It doesn't fit.

But spending attorney's fees to guarantee that his people aren't mistreating and exploiting fans? Yeah, that sounds like Mercer to me.

 

[Windjammer]

the idea that Mercer or some of the other crew members could purposefully do this to a fan of their work is just ridiculous.

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think this by itself solves the issue.
Typically, situations like the one described in the official statement are NOT the product of deliberate malice. More often, they are the product of miscommunication where one side's non-verbal conduct, or implied rather than conveyed communication, gives rise to expectations that the other party relies on. It's called promissory estoppel and happens more often than you think.

The reason my mind went there is because (1) the released statement's two opening paragraphs just scream "written by an attorney" to me (notice the drastic change of diction at the start of paragraph 3), and (2) those paragraphs completely side-step promissory estoppel and only say how CR "never established, or intended to establish, any employment." Well, good for them, but if the plaintiff wanted to argue promissory estoppel, this would not begin to address the issue. And when a lawyer side-steps an issue, it's usually because they don't feel confident enough to commit their client to a firmer statement. This doesn't mean that promissory estoppel happened, but it also doesn't mean it didn't.

In the end, I hope the situation is much more straightforward and is pretty much resolved. I stand by my first response though. To get a lawyer involved - not just consult them -, and have them conduct an extensive investigation, and then draft a carefully worded statement that would stand up by way of respondent's opening answer at pleading stage does NOT speak to me "oh, we're sorry, nothing we did could have given rise to this." They're likely innocent, but they're also really obviously and extensively covering their bases.

P.S. Necessary disclaimer. Nothing in this post is intended to or should be construed as legal advice in any shape or form.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think this by itself solves the issue.
Typically, situations like the one described in the official statement are NOT the product of deliberate malice. More often, they are the product of miscommunication where one side's non-verbal conduct, or implied rather than conveyed communication, gives rise to expectations that the other party relies on. It's called promissory estoppel and happens more often than you think.

The reason my mind went there is because (1) the released statement's two opening paragraphs just scream "written by an attorney" to me (notice the drastic change of diction at the start of paragraph 3), and (2) those paragraphs completely side-step promissory estoppel and only say how CR "never established, or intended to establish, any employment." Well, good for them, but if the plaintiff wanted to argue promissory estoppel, this would not begin to address the issue. And when a lawyer side-steps an issue, it's usually because they don't feel confident enough to commit their client to a firmer statement. This doesn't mean that promissory estoppel happened, but it also doesn't mean it didn't.

In the end, I hope the situation is much more straightforward and is pretty much resolved. I stand by my first response though. To get a lawyer involved - not just consult them -, and have them conduct an extensive investigation, and then draft a carefully worded statement that would stand up by way of respondent's opening answer at pleading stage does NOT speak to me "oh, we're sorry, nothing we did could have given rise to this." They're likely innocent, but they're also really obviously and extensively covering their bases.

P.S. Necessary disclaimer. Nothing in this post is intended to or should be construed as legal advice in any shape or form.

I agree they are covering their bases, but as I said in my post, them covering their bases could have nothing to do with the accusation itself, and could instead be tied to activism work they have been doing separate from Critical Role.

Any one with contract experience would probably tell you that the very first thing you do when a legal matter comes up, is consult a lawyer. No matter what. And that seems to have been the advice they took

 

[Maverick Lee]

A couple of weeks ago, Critical Role was accused of commissioning work from one of their community members, but of not paying for that work. The company immediately undertook to investigate the claim, and made this statement, indicating that no work was commissioned or received from the person in question, and no such agreement was in place.

View attachment 123489​

The person who made the complaint referred to online bullying within the Critical Role fandom.

The full announcement reads:

 PRESS RELEASE

---

A couple weeks ago, an individual made statements online claiming that he provided work for Critical Role without payment. Critical Role took these allegations seriously and immediately sought to investigate the situation. After an extensive investigation directed by outside counsel, it has been concluded that Critical Role never established, or intended to establish, any employment, independent contractor relationship, consulting arrangement or any other type of work-related contract with that member of the community.

This individual voluntarily reached out to Critical Role with concerns around his own experience with online bullying. Critical Role does not condone online bullying or harassment of any kind, and an employee within the company listened with the sole purpose of being an understanding ear. The correspondences on Discord reflect an empathetic dialogue with a concerned member of the community and not the providing of any professional services to Critical Role by this individual. Nothing in the communications established any professional, employment, or contractual relationship with Critical Role. After months of casual interaction, the individual made an inquiry to the Critical Role employee about possibly being engaged by Critical Role as a consultant to the company. Upon receiving this request, the Critical Role employee immediately and clearly declined the request.

The importance of helping cultivate and encourage positive and inclusive spaces for Critters has always been a huge priority for us well before this interaction. Although we understand that there is only so much we can control within unofficial online communities and platforms, Critical Role has been working on new policies to ensure that we’re clear with you about what we stand for, and more importantly, what we do not stand for. You’ll hear more about this in the coming months.

