WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Andvari]

Not as such, no. That would suggest an act of willful deception on your part, which I’m not inclined to assume. But you clearly disbelieve her, but are uncomfortable with the implication (that she must be lying for that disbelief to be accurate). So, you use skepticism to resolve that cognitive dissonance.

That makes sense given your belief, and I appreciate being given the benefit of tje doubt.

I can only assure you I do not believe it implies I think she is lying and that I am in fact very comfortable stating I have no idea whether her claim is true or false.

For me it is common to hear a statement and having no idea if it is true. If it’s of interest to me, rather than pick a side immediately, I investigate to see if there is evidence to sway my belief either way. If not, I accept I’m unable to justify belief at least for now.

Though I am in the unfortunate situation of being unable to prove this to you unless you have ESP.

 

[Charlaquin]

First off, if by your admission Hill was speculating about what Mearls did, then it isn't simply a matter of "believing" Hill or not. Hill can honestly believe something that is actually false. People are often mistaken about things.

Hill’s claims, to my understanding, are that she sent Mearls evidence of harassment by Smith, from an email created for that purpose, at which she later received more harassment from Smith. One either believes that claim is true, or that it is false. Whether one believes that Hill is correct in thinking that Mearls passed that information on to Smith is indeed a matter of speculation.

Anyway, you are doing more than merely stating your belief that Hill is telling the truth, you are insisting that everyone must take sides despite not having enough facts to make an informed judgment. You are actually saying that if a person acknowledges they don't know what happened then they believe the accuser is lying. This is absolutely false.

I literally acknowledge that I don’t know what happened. My position isn’t about knowledge, it’s about trust. None of us know what happened. But we have a claim, which we can either believe is true or believe is false, which would imply that the claimant was engaging in deception.

If I were to pick out a totally random court case involving people you have never heard of and you know nothing of the circumstances of the case, only the charges filed, and I ask you if the accused really did do the crime, you seriously think you must answer either "Yes" or "No"?

This isn’t a court case.

You really don't think that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer? Is saying "I don't know" really a statement that the accuser is lying? That doesn't make any sense. It could just as easily be argued that if a person says they don't know what happened that this means they think the accused are lying about being innocent. The logic works both ways.

Again, none of us know. Knowledge is not the issue here.

 

[Charlaquin]

That makes sense given your belief, and I appreciate being given the benefit of tje doubt.

No problem.

I can only assure you I do not believe it implies I think she is lying and that I am in fact very comfortable stating I have no idea whether her claim is true or false.

We keep getting hung up on this knowledge thing. I’m also very comfortable staying that I have no idea whether her claim is true or false. Because it’s just a factually true statement. I don’t know; you don’t know; nobody knows. However, we have a statement from Hill. Without knowing if that statement is true, we can only trust or distrust. And we can do either of those things without knowing if it’s true. In fact, we have no other choice but to do so, because again, we don’t know. That’s… how trust works. If you knew, you wouldn’t need to trust.

For me it is common to hear a statement and having no idea if it is true. If it’s of interest to me, rather than pick a side immediately, I investigate to see if there is evidence to sway my belief either way. If not, I accept I’m unable to justify belief at least for now.

Indeed, I agree. This is not in conflict with my position.

Though I am in the unfortunate situation of being unable to prove this to you unless you have ESP.

A feeling I am quite familiar with as well. Frustrating, but I appreciate your willingness to engage.

 

[Andvari]

We keep getting hung up on this knowledge thing. I’m also very comfortable staying that I have no idea whether her claim is true or false. Because it’s just a factually true statement. I don’t know; you don’t know; nobody knows. However, we have a statement from Hill. Without knowing if that statement is true, we can only trust or distrust. And we can do either of those things without knowing if it’s true. In fact, we have no other choice but to do so, because again, we don’t know. That’s… how trust works. If you knew, you wouldn’t need to trust.

Indeed, I agree. This is not in conflict with my position.

A feeling I am quite familiar with as well. Frustrating, but I appreciate your willingness to engage.

That’s the thing for me - I don’t know the people involved, so I have no basis to trust or distrust. I am unable to accept such a claim on blind faith. I need justification and find it odd that you do not.

Assuming I have nothing to go by except the claim, my mind doesn’t go “Yep, I believe that” or “What a liar!”, but “I wonder if that’s accurate?”

As a company I would of course take the claim seriously enough to investigate and attempt to find out whether or not it was true so I could take a position and act appropriately.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Hill’s claims, to my understanding, are that she sent Mearls evidence of harassment by Smith, from an email created for that purpose, at which she later received more harassment from Smith. One either believes that claim is true, or that it is false. Whether one believes that Hill is correct in thinking that Mearls passed that information on to Smith is indeed a matter of speculation.

Right, it's speculation. And since the issue is whether Mearls really did that or not means that simply stating that Hill believes that is what Mearls did doesn't resolve whether anyone should believe he did do it. In other words, Hill can be 100% honest and 100% wrong, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I literally acknowledge that I don’t know what happened. My position isn’t about knowledge, it’s about trust. None of us know what happened. But we have a claim, which we can either believe is true or believe is false, which would imply that the claimant was engaging in deception.

Trust needs to be earned. No one should automatically be trusted.

This isn’t a court case.

It doesn't have to be a court case, substitute any situation where one person accuses another of something where you know nothing at all about what happened or who the people are. To make it easier, I will give a real world example.

