WotC Is Mike Mearls still in WotC?

[Morrus]

Oh, found a new video of [link removed] (with Michelle Ford (Connie)) for anyone interested in both sides of these issues. Timestamped by each accusation, nice touch.

We are not legislating that topic on these boards. There are plenty of other places on the internet you can do that.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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

It isn't distrust! It's objectivity. It's not picking a side when you don't have enough information to decide who's right or who's wrong.

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.

Sorry in advance... I know I said I wasn't going to jump back into this.

Having said that, doing harm to a bystander is never an acceptable consequence to an action in my opinion. It doesn't matter what the hurt is. As an injured party, if you want action taken, do more than make drive by statements; prove it. Don't slander (either in the legal term sense or the standard English language sense) people unless you have proof.

Saying 'I am more injured by this situation' or 'it's harder for me to prove' is not a defence against burden of proof. Mainly, because the end result of this ability to smear someone without any proof is that you are hurting a potentially innocent person's reputation, and that person has little to no recourse.

You seem to think that this isn't a big deal for some reason. You are 'us and them'-ing this scenario. There are two human beings involved here. Both need consideration. It's not 'my tribe' and 'the enemy'. Bigger picture.

 

[Mistwell]

I have made no claim of hard evidence. Indeed, I concede that there is no hard evidence, and accordingly it wouldn’t be appropriate to mete out some kind of punishment to Mearls. I am only saying I believe Hill, and it’s weird that people keep tripping over themselves trying to point out that there’s no hard evidence when no one is arguing to the contrary.

You believe Hill in what though? SHE isn't saying "this is what happened," but is instead saying "this is what I suspect may have happened and I am angry about that situation and this other situation and this third situation in the gaming industry in general."

You get there is a meaningful difference between "I think Hill's speculation is the most likely series of events" and "Believe all victims which is Hill, and doubting her is mistrusting her word on what happened!" You look to be doing the later (claiming Hill gave her "word" on this issue) when shouldn't it be the former given she isn't stating it as the later?

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin
Does WotC's decision to keep Mearls sour you to purchasing their products?

I was never onboard the fire Mike Mearls train.

I had no idea who Zak S and RPG Punsit were back in 2014 when people first raised objections to them having been credited in the core books, and when I learned about them, I assumed WotC hadn’t been aware of their reputations at the time they hired them either. After learning that they had known, it certainly soured me on them. But that was eight years ago. The social climate has changed, and I don’t think today’s WotC would make the same mistake again. Maybe that’s naive of me, but there you go. Mike Mearls though? I believe Olivia’s account of giving him evidence on Zak and getting harrassed after. I suspect that her speculation that Mike Mearls passed information along to Zak is correct, though I suspect it was probably not done out of malice. And I acknowledge that’s all speculation and don’t think he should have lost his job over speculation. And I don’t intend to boycott D&D over the situation. I would if they worked with Zak and/or Pundit again though.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay, I'm really confused by all this idea of "This is just a he-said, she-said", because what's being talked about isn't, as far as I remember. This whole talk of "If you look at it all and it's 50/50 that it's true or false" makes no sense to me: no one is disputing the screenshots because people remember them. They were well-known, just as Zak's whole history was. We know that Mike went to Zak with these accusations and talked to him about them because Zak himself confirmed that much on his blog.

So like, what is the whole "But we don't know what the truth is?" part here, because the whole point of this shameful episode was that Mearls went to bat to someone who had been credibly accused of a bunch of things, believed him, and over the years it's come out that the guy was, in fact, a giant piece of crap.

There is widespread agreement Mike Mearls discussed the issue with Zak.

There is widespread disagreement over whether Mike Mearls forwarded the confidential emails to Zak. The claim originates from Hill making the accusation along with a series of accusations about mostly White Wolf and her anger at the industry in general. She never stated it like "I know this is what happened" but it looks to me like just speculating in anger, and some here have taken that as the gospel truth of what happened and doubting that speculation is like mistrusting "the word" of Hill as a victim (though my view is she has never, ever stated it anything like that.)

There are not, and nobody has every claimed there were, screenshots of Mike Mearls forwarding the emails to Zak.

 

[Charlaquin]

It isn't distrust! It's objectivity.

If you know the objective truth, there is no need for trust. If you don’t trust without knowing the objective truth, you aren’t trusting at all.

It's not picking a side when you don't have enough information to decide who's right or who's wrong.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Your choice is to support the status quo, which favors the accused party.

Sorry in advance... I know I said I wasn't going to jump back into this.

Having said that, doing harm to a bystander is never an acceptable consequence to an action in my opinion. It doesn't matter what the hurt is. As an injured party, if you want action taken, do more than make drive by statements; prove it. Don't slander (either in the legal term sense or the standard English language sense) people unless you have proof.

Again, you risk doing harm to a bystander either way.

Saying 'I am more injured by this situation' or 'it's harder for me to prove' is not a defence against burden of proof. Mainly, because the end result of this ability to smear someone without any proof is that you are hurting a potentially innocent person's reputation, and that person has little to no recourse.

You seem to think that this isn't a big deal for some reason. You are 'us and them'-ing this scenario. There are two human beings involved here. Both need consideration. It's not 'my tribe' and 'the enemy'. Bigger picture.

I do take both into account, and I believe less harm is done overall by trusting the (alleged) victim unless given reason not to in an interpersonal context, just as I believe less harm is done overall by assuming innocence unless guilt is proven in a legal context.

 

[Mistwell]

I suspect that her speculation that Mike Mearls passed information along to Zak, though I suspect it was probably not done out of malice. And I acknowledge that’s all speculation and don’t think he should have lost his job over speculation. And I don’t intend to boycott D&D over the situation. I would if they worked with Zak and/or Pundit again though.

Ok I a glad to see you're now phrasing this in terms of speculation rather than mistrusting the word of Hill. Thank you! I think we're on the same page now.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok I a glad to see you're now phrasing this in terms of speculation rather than mistrusting the word of Hill. Thank you! I think we're on the same page now.

What I trust her on is her account of what happened. Assuming her account of what happened is accurate (which I do, because I trust her word on the matter), I think her speculative interpretation of those events is likely accurate, but that’s a different matter than believing or disbelieving her account of the events.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There is widespread agreement Mike Mearls discussed the issue with Zak.

There is widespread disagreement over whether Mike Mearls forwarded the confidential emails to Zak. The claim originates from Hill making the accusation along with a series of accusations about mostly White Wolf and her anger at the industry in general. She never stated it like "I know this is what happened" but it looks to me like just speculating in anger, and some here have taken that as the gospel truth of what happened and doubting that speculation is like mistrusting "the word" of Hill as a victim (though my view is she has never, ever stated it anything like that.)

There are not, and nobody has every claimed there were, screenshots of Mike Mearls forwarding the emails to Zak.

I guess I find this to be hyper-focusing on the wrong stuff, but fair enough if that is all the discussion is focused on. I found Mearls' handling of the events as a whole to be an indictment of his character, given what responses I've seen ascribed to him in both the screenshot and the blogpost. I do think that her speculation is likely right (based on his own fact-finding and dismissals of the claims, which seem to be carelessly done given his conclusions), I guess I'm more focused on him simply brushing off the accusations against Zak to be about some guys who harass him on SA.

 

[the Jester]

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

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.