WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[the Jester]

But it's not. That's like saying that all atheists believe there is no God. That's simply not the case- many simply don't believe there is evidence that there is a God.

That’s literally what disbelief means.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If we start with the premise that any decision made by a corporation has the most insidious possible explanation, we are led to all kinds of interesting conclusions, huh?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Does general ageism exist? Yes.

Is it at all related to Mike Mearls career as a game designer? No

Black holes exist, too. Thus Mike must have been sucked into a black hole.

Any Twitter posts must be the result of a careful parsing of Hawking radiation.

 

[Aldarc]

Or you acknowledge that you don't know, or you wonder if she's wrong or operating based on an incorrect assumption, or you suspect Mearls forwarded the emails to someone else who passed the info on to Zak, or...

This isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

Did Mike Mearls publicly defend Zak S against accusations made against him? Did Mike Mearls investigate those accusations others made against Zak S and then brush them off? Did Mearls publicly drag the names of accusers against Zak S through the mud? Did the toxic behavior and abusive patterns that they warned Mearls about turn out to be well-founded? It may not be black and white, but let's not pretend that everything is so murky that nothing bad can be said against Mearls for what he did in connection to Zak S.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Or you acknowledge that you don't know, or you wonder if she's wrong or operating based on an incorrect assumption, or you suspect Mearls forwarded the emails to someone else who passed the info on to Zak, or...

This isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

Given the actual situation, wherein she was right from the beginning about Zak and this whole thing despite it being a fairly contentious and unpopular thing that lead to a lot of harassment against the people who promoted it (and still is, by all accounts, if you look at how it looked when it first popped up back in February 2019), we have more than just speculation. It's credibility, and Hill has it on this topic because they've stayed consistent and were proven right. You talk about atheists who don't believe in God because there is no proof, but this has actions and events we can draw reasonable inferences to the point that I think it's more reasonable to give Hill the benefit of the doubt than blindly start from scratch regarding trust and credibility.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Did Mike Mearls publicly defend Zak S against accusations made against him? Did Mike Mearls investigate those accusations others made against Zak S and then brush them off? Did Mearls publicly drag the names of accusers against Zak S through the mud? Did the toxic behavior and abusive patterns that they warned Mearls about turn out to be well-founded? It may not be black and white, but let's not pretend that everything is so murky that nothing bad can be said against Mearls for what he did in connection to Zak S.

Yeah, this is not a white-box event completely devoid of context. The context here is that we see how Mike carried himself through this whole situation, as well as the fact that Hill was right about the whole situation and I think it's not unreasonable to take these claims as credulous.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Yeah, this is not a white-box event completely devoid of context. The context here is that we see how Mike carried himself through this whole situation, as well as the fact that Hill was right about the whole situation and I think it's not unreasonable to take these claims as credulous.

Easy there, little man. More proof, less hyperventilating.

Edit: A little over the top on my part. Sorry! But come on...

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, this is not a white-box event completely devoid of context. The context here is that we see how Mike carried himself through this whole situation, as well as the fact that Hill was right about the whole situation and I think it's not unreasonable to take these claims as credulous.

Yeah, I don't think that any of this rests entirely on Olivia Hill. She was not alone in warning Mike Mearls about Zak S. Mearls did not take these warnings seriously. Mearls chose to go to bat for Zak S against the accusations that others made against him. When the Zak S controversy erupted, there was a chorus of "we told you so" from people who were there at that time.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Yeah, I don't think that any of this rests entirely on Olivia Hill. She was not alone in warning Mike Mearls about Zak S. Mearls did not take these warnings seriously. Mearls chose to go to bat for Zak S against the accusations that others made against him. When the Zak S controversy erupted, there was a chorus of "we told you so" from people who were there at that time.

@Aldarc @Justice and Rule Is it possible for you two to actually quote things? Vague histrionics doesn't help anyone's cause.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If we start with the premise that any decision made by a corporation has the most insidious possible explanation, we are led to all kinds of interesting conclusions, huh?

And you'd be right more often than wrong!