log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Three weeks ago, WotC's Jeremy Crawford told us that Mike Mearls was no longer working on the tabletop RPG, and hadn't since some time in 2019. Today, the (newish) D&D head Ray Winninger said on the company's Twitch livestream that Mearls is now back full-time on the tabletop game.

Mike Mearls is back full time on the RPG again. He was splitting his time working on some computer game stuff for us, but he’s back.

He still doesn't appear to be back on social media since his final tweet back in 2019.

mearls2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Russ Morrissey

Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not in any way saying Zak is innocent.

That said, he successfully settled one lawsuit he filed in his favor. It was in fact a defamation lawsuit. The defamer made a public apology as part of the settlement.
FWIW he sued the person you're speaking of in Australia and and his ex in Canada. Commonwealth nations have defamation laws that are notoriously difficult to fight back against, which is why he went after targets in countries he knew he could win if he threw enough money at. Notice how no suits have been filed yet against anyone in the US. That's because he would be considered a public figure (regular or limited) for the purposes of this suit and the defense would merely have to say that, based on what they were shown/knew about him, that they were within their rights to make statements that they thought he was an abuser/etc.

I'm not a lawyer, mind you, but another high profile defamation suit got thrown out of court last year on similar grounds. A prominent anime voice actor who is a known missing stair in the industry tried to sue multiple former co-workers and industry colleagues after he got dropped from prominent gigs when news of his history hit wider media.

Mind you, it didn't help that he crowdfunded literally the most inept lawyers humanly possible, but Law Twitter spent months making a public mockery of the case because it was so very very bad and had zero chances of not being dismissed.

But yeah - he's going to limit himself to suing people in jurisdictions where he knows he can win because the laws favor him. If he finally sues someone in the states and wins, I'll eat my words but I really don't see that happening.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Harassment is badly defined. It's such a vague term I find devoid of meaning.
Would you prefer “bullying”? How about “Cyber-stalking”?

My friends have given by number to someone I would have given it to otherwise. I didn't like it, but whatever.
Did the people your friends gave your phone number to stir up a mob on social media to send you death threats for having the wrong opinions about Star Wars? Did their Twitter followers text you pictures of your children’s school at that phone number? Those are things that happened to the person we’re talking about.

Using the word "victim" seems strong. I wouldn't throw it around lightly. Why choose that particular word?
It is strong. I chose it because it’s warranted.
 

But yeah - he's going to limit himself to suing people in jurisdictions where he knows he can win because the laws favor him. If he finally sues someone in the states and wins, I'll eat my words but I really don't see that happening.
Question: Why would you ever sue anyone in a jurisdictions where the laws weren't in your favor over a jurisdictions were they were?
 



Would you prefer “bullying”? How about “Cyber-stalking”?

Did the people your friends gave your phone number to stir up a mob on social media to send you death threats for having the wrong opinions about Star Wars? Did their Twitter followers text you pictures of your children’s school at that phone number? Those are things that happened to the person we’re talking about.

It is strong. I chose it because it’s warranted.
I have no idea what happened on social media. I don't use social media. As a result, I've never seen or seen "cyber bulling" or "cyber-stalking." But those two phenomena see only to arise when people engage in social media, which is very easy to remove one's self from. It's a personal choice to use or not to use it. I see "cyber bulling" or "cyber-stalking" one of the risk associated with using social media.

Is it good? No. But it seems common enough.

Also, I don't know exactly what Zak did on social media. I don't know what "stir up a mob" means or what damage it caused. Simply stirring up a mob in itself doesn't need problematic.

As for pictures? Yeah. That's why I find social media a problematic technology and don't use it. I'm not sure our ape brains can handle it.

Why is victim warranted?
 

Question: Why would you ever sue anyone in a jurisdictions where the laws weren't in your favor over a jurisdictions were they were?
You're not engaging in good faith but I'm going to respond to this one time and one time only.

Because he has sworn up and down he is innocent of the charges people have laid at his feet. If he truly thinks he's in the right, he wouldn't just go after soft targets where he is all but guaranteed to win just by throwing money at it. He would be able to fight back with all the proof he claims to have as to his innocence. He is still mistakenly under the impression that his reputation in the industry is salvageable and that if he sues enough people, it will create a chilling effect to get people to stop talking about this.

