nswanson27
First Post
Wrong on both counts, I suspect.
D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet
- Status
Wrong on both counts, I suspect.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I hope you’re right....but I have a feeling it’s only a matter of time before someone has to burst that bubble.
Let’s see how many posts it takes to....
Oh...never mind.
Obryn
Hero
Well, near as I can tell, it's earned him a good degree of praise around most parts, raised awareness of misogynistic gatekeeping among people who didn't know it was an issue, and it has evidently hit a sore spot for the folks it was targeted at.
So unless I miss my guess, I'd say it's working as intended.
If we dont know all the criteria, then we cannot think of better candidates.
We are not in a position to judge here.
Congratulations Kate.
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I think there are a few things that still need clearing up a bit.
First, re: First Amendment:
Since nobody on this thread or really anywhere else is advocating that any facet or level of the United States government make any of the speech being discussed here illegal, any appeal to the First Amendment is completely irrelevant.
Next, re: Trolls:
There's been a lot of mentions, on multiple sides of this argument, about Mearls feeding the "trolls" or calling the people he's railing against "trolls" and that really is either a misunderstanding or what a troll is or a complete misread or underestimation of the actual problem. See, internet trolls are so name after mythical trolls a la the Three Billy Goats Gruff. Single, solitary creatures who live under a bridge and only wander into sunlight to harass others. In internet parlance, a troll is a lonely soul who craves attention, and tries to receive it by posting whatever crap on whatever forum of choice they can think of that will get them a reaction, whether they personally believe any of it or not. They're not trying to win an argument, or advance a cause or ideal. They just want to start a fight and bathe in the attention. That's why people say don't feed the trolls; that's the best solution in this case is to simply ignore them.
That's not what is happening here.
The people questioning Kate Welch's credentials or harassing her/WotC over her hire? The people causing firestorms on Reddit/4chan/Twitter? They aren't lonely, solitary beings looking for attention. They are a collective, organized around a central ideal: misogyny, keeping women (and often other minorities) out of their precious games. Ignoring them does not make them go away; it emboldens and legitimizes them. That's how we got nazis marching in the streets again.
The way you deal with people like that is to make them understand, in no uncertain terms, that their ideology is unacceptable and they are not welcome in the spaces we inhabit. That includes the games we play and the products we sell.
And as easy as it is to dismiss Reddit/4chan/Twitter as cesspools, and as much as they likely do make up a fairly small percentage of the overall population of D&D players, they take up a much larger, outsized role in the internet conversations about the game. And if some of those places do end up deciding they're done with D&D and move on to some OSR or whatever Mentzner's got planner next or whatever, then yes maybe that puts a small dent in overall D&D sales, but it sends a message to newer players or the demographics targeted by these groups that they are welcome in the broader D&D community, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the game and the community, if not necessarily sales (though probably!).
That's why Mearls' response, though a bit muddied due to the medium, was the appropriate one. And why he's being applauded for it by a large proportion of the community.
First, re: First Amendment:
Since nobody on this thread or really anywhere else is advocating that any facet or level of the United States government make any of the speech being discussed here illegal, any appeal to the First Amendment is completely irrelevant.
Next, re: Trolls:
There's been a lot of mentions, on multiple sides of this argument, about Mearls feeding the "trolls" or calling the people he's railing against "trolls" and that really is either a misunderstanding or what a troll is or a complete misread or underestimation of the actual problem. See, internet trolls are so name after mythical trolls a la the Three Billy Goats Gruff. Single, solitary creatures who live under a bridge and only wander into sunlight to harass others. In internet parlance, a troll is a lonely soul who craves attention, and tries to receive it by posting whatever crap on whatever forum of choice they can think of that will get them a reaction, whether they personally believe any of it or not. They're not trying to win an argument, or advance a cause or ideal. They just want to start a fight and bathe in the attention. That's why people say don't feed the trolls; that's the best solution in this case is to simply ignore them.
That's not what is happening here.
The people questioning Kate Welch's credentials or harassing her/WotC over her hire? The people causing firestorms on Reddit/4chan/Twitter? They aren't lonely, solitary beings looking for attention. They are a collective, organized around a central ideal: misogyny, keeping women (and often other minorities) out of their precious games. Ignoring them does not make them go away; it emboldens and legitimizes them. That's how we got nazis marching in the streets again.
The way you deal with people like that is to make them understand, in no uncertain terms, that their ideology is unacceptable and they are not welcome in the spaces we inhabit. That includes the games we play and the products we sell.
And as easy as it is to dismiss Reddit/4chan/Twitter as cesspools, and as much as they likely do make up a fairly small percentage of the overall population of D&D players, they take up a much larger, outsized role in the internet conversations about the game. And if some of those places do end up deciding they're done with D&D and move on to some OSR or whatever Mentzner's got planner next or whatever, then yes maybe that puts a small dent in overall D&D sales, but it sends a message to newer players or the demographics targeted by these groups that they are welcome in the broader D&D community, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the game and the community, if not necessarily sales (though probably!).
That's why Mearls' response, though a bit muddied due to the medium, was the appropriate one. And why he's being applauded for it by a large proportion of the community.
It's worth pointing out: the first amendment only affects laws passed by the government, but the concept of free speech is much broader, and there are reasons to consider allowing unpopular speech in communities.
I dunno. I'm basically with Mearls on this, I've been watching this be a problem forever, and I'm ready to say openly that it is indeed a problem.
I dunno. I'm basically with Mearls on this, I've been watching this be a problem forever, and I'm ready to say openly that it is indeed a problem.
Oh what a broad brush we paint with.
ArchfiendBobbie
First Post
Trolls are named after trawling, a type of fishing. Just "trawl" and "troll" are often pronounced the same and people confused the spellings.
I've heard that claim made too and I don't think it's right. Trolls were/are definitely a thing in message boards. I'm not sure where this trawling term came from but it think it's more related to click-bait ads/blog posts.
Edit: Just to be clear I know what trawling is - I grew up in fishing towns
- but it's use as an internet term is less clear. It's definitely more recent than trolling.
Give a troll a fish, he eats it after he eats you.
Teach a troll to trawl, and he still eats you first.
Teach a troll to trawl, and he still eats you first.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D General
Is D&D Survey Feedback Read? [UPDATED!]
