WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Charlaquin]

At face value, not a strong stance, agreed. But the omission you've made implies that Mearls is at fault.

Sorry, I’m unclear on what you think I’m implying he’s at fault for?

Which is what I think is wrong. Your statement is just throwing meat to the dogs. It's not ethical in my opinion.

What dogs am I throwing meat to?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

You are correct. Probably noone. I was triggered by the repeating of those old news and falsely read it into those posts...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Correct. See my previous post that overlapped with your reply.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

So @Charlaquin ... you say many thoughtful and intelligent things on this board and I genuinely have a lot of respect for you. I disagree with what you've posted here though.

I get that this isn't about something provable in a court of law. Not really caring about that!

Yes, disbelieving the victim is tough in these situations. Because of the absence of hard evidence in either direction. In either direction being the operative phrase here...

I don't think it's right to brand either side based on what side said. The impact of believing one has a tough impact on the other. I don't feel I have the authority to choose one over the other.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are correct. Probably noone. I was triggered by the repeating of those old news and falsely read it into those posts...

I applaud your humility in owning up to that, and apologize for my part in causing that emotional reaction.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I applaud your humility in owning up to that, and apologize for my part in causing that emotional reaction.

Thank you. And I want to apogize to you for my failure of reading comprehension and doubling down with my stubbornness.

 

[the Jester]

You do not recall correctly. The original tweet was from Olivia Hill, one of the people named in the alleged emails (though under her deadname), and target of a harassment campaign by Zak S prior to Mearls’ involvement.

In the absence of hard evidence, we have only Hill’s word and Mearls’. And as far as I know, Mearls has never even denied Hill’s claims. I see no reason not to believe Hill.

I have never sen this tweet. Is there any way you can directly link to it? (I'm not even sure what her deadname was.) And I have asked for this for literally years.

 

[Charlaquin]

So @Charlaquin ... you say many thoughtful and intelligent things on this board and I genuinely have a lot of respect for you. I disagree with what you've posted here though.

I appreciate that; the feeling is mutual.

I get that this isn't about something provable in a court of law. Not really caring about that!

Yes, disbelieving the victim is tough in these situations. Because of the absence of hard evidence in either direction. In either direction being the operative phrase here...

In situations like this, one can either believe the victim is telling the truth, or they can believe the victim is lying. Obviously, if there was evidence in either direction, that would make it much easier to decide who to believe, but since we have no such evidence, all we have to fall back on to make the decision is principles. In principle, I believe that less harm is done overall by believing the victim.

I don't think it's right to brand either side based on what side said. The impact of believing one has a tough impact on the other. I don't feel I have the authority to choose one over the other.

If you don’t believe the victim, you are branding them a liar. There is no neutral path here. You can say you abstain from forming an opinion, but that only supports the status quo, so consequently it is the same as disbelieving the victim. There is no neutral path here. Since it is an interpersonal matter, I believe less harm is done by believing the victim than by disbelieving them. If we were litigating the matter to determine guilt and assign consequence, that would be a different story. In that case, less harm would be done by presuming innocence.

 

[bedir than]

We still do not know what happened. WotC probably has more information they may not be able to share because of agreements... we don't know. As hard as it is to accept.

Nope.

We know he got promoted twice. His title and role definitely changed. He certainly worked on bigger projects with more money involved in his success or failure.
That's all public information.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I appreciate that; the feeling is mutual.

In situations like this, one can either believe the victim is telling the truth, or they can believe the victim is lying. Obviously, if there was evidence in either direction, that would make it much easier to decide who to believe, but since we have no such evidence, all we have to fall back on to make the decision is principles. In principle, I believe that less harm is done overall by believing the victim.

If you don’t believe the victim, you are branding them a liar. There is no neutral path here. You can say you abstain from forming an opinion, but that only supports the status quo, so consequently it is the same as disbelieving the victim. There is no neutral path here. Since it is an interpersonal matter, I believe less harm is done by believing the victim than by disbelieving them. If we were litigating the matter to determine guilt and assign consequence, that would be a different story. In that case, less harm would be done by presuming innocence.

See that's where we differ. To me, there is a neutral path: have compassion for both, without giving full credence to either. I think what you are saying is not necessarily a disagreement but standing on the point that in this sort of case the accuser has less of a defense than the accused?