WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[the Jester]

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

Thank you. I am pretty sure I have seen this in the past but without the context that it was the actual person in question.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

And abstaining from forming judgment is just as harmful to the accuser as siding with the accused.

That is partially true... not as harmful, but somewhat harmful. An important distinction.

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.

Yup.

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.

Also yup.

We don’t and probably can’t know for sure, but refusing to take a stance is the same as taking Mearls’ side.

I really don't think that's true. At all. Quite the opposite in fact; it's harmful to both parties when you take sides when you don't know the facts. See my first point in this response as well.

But enough back and forth from me... I think we'll have to respectfully disagree (on the finer points) on this one. Thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion.

 

[Andvari]

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.

That’s not how it works. For instance, I have no reason to believe Olivia’s claims as no evidence has been provided for them. This doesn’t mean I think she’s a liar. As no evidence has been provided of her being a liar, I have no reason to believe she lied.

It just means I don’t have the information necessary to evaluate whether her claim is true or false.

In other words, “I don’t know.”

There are other possibilities than one of them being wrong, too. Perhaps she genuinely believes what she’s saying is true, but it isn’t. Or it is but Mike genuinely doesn’t believe it.

 

[Charlaquin]

That’s not how it works. For instance, I have no reason to believe Olivia’s claims as no evidence has been provided for them. This doesn’t mean I think she’s a liar. As no evidence has been provided of her being a liar, I have no reason to believe she lied.

It just means I don’t have the information necessary to evaluate whether her claim is true or false.

In other words, “I don’t know.”

None of us know. She told us. We can choose to believe her, or we can choose not to believe her. There’s no third option.

 

[Andvari]

None of us know. She told us. We can choose to believe her, or we can choose not to believe her. There’s no third option.

I don’t believe it is possible to choose a belief. I also did not infer a third option.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t believe it is possible to choose a belief. I also did not infer a third option.

Whatever phrasing you want. You believe she told the truth or you believe she lied.

 

[cbwjm]

I do miss getting new happy fun hours, I liked watching those.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Olivia Hill did not give her "word" on that's how it happened. She made a random accusation, along with another accusation about White Wolf, with no evidence or claim that she had any evidence that the emails were forwarded. It was her speculation based on the fact 1) Mike Mearls had the emails, and 2) someone else found out what was in the emails. That's it. She never claimed or implied she knew for a fact Mike Mearls had forwarded those emails. If you know of anywhere that she did make that claim I'd love to see it. I have been asking for years. I've been challenging people to supply this for years now and every time I do people go away with the accusation and then pop back up later when I am not looking making the accusation again.

 

[Andvari]

Whatever phrasing you want. You believe she told the truth or you believe she lied.

This is false as I believe neither of those things. I have yet to be presented with evidence of her claims or evidence that she lied.

Admitting to not knowing something due to lack of data is not a sin.

I suspect you are equating disbelief in a claim with the belief the claim is false, but this is not so. Perhaps for you it is, but that does not apply to everyone.

 

[Mistwell]

Yet your first priority was to point out that there isn’t evidence. Why?

Yeah, since we don’t have access to the emails in question, there’s really no way of knowing what may have been said in them. What I know is that Hill emailed Mearls and only Mearls with evidence of Smith’s harassment of her from an email address she created solely for that purpose and did not give out to anyone else. Then she received further harassment from Smith at that email address. I’m personally inclined to suspect that Mearls confronted Smith about the information in the email, without taking care to insure the metadata from the email was expunged. As likely a result of carelessness (and/or lack of tech-savvy) as malice, if not more so. Regardless, I trust Hill’s account of the events, with or without seeing the emails themselves.

Hills account is not quite what you're portraying it to be. She's not saying she knows or has confirmation of any kind that's what happened. She speculated. You're acting like doubting her speculation would be doubting her word but that's not how Hill put it herself so why are you twisting it to be different than what she actually said. She made an educated guess as to what happened, Mearls is not allowed to respond, nobody including Hill is sure what happened. You can certainly decide on your own to believe that Hill's speculation as to what happened but why are you walking around using it like a club as if it were some claim of hard evidence when that's never been Hill's claim to begin with?