WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

Yes, but this ignores that you are also potentially harming an innocent person! In the absence of facts, to me, you can't arbitrarily decide that one person is wrong and start meting out punishment. I understand that these cases are tough; tough to prove, and tough for those whose situations are not considered if a 'judgement' goes against them. But that still doesn't mean you can ignore 'innocent unless proven guilty'. Despite what I agree with in your statement. It's still objectively wrong to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Unfortunately I don’t. Twitter’s format is a crime against archival. But I imagine you’ve seen the one screenshot that gets shared around. This one:

The blacked out bit is her deadname. Folks not knowing it is… kinda the point of it being a dead name. And it’s not particularly relevant anyway. But, if you really want to find it, she’s credited under it on a lot of Onyx Path books.

 

[Staffan]

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.

Wasn't that hard to find once I had the name of the original accuser (just googling olivia hill mearls).

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Right. Because of the social dynamics involved, “not taking a side” is just taking the side of the accused, while trying to dodge ownership of that position. It’s like how a vote for a third-party candidate in a US election is functionally a vote for the candidate who’s ahead in the polls. Might make you feel better, but in terms of real-world impact it’s not meaningfully different than taking the side of the accused.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Right. Because of the social dynamics involved, “not taking” a side is just taking the side of the accused, while trying to dodge ownership of that position. It’s like how a vote for a third-party candidate in a US election is functionally a vote for the candidate who’s ahead in the polls. Might make you feel better, but in terms of real-world impact it’s not meaningfully different than taking the side of the accused.

I understand the position... without fully agreeing with it. Know what I mean? Let me think on this. You understand the negative ramifications of your stance too though right? Your response seemed a bit too black and white, lacking in what I feel is the required nuance.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but this ignores that you are also potentially harming an innocent person!

You’re potentially harming an innocent person either way. Ideally, evidence would allow you to make an informed decision about who is most likely the innocent party. But in the absence of that, trying to remain neutral is supporting the more powerful party. So, rather than defaulting to the status quo, I apply rule-utilitarian principles: behave as would cause the least harm if treated as a universal rule.

In the absence of facts, to me, you can't arbitrarily decide that one person is wrong and start meting out punishment.

Indeed! Which is why, in a context where we’re determining guilt and assigning punishment, the rule with the greatest utility is “innocent until proven guilty.” This isn’t that context though. This is an interpersonal context. We’re not trying to determine if Mearls deserves punishment, we’re just deciding whose word to believe when two people are in conflict. And in that context, I believe the rule with the greatest utility is to believe the word of the (alleged) victim.

I understand that these cases are tough; tough to prove, and tough for those whose situations are not considered if a 'judgement' goes against them. But that still doesn't mean you can ignore 'innocent unless proven guilty'. Despite what I agree with in your statement. It's still objectively wrong to me.

But I’m not ignoring “innocent until proven guilty.” I’m saying it’s not the right rule for the context.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You’re potentially harming an innocent person either way. Ideally, evidence would allow you to make an informed decision about who is most likely the innocent party. But in the absence of that, trying to remain neutral is supporting the more powerful party. So, rather than defaulting to the status quo, I apply rule-utilitarian principles: behave as would cause the least harm if treated as a universal rule.

Indeed! Which is why, in a context where we’re determining guilt and assigning punishment, the rule with the greatest utility is “innocent until proven guilty.” This isn’t that context though. This is an interpersonal context. We’re not trying to determine if Mearls deserves punishment, we’re just deciding whose word to believe when two people are in conflict. And in that context, I believe the rule with the greatest utility is to believe the word of the (alleged) victim.

But I’m not ignoring “innocent until proven guilty.” I’m saying it’s not the right rule for the context.

I understand what you're saying. My position though is that there is no principle that is so vital or important that it's worth blowing away innocent people to protect. Your solution is what I would consider the easy way out with all due respect. I favour spending the time to dig deeper and finding a better way.

You're saying that we're not trying to determine if Mearls deserves punishment. But by taking your position, you implicitly are assigning guilt. Not purposely, but implicitly.

Wow, this is a tough one... I really do understand your point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I always think that is reasonable... I believe people (by default) but wont shun or speak out against someone without any evidence (including poor evidence that would never swim in court could be enough to sway me). Like I know this one guy I used to know is a jerk. I can't PROVE in court he did anything but on top of being a jerk I have very good reason to believe that he committed crimes, but again I can't prove that... but I can totally never trust him and bad mouth him.

 

[Charlaquin]

I understand what you're saying. My position though is that there is no principle that is so vital or important that it's worth blowing away innocent people to protect.

But what I’m saying is, no matter what you do in this situation, you risk harming innocent people. If you believe a false accusation, you cause some amount of harm to the accused. If you disbelieve a true accusation, you cause some amount of harm to the accuser. And abstaining from forming judgment is just as harmful to the accuser as siding with the accused. Someone is at risk of being harmed, no way around that. How do we minimize harm? Well, we weigh the severity of the possible harm with the likelihood of causing it. When the accused could go to jail, the severity of that potential harm is great enough that we would do much more harm believing the accuser as a rule. I think you and I agree on that much. Where we disagree is that I think in an interpersonal dispute like this one, where there is no punishment being meted out, the greater potential harm is that done to the accuser if they are not believed.

Your solution is what I would consider the easy way out with all due respect. I favour spending the time to dig deeper and finding a better way.

I mean, if you really favor digging deeper, you could go to primary sources. Talk to the people involved, ask for their perspectives directly. It’s not likely there is any hard evidence to be found though. At the end of the day, you either believe Hill was telling the truth, or you believe she was lying. We don’t and probably can’t know for sure, but refusing to take a stance is the same as taking Mearls’ side.

You're saying that we're not trying to determine if Mearls deserves punishment. But by taking your position, you implicitly are assigning guilt. Not purposely, but implicitly.

I guess it depends on how you’re defining guilt. I do believe that he is responsible for Zak S. Getting Olivia’s info. I don’t believe he should face legal consequences, because it can’t be proven. I also don’t believe he should be fired from WotC. He was moved to a less public position, and I don’t think that was an inappropriate decision for WotC to make, given how poorly he handled the situation from a PR perspective.

Wow, this is a tough one... I really do understand your point.

Eithics are complicated, for sure.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Eithics are complicated, for sure.

if nothing else this is 100% true, and there are multi ways of 'computing' ethics by multi different philosophers, so I doubt this will clear anything up anytime soon.