D&D 5E Mike Mearls is back on the D&D RPG Team

IIRC, the last Zak thread described the beginning of a Court case between him and 3 ex-girlfriends. Whatever evidence has been presented during that case would be more helpful than repeating the gossip and claims from beforehand.

Lem23 said:

That's pretty much where I am. It's something that could be just down to an inept attempt at dealing with the situation (though I'd be happier with an apology if that is what happened), but I'll keep an eye on things to decide whether I'm going to boycott in the future. If a pattern emerges, then I'm out.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this?

5e has done some amazing things. Maybe I've missed something (always possible!) but it seems to me that:

a. They've really broadened D&D's appeal to women, people of color, people with different gender identities/expressions etc. They have tried to make the game more inclusive, and largely succeeded. And because D&D is the 500lb gorilla in the RPG market, when D&D is more inclusive, that help make all of the RPG market more inclusive.

b. It seems that Mearls, Crawford, and the leadership at WoTC has genuinely tried to appeal to gamers of all types.

c. So while there are occasionally missteps, it really does appear that they are trying to do the best job that they can.


I agree that consequences are warranted for "just speech" (tell your boss to eff off and see what happens!); I also worry that when subjects are charged, it can be far too easy to try and attack someone for saying something wrong, or poorly worded, that doesn't reflect the totality of their beliefs.

I'd like to believe that life is always changing, and that we try and credit people a little more for being complex and working to be better, as opposed to piling on them for any mistake they made in what can often be a minefield.

But more than anything .... twitter is terrible. I just can't understand why anyone would be on it.

3catcircus said:

So - let's be clear. In most corporate situations, there are typically well-established standards of behavior, dress codes, values, etc. And every employee is supposed to understand them. So - when someone says something homophobic (or any other behavior not rising to the level of criminality, but still against expected corporate behaviors), it is incumbent upon someone to actually report it to management, legal, HR, or whoever is responsible for investigating claims. And - there are usually investigations, with (in most places of business) the understanding that it is alleged until proven to be true. Statements are taken, interviews are conducted, HR and Legal are consulted, before action is taken - whether it is a verbal warning, or up to and including termination. And the accuser can certainly seek civil damages as well against the perpetrator - with information stemming from a corporate investigation certainly being able to be used in a court trial.

So - an investigation occurs, it is determined that an employee said something homophobic (or anti-women, or anti-veteran, or whatever areas are deemed to be against those corporate standards of behavior. The individual is counseled on what is expected (something usually is entered in their personnel file) with the understanding of what the consequences of their actions are if they do it again. Does management then terminate the employee? Sure - and they ought to. But the key is that investigation(s) were conducted, evidence gathered, and proof established. Let's say that in your example, an investigation revealed that the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator were former partners who had a falling out, or who fought over someone's affection, or were competing for the same promotion, or any number of reasons where the evidence doesn't show that the alleged action actually occurred. Let's say someone in management just doesn't like the person alleged to have said something homophobic, and uses the accusation as a pretext to terminate them. Now - they've opened the company up to a potential lawsuit for wrongful termination. An investigation needs to occur, and the evidence needs to clearly show that the alleged behavior actually took place. It is also incumbent that if the behavior actually took place, that appropriate action needs to be taken, else the company is open to a lawsuit from the accuser.

This is the issue I have - an allegation made by people against other people holds no more weight just because it is posted on social media than any other allegation. Internet mob justice has no place in determining if someone committed a crime or can be held civilly liable for their actions in private interactions between individuals - that's generally the purview of the courts. If it happens in the context of a corporate setting, the company needs to investigate and take appropriate action, up to an including referral to law enforcement.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all, especially in the Zak S. case where he wasn't a full-employee and someone WotC worked with project-by-project.

Under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Company policy is under no obligation to hold to that same standard. So in the Zak case, where he was accused by multiple women of abuse/rape, all WotC has to do is lean back and think, "If I maintain ties to this person, am I hurting my brand? Will my customers trust the brand less, and purchase less of our products because of it?"

If the answer to that question looks like "Yes," then WotC is perfectly justified in terminating the relationship. There very likely is language in their contracts allowing them to do so there is no legal opportunity to challenge it.

I believe WotC did some of the steps you listed in this case (consultation of HR and legal is a given) but they definitely don't have to do a full investigation if they believe the accusations are credible enough to hurt their brand.

EDIT: This same standard also applies to GenCon and OneBookShelf who also cut ties to Zak, who were both well within their rights to do so.

Lem23 said:

Just because you chose to ignore what was presented doesn't mean it was just gossip. Discounting what people have posted in support of what they claim because it doesn't meet your own nebulous or particular requirements doesn't mean there isn't a convincing case, just that you're ignoring those and then claiming there's nothing to support it. It's rather tautological - "I see no evidence!" "Well, there's this." "I refuse to accept that. There's no evidence!" "Well, there's also this, and this." "I refuse to accept those either. There's no evidence!" etc.

Click to expand...

Lem, he stated there was evidence the emails were forwarded to Zak by Mearls and their personal information doxed.

