WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Charlaquin]

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

Who lost their job again?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I stated the facts as fact and my speculation as speculation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Depends. If you were someone who is flasely accused, things were different.

I know of a friend of my brother (a street worker) who had to defend himself in court, because he was (undoubtedly) falsly accused of sexual harassment.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I stated the facts as fact and my speculation as speculation.

Was not adressed at you personally.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

To be fair, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be starving in the streets even had he actually been fired. But, yeah, this does seem like an appropriate response, and firing him probably wouldn’t have been.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Who stated any allegations as fact? The opening post that was immediately corrected?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Who lost their job again?

Jörg Kachelmann.

And Mike Mearls could have easily lost his job too.

 

[Ixal]

Who lost their job again?

Mearls lost his position. We do not know if that had financial effects on him or not. There certainly were enough calls for him getting fired back when the accusations were made.
And many other people who were accused of something in the past lost their jobs without any shred of proof or trial, even when later the accusations were disproven.

 

[Charlaquin]

Depends. If you were someone who is flasely accused, things were different.

Which is why I said “as a rule.” Individual situations are of course individual. There are surely individual cases where presuming innocence might lead to more harm than presuming guilt would. But as we can’t determine when that is the case with absolute certainty, we default to the approach that we believe most likely to lead to the least harm overall if followed as a rule. I am simply applying the same principles to a social context. Believing victims as a rule will lead to some harm, just as presuming innocence as a rule leads to some harm. But as a rule it most likely leads to less harm than disbelieving victims as a rule would.

I know of a friend of my brother (a street worker) who had to defend himself in court, because he was (undoubtedly) falsly accused of sexual harassment.

In court. So, the context where I have argued the presumption of innocence leads to the least harm.

 

[Charlaquin]

Jörg Kachelmann.

Who is this person and what do they have to do with the Mike Mearls situation?

And Mike Mearls could have easily lost his job too.

I don’t think that was ever a real risk. WotC isn’t in the business of firing anyone Twitter gets angry at.