Thank you for your ongoing support. Harassment of any kind is unacceptable, so please be kind, and don’t forget to love each other.

Critical Role

A couple of weeks ago, Critical Role was accused of commissioning work from one of their community members, but of not paying for that work. The company immediately undertook to investigate the claim, and made this statement, indicating that no work was commissioned or received from the person in question, and no such agreement was in place.

View attachment 123489​

The person who made the complaint referred to online bullying within the Critical Role fandom.

The full announcement reads:

 PRESS RELEASE

---

A couple weeks ago, an individual made statements online claiming that he provided work for Critical Role without payment. Critical Role took these allegations seriously and immediately sought to investigate the situation. After an extensive investigation directed by outside counsel, it has been concluded that Critical Role never established, or intended to establish, any employment, independent contractor relationship, consulting arrangement or any other type of work-related contract with that member of the community.

This individual voluntarily reached out to Critical Role with concerns around his own experience with online bullying. Critical Role does not condone online bullying or harassment of any kind, and an employee within the company listened with the sole purpose of being an understanding ear. The correspondences on Discord reflect an empathetic dialogue with a concerned member of the community and not the providing of any professional services to Critical Role by this individual. Nothing in the communications established any professional, employment, or contractual relationship with Critical Role. After months of casual interaction, the individual made an inquiry to the Critical Role employee about possibly being engaged by Critical Role as a consultant to the company. Upon receiving this request, the Critical Role employee immediately and clearly declined the request.

The importance of helping cultivate and encourage positive and inclusive spaces for Critters has always been a huge priority for us well before this interaction. Although we understand that there is only so much we can control within unofficial online communities and platforms, Critical Role has been working on new policies to ensure that we’re clear with you about what we stand for, and more importantly, what we do not stand for. You’ll hear more about this in the coming months.

Thank you for your ongoing support. Harassment of any kind is unacceptable, so please be kind, and don’t forget to love each other.

Critical Role

 

[Azuresun]

The really great thing about social media in general and Twitter in particular is that it allows mobs to be formed (in virtual space) faster than at any time in history.

And we all know the reasoned and enlightened progress that mobs always bring us.

I, for one, welcome our new mob overlords!

I think reading Jon Ronson's book So You've Been Publicly Shamed warned me off ever going anywhere near Twitter.

At one point in the book, he talks to a US judge who gained a reputation for issuing gimmicky sentences involving publicly embarrassing things and the judge points out that in the legal system, once you've served your sentence, the issue is settled--you've paid your debt, and the slate is clean. Obviously, that's a simplification, but it's a principle of a system of law, designed to avoid the endless cycles of vengeance and vendetta, where someone can be harassed or killed because an angry mob got half the story. Social media is almost designed to return to that primitive state, to invoke vigilantism, mob rule and viewing your enemy as inhuman. And none of that's anything new (tabloid newspapers have been doing it for decades), but it's so much more efficient now.

 

[Olrox17]

This whole thing looks like a big ball of nothing to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think reading Jon Ronson's book So You've Been Publicly Shamed warned me off ever going anywhere near Twitter.

At one point in the book, he talks to a US judge who gained a reputation for issuing gimmicky sentences involving publicly embarrassing things and the judge points out that in the legal system, once you've served your sentence, the issue is settled--you've paid your debt, and the slate is clean. Obviously, that's a simplification, but it's a principle of a system of law, designed to avoid the endless cycles of vengeance and vendetta, where someone can be harassed or killed because an angry mob got half the story. Social media is almost designed to return to that primitive state, to invoke vigilantism, mob rule and viewing your enemy as inhuman. And none of that's anything new (tabloid newspapers have been doing it for decades), but it's so much more efficient now.

If I had the choice I would rather be thrown in stocks and pelted with vegetables for a few days than serve time in prison.

I have been pelted with vegetables come to think of it. Unprotected carrot shots to the head can suck. Rotten cabbages really really suck along with brussel sprouts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think reading Jon Ronson's book So You've Been Publicly Shamed warned me off ever going anywhere near Twitter.

At one point in the book, he talks to a US judge who gained a reputation for issuing gimmicky sentences involving publicly embarrassing things and the judge points out that in the legal system, once you've served your sentence, the issue is settled--you've paid your debt, and the slate is clean. Obviously, that's a simplification, but it's a principle of a system of law, designed to avoid the endless cycles of vengeance and vendetta, where someone can be harassed or killed because an angry mob got half the story. Social media is almost designed to return to that primitive state, to invoke vigilantism, mob rule and viewing your enemy as inhuman. And none of that's anything new (tabloid newspapers have been doing it for decades), but it's so much more efficient now.

I mean, social media backlash is, by far most of the time, just people getting yelled at in public. No one gets strung up by a mob on twitter. They get chewed out. That's it.