If you have evidence supporting that claim, I mean real evidence and not inference or speculation, post it. I want to see it. If it exists I'd like to see it. I've been asking to see it for a long time.

It's not "my personal" requirements. I am not choosing to "ignore" anything. I looked at it and it is 100% objectively accurate to say it requires inference and speculation to conclude the emails were forwarded. Unless you have something different from what I've seen.

I didn't say there is "no support" for the allegation, I said the support people have posted requires inference and speculation and is not itself evidence it happened. That's accurate.

Again, it would be EASY TO PROVE ME WRONG if you posted something which directly demonstrates the emails were forwarded.

Post a link to something which doesn't show "I don't like what Mike Mearls did in this case" like I keep seeing. Post instead a link showing evidence of "Mike Mearls forwarded the emails to Zak".

Here is what I have seen:

1) Mearls conversation with Zak where in my opinion he's unduly dismissive of allegations, and in tone I don't appreciate.

2) A claim from a third party not directly involved that Mike forwarded the emails with the allegations in them to Zak. I'll call this CLAIM.

The CLAIM does not include any support at all aside from the statement it happened - they're not a party in a position to naturally know that happened, they don't allege they saw it happened or saw any direct evidence it happened, in fact there is no explanation provided for how they would know that happened that I've seen or been able to find.

Now here are my own assumptions which could be wrong (I am open to alternative explanations): the CLAIM is based on either, 1) "I heard that...." or 2) An inference that because Zak gained knowledge of the allegation, Zak must have gained that knowledge from reading an email forwarded to him from Mike Mearls.

However, for that second one to be correct, you'd need certainty that the allegation was made only in the email sent to Mearls and that Mearls could be the only source for that information. There is no claim I am aware of that the allegation wasn't repeated to other people, or that it couldn't be guessed at by Zak given the tight nature of the industry and the fact he'd know most of the salient details already given he's the one who did them.

For what it is worth (and you're free to assume Zak is a liar) Zak himself claims Mearls did not forward him any emails. Others who know Mike Mearls also say he didn't forward the emails as far as they know.

So if you have something aside from someone just claiming, with nothing to show others to support their claim, that Mearls forwarded the emails then I'd love to see it. You can even send it to me privately and I promise I will not reveal your information to others.

But "Third-party Rando with an existing bias claiming this is what happened and they know it because ...reasons?" isn't what you'd normally call "evidence".

Urriak Uruk said:

This isn't true at all, especially in the Zak S. case where he wasn't a full-employee and someone WotC worked with project-by-project.

Under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Company policy is under no obligation to hold to that same standard. So in the Zak case, where he was accused by multiple women of abuse/rape, all WotC has to do is lean back and think, "If I maintain ties to this person, am I hurting my brand? Will my customers trust the brand less, and purchase less of our products because of it?"

If the answer to that question looks like "Yes," then WotC is perfectly justified in terminating the relationship. There very likely is language in their contracts allowing them to do so there is no legal opportunity to challenge it.

I believe WotC did some of the steps you listed in this case (consultation of HR and legal is a given) but they definitely don't have to do a full investigation if they believe the accusations are credible enough to hurt their brand.

EDIT: This same standard also applies to GenCon and OneBookShelf who also cut ties to Zak, who were both well within their rights to do so.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that corporate polices are held to the same standards - but they are held to a standard, and it usually is a higher standard than "someone said something on the internet."

Morrus said:

ROBOCOP DOES NOT ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVING CRIMINAL CODE VIOLATIONS!

I heard there was somebody littering over on Aisle 4 though. You’d better get over there quick

Click to expand...

That's not Robocop's purview - that's for Wall-E.

3catcircus said:

That's just it - social actions don't have to be a mutually agreeable activity. Someone being offended by someone else's words or actions doesn't necessarily equate to a crime being committed. No one has the right to stifle anyone else just because they are offended.

A lot of things offend me - doesn't mean I should be allowed to prevent someone from doing them, or trying to ruin their lives for doing it.

Click to expand...

You seem to not believe there is such a thing as emotional trauma, that it is all just "taking offense".

I think you should go to a veterans PTSD meeting, play a recording of machine gun fire, and when they get upset you can announce, loudly, "Come ON, manchildren, don't be so offended! I didn't actually commit a crime!"

Oh, and when you go, please make sure you make a video and post it here. (You might want to have somebody else hold the camera.). Thanks.

I'm always amazed how many people know what's going on, with absolutely no information available! We have no idea where he was, why he was there, and what he's doing now. And yet, so many angry people here and Twitter and, I don't get it.

Zaukrie said:

And yet, so many angry people here and Twitter and, I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Never allow a requirement for some inconvenient facts get in the way of an opinion that feels good.

3catcircus said:

I'm not suggesting that corporate polices are held to the same standards - but they are held to a standard, and it usually is a higher standard than "someone said something on the internet."

Click to expand...

If you think they didn't have an internal review of the accusation with HR where the decided the evidence was credible enough to ditch him, you're out of your mind. So yeah, the accusations against him were held to a standard, and they met them. Doesn't matter if they're put on the internet or nailed to the side of a church.