WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Charlaquin]

Non-legal consequences like losing your job are as real as legal ones which is why why they need to have the same standard.

What, if anything, WotC does about this is their decision (and the decision they made to move him out of any public-facing positions was a wise one in my opinion). Whether you or I believe the accusations that were made of him really has no bearing on the matter.

Everything else is a medieval understanding of punishment where a simple accusation is enough to shame someone and ruin his live without there being any way for him to defend himself.

Punishment is a medieval understanding of justice. I’m not calling for punishment, let alone the ruining of anyone’s life. I’m only saying I believe the victim. The alternative is to alienate victims who have been harmed in ways that don’t leave direct evidence.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The alternative is to alienate victims who have been harmed in ways that don’t leave direct evidence.

Yes a dilemma. If you don't believe you most probably harm someone who is an innocent, courageous victim. And in very few cases you believe a liar bringing harm to someone who is innocent.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do believe her, don't take me wrong.

Yet your first priority was to point out that there isn’t evidence. Why?

Edit: last I heard, is that we don't know how much Mearls said/wrote and what he gave away accedently... but I could be not up to date.

Yeah, since we don’t have access to the emails in question, there’s really no way of knowing what may have been said in them. What I know is that Hill emailed Mearls and only Mearls with evidence of Smith’s harassment of her from an email address she created solely for that purpose and did not give out to anyone else. Then she received further harassment from Smith at that email address. I’m personally inclined to suspect that Mearls confronted Smith about the information in the email, without taking care to insure the metadata from the email was expunged. As likely a result of carelessness (and/or lack of tech-savvy) as malice, if not more so. Regardless, I trust Hill’s account of the events, with or without seeing the emails themselves.

 

[Parmandur]

Mearls mishandled customer facing interactions, big time. As a result, he was removed from customer facing interactions moving forward. Fair is fair, let's all just move on. Dude is working, his daughter has food and a roof over her head. Given how inept he was at customer interactions, probably did him good to fade.into the background staff.

One might notice thst the designers have had less and less customer facing responsibilities over the past couple years: they never post on Twitter except for purely personal stuff or to share formal announcements, etc.

 

[Ixal]

I’m not calling for punishment, let alone the ruining of anyone’s life.

And yet punishment is the result when people lose their jobs on accusations alone without evidence.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yet your first priority was to point out that there isn’t evidence. Why?

Yeah, since we don’t have access to the emails in question, there’s really no way of knowing what may have been said in them. What I know is that Hill emailed Mearls and only Mearls with evidence of Smith’s harassment of her from an email address she created solely for that purpose and did not give out to anyone else. Then she received further harassment from Smith at that email address. I’m personally inclined to suspect that Mearls confronted Smith about the information in the email, without taking care to insure the metadata from the email was expunged. As likely a result of carelessness (and/or lack of tech-savvy) as malice, if not more so. Regardless, I trust Hill’s account of the events, with or without seeing the emails themselves.

No denial here. A very possible explanation. And still it should not be stated as fact.

 

[Charlaquin]

But having your reputation damaged can be very bad too. A lot of people suggest that he gets fired...

And it is within those people’s right to freedom of speech to make such suggestions. What WotC does in response to those suggestions is their decision to make. I think they made a pretty smart one.

 

[Parmandur]

And it is within those people’s right to freedom of speech to make such suggestions. What WotC does in response to those suggestions is their decision to make. I think they made a pretty smart one.

Pretty fair all around: Mearls is no longer in a position to do what he did again, but he isn't starving in the streets, either. Proportionate consequences.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes a dilemma. If you don't believe you most probably harm someone who is an innocent, courageous victim. And in very few cases you believe a liar bringing harm to someone who is innocent.

I don’t see a dilemma. As a rule, believing victims in an interpersonal context most likely leads to less harm than disbelieving them does. Similarly, as a rule, presuming innocence in a judicial context most likely leads to less harm than presuming guilt does.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And it is within those people’s right to freedom of speech to make such suggestions. What WotC does in response to those suggestions is their decision to make. I think they made a pretty smart one.

So I have my freedom to speak and state that in my opinion allegations should not be stated as fact.