One day at work a fellow employee vented to me about an incident where she claimed a co-worker was really rude to her. Later on, that other employee vented to me (without knowing I had heard of the incident) about how rude the other person had been. Both people were clearly bothered by how the other had acted and they both seemed to be honest in their telling. Since I didn't see what happened I had no clue who was in the wrong. Now you think that means that I really believe that the accuser was lying but I am too chicken to say so. But both of them were making accusations, so who do you think I considered to be lying? By your logic I must think that both were lying. But that would mean that neither thought the other was rude, in which case they wouldn't have been upset. More likely, they were both telling the truth, which would mean both had been rude. But I really, truly don't know. That isn't some weasily way for me avoid calling someone a liar.

Again, none of us know. Knowledge is not the issue here.

Right, we don't know. Which means we don't know who, if anyone, is lying. Saying you don't know what occurred is not an indirect way of calling the accuser a liar. Again, that logic works both ways: saying "I don't know" when you honestly don't know could be claimed to be a way of indicating you think the accused is lying. But that isn't the case.

 

[Charlaquin]

That’s the thing for me - I don’t know the people involved, so I have no basis to trust or distrust. I am unable to accept such a claim on blind faith.

That’s distrust. Just distrust motivated by lack of familiarity rather than suspicion.

I need justification and find it odd that you do not.

For me, the justification is that I think trusting (alleged) victims as a rule leads to less harm overall than distrusting (alleged) victims as a rule does. In an interpersonal context, of course.

Assuming I have nothing to go by except the claim, my mind doesn’t go “Yep, I believe that” or “What a liar!”, but “I wonder if that’s accurate?”

But those two things have the same outcome: either way, the (alleged) victim’s claim is dismissed.

As a company I would of course take the claim seriously enough to investigate and attempt to find out whether or not it was true so I could take a position and act appropriately.

Oh, for sure. I think we can safely assume that WotC investigated the claims and took whatever action or lack of action they thought was warranted based on their findings or lack thereof.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right, it's speculation. And since the issue is whether Mearls really did that or not means that simply stating that Hill believes that is what Mearls did doesn't resolve whether anyone should believe he did do it. In other words, Hill can be 100% honest and 100% wrong, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I haven’t made any claims as to whether anyone should believe Mearls passed the information in question along to Smith.

Trust needs to be earned. No one should automatically be trusted.

So you’re saying you don’t believe Hill’s claim? I mean, ok. Obviously I don’t think that’s a good position to take, but there you go I guess.

It doesn't have to be a court case, substitute any situation where one person accuses another of something where you know nothing at all about what happened or who the people are. To make it easier, I will give a real world example.

One day at work a fellow employee vented to me about an incident where she claimed a co-worker was really rude to her. Later on, that other employee vented to me (without knowing I had heard of the incident) about how rude the other person had been. Both people were clearly bothered by how the other had acted and they both seemed to be honest in their telling. Since I didn't see what happened I had no clue who was in the wrong.

Your coworkers had an argument. That’s not really an analogous situation.

Now you think that means that I really believe that the accuser was lying but I am too chicken to say so.

I do not. See my response to @Andvari a few posts back.

But both of them were making accusations, so who do you think I considered to be lying? By your logic I must think that both were lying. But that would mean that neither thought the other was rude, in which case they wouldn't have been upset. More likely, they were both telling the truth, which would mean both had been rude. But I really, truly don't know. That isn't some weasily way for me avoid calling someone a liar.

Again, not really an analogous situation. This isn’t a case where one party claims to have been wronged and the other either claims the accusations were false or remains silent on the matter.

(EDITED TO ADD): But you know what? I think the best thing to do in that situation is to trust them both. If two of my coworkers each claimed the other was rude to them, I think the natural assumption is that they were both rude to each other. Probably unintentionally, at least at fist. Obviously I don’t know that to be the case, but I trust that neither of them was lying about what happened.

Right, we don't know. Which means we don't know who, if anyone, is lying. Saying you don't know what occurred is not an indirect way of calling the accuser a liar. Again, that logic works both ways: saying "I don't know" when you honestly don't know could be claimed to be a way of indicating you think the accused is lying. But that isn't the case.

Neither of us know. We can only trust or distrust. I trust despite not knowing, you distrust despite not knowing. That’s still distrust. Which, again, is your prerogative, but at least own it.

 

[Andvari]

For me, the justification is that I think trusting (alleged) victims as a rule leads to less harm overall than distrusting (alleged) victims as a rule does. In an interpersonal context, of course.

But those two things have the same outcome: either way, the (alleged) victim’s claim is dismissed.

I don’t have the option of choosing to believe or not. Either a claim has enough compelling evidence (which can include me knowing of its reliability), in which case I have no choice other than to believe it, or it doesn’t.

But I can still act seriously on it (investigate) if I am unconvinced, which is a far cry from a dismissal of the concern.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t have the option of choosing to believe or not. Either a claim has enough compelling evidence (which can include me knowing of its reliability), in which case I have no choice other than to believe it, or it doesn’t.

You’re not describing belief here, you’re describing empiricism. I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that, no, we do not have the empirical evidence necessary to determine what really happened. In the absence of empirical evidence, one can either believe or disbelieve.

But I can still act seriously on it (investigate) if I am unconvinced, which is a far cry from a dismissal of the concern.

Oh for sure.

 

[Andvari]

You’re not describing belief here, you’re describing empiricism. I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that, no, we do not have the empirical evidence necessary to determine what really happened. In the absence of empirical evidence, one can either believe or disbelieve.


Oh for sure.

Hmm. If someone makes a claim and you, taking into account everything you know about the nature of the claim, its context, the trustworthiness of the source of the claim, after long thought arrive at the claim having a 50% chance of being true and a 50% chance of being false, would you then say you believe that claim or not?