WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[UngeheuerLich]

And again I ask, who in the situation we are actually discussing in this thread lost their job?

Mearls lost his position he really loved.
He is damned to be in the background forever, because if he dares to go to twitter or if his name is called in this thread, the incident will be mentioned.

So his name is burnt in some way. I know people who have similar problems and eventually had to change their job. So it is a personal matter for me. Should I be quiet? So at some point the case has to rest. He has faces consequences, probably fair consequences. At some point that has to be enough.

 

[Staffan]

The excuse that "innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal concept is very silly. It is there for a very good reason and should be followed even outside the courts as the alternative to that are medieval witch hunts which can easily be abused.

I do believe that just blindly believing accusations can be harmful. However, the standard of evidence I need to shun a person is far lower than that needed to convict someone in court.

 

[Charlaquin]

The third option is to not generate strong stances when you don't have the whole truth. Otherwise, all you're doing is taking a side based on personal prejudices. And the risk of doing that is that innocent people get hurt. Have a strong moral compass, yes. Be wary about applying that compass to situations you only partially understand though.

“I don’t think Olivia Hill lied” isn’t a particularly strong stance. You and some others seem to be assuming people who take that stance are actually taking a different, much stronger stance, what with all the use of legal terms and assertions that people shouldn’t lose their jobs over things.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

“I don’t think Olivia Hill lied” isn’t a particularly strong stance. You and some others seem to be assuming people who take that stance are actually taking a different, much stronger stance, what with all the use of legal terms and assertions that people shouldn’t lose their jobs over things.

I'm not talking about legal terms in the least. I'm talking about you saying that one person was telling the truth while another was not without having any foreknowledge that could be possibly lead you to that conclusion. It's that lack of objectivity I'm talking about.

 

[Charlaquin]

Mearls lost his position he really loved.
He is damned to be in the background forever, because if he dares to go to twitter or if his name is called in this thread, the incident will be mentioned.

From my perspective that looks to have been a consequence of having handled the situation so poorly when it came up. He was bad at public relations and so got moved out of a position where he was expected to do a lot of public relations work. The Hill and Smith situation was almost incidental to that, it just happened to be the thing that made his poor PR skills clear to WotC.

So his name is burnt in some way. I know people who have similar problems and eventually had to change their job. So it is a personal matter for me. Should I be quiet?

I’m sorry for what happened to your friend(s). Mike Mearls isn’t them, any more than he’s the German guy that got brought up.

So at some point the case has to rest. He has faces consequences, probably fair consequences. At some point that has to be enough.

And who here has said it wasn’t enough again?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm not talking about legal terms in the least. I'm talking about you saying that one person was telling the truth while another was not without having any foreknowledge that could be possibly lead you to that conclusion. It's that lack of objectivity I'm talking about.

When you don't know the players or the facts of the situation, the ethical path is neutrality. The moral path is to discover those facts.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

“I don’t think Olivia Hill lied” isn’t a particularly strong stance. You and some others seem to be assuming people who take that stance are actually taking a different, much stronger stance, what with all the use of legal terms and assertions that people shouldn’t lose their jobs over things.

There are people with the stronger stance... and they drove Mike Mearls permanently away from social media.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

“I don’t think Olivia Hill lied” isn’t a particularly strong stance. You and some others seem to be assuming people who take that stance are actually taking a different, much stronger stance, what with all the use of legal terms and assertions that people shouldn’t lose their jobs over things.

At face value, not a strong stance, agreed. But the omission you've made implies that Mearls is at fault. Which is what I think is wrong. Your statement is just throwing meat to the dogs. It's not ethical in my opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not talking about legal terms in the least. I'm talking about you saying that one person was telling the truth while another was not without having any foreknowledge that could be possibly lead you to that conclusion. It's that lack of objectivity I'm talking about.

I believe a victim was telling the truth, because I am of the opinion that believing victims unless given reason not to, as a rule, has greater utility than the alternative in an interpersonal context. As far as I know, Mearls has neither confirmed nor denied the accusation, so believing Hill does not implicitly indicate a belief that Mearls is lying. Though, if he had denied it, I would still believe Hill over him in the absence of a compelling reason not to, because again, rule utilitarianism. Now, were the issue to be litigated in a court of law, I would not support a conviction due to the absence of evidence of the wrongdoing, because in that context, presuming innocence as a rule has the greater utility.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are people with the stronger stance... and they drove Mike Mearls permanently away from social media.

Not in this conversation as far as I can tell, which makes your ardent defense of Mearls against those people, this long after the fact, when none among them are present, pretty strange.