But again, most states in the US have anti-SLAPP statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits and even if it didn't get summarily dismissed before a trial hearing, at the hearing all the defense would have to do is present his long and sordid reputation and history and say "based on this, I sincerely believed he was an abuser" and the lawsuit would be tossed and he would be on the hook to pay the legal fees of the defense. If it gets tossed during the anti-SLAPP, he'd be on the hook for even more money as they usually assess additional penalties as a way of saying "Yeah you knew you weren't supposed to do this but you tried anyway."

That will be the last of my replies to you on this issue. Have a good day.
 

Question: Why would you sue somebody in Australia for something that happened in the U.S.?

Oh, right, because thanks to the Internet you can, and if you want to silence somebody you harassed, that's a good strategy. Nevermind.
Answer: To win. If you're suing someone, better to use all the cards in your hand.

If we have a problem with me suing someone in Australia for something that happened in the U.S., maybe we all need to elect different lawmakers in the next election.
 

Question: Why would you sue somebody in Australia for something that happened in the U.S.?

Oh, right, because thanks to the Internet you can, and if you want to silence somebody you harassed, that's a good strategy. Nevermind.
The person he sued lives in Australia, hence he could bring the suit there.

His ex lives in Canada, so... likewise.
 



I don't see your point here.

Are you saying governments have the right to define words and concepts outside of "legalese"?
No. I'm saying that "innocent until proven guilty" means that in the United States the police and the courts must follow procedures which presume innocence until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean that outside of the the courts there is any legal requirement to do so. If your employer thinks you stole office supplies, they can presume you are guilty without proving anything. (Although you might have other contractual protections.)

Since defenders of Zak seem really keen to remind the rest of us about the difference between "illegal" and "unpleasant", I thought you would be happy to understand that, outside of U.S. courts, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty."
 

There are so many epistemological errors in this thread I cannot begin to start.

The fact that posters are stating as fact, that Mearls must have given sensitive information out, when the collective We, knows nothing, even remotely like that...is a travesty.

The fact, posters on EnWorld are engaging in ad hominem attacks on other posters, just for asking for proof, to support opinions, that some are writing, is atrocious.

Yes, for many numerous reasons, it is distasteful,( to put it mildly), to respond to persons claiming sexual abuse with: “Prove It”....sometimes one simply can not. Traumatic events can impede recall of those same events, for example.

This, however, does not extend to accusations of forwarding a persons email information.

If PC Alpha is the only person that knows X bit of information, and then suddenly BBEG Delta also knows information tidbit X.....is this definitive proof that PC Alpha told BBEG Delta?

Of Course it is NOT Definitive proof.....

Can we, please, have some epistemological rigor! 🤦‍♂️

If we are going to just deal in opinions, let us just keep our opinions of this to ourselves, and move on....
 



No. I'm saying that "innocent until proven guilty" means that in the United States the police and the courts must follow procedures which presume innocence until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean that outside of the the courts there is any legal requirement to do so. If your employer thinks you stole office supplies, they can presume you are guilty without proving anything. (Although you might have other contractual protections.)

Since defenders of Zak seem really keen to remind the rest of us about the difference between "illegal" and "unpleasant", I thought you would be happy to understand that, outside of U.S. courts, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty."
Of course no one has a requirement to do so. Did anyone stipulate that?

I'm not actually referring to the courts, but the philosophy posited by William Blackstone, upon which the US justice system was based. It can be applied to court, but also extended to matters of reputation.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
No. I'm saying that "innocent until proven guilty" means that in the United States the police and the courts must follow procedures which presume innocence until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean that outside of the the courts there is any legal requirement to do so. If your employer thinks you stole office supplies, they can presume you are guilty without proving anything. (Although you might have other contractual protections.)

Since defenders of Zak seem really keen to remind the rest of us about the difference between "illegal" and "unpleasant", I thought you would be happy to understand that, outside of U.S. courts, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty."
This. You're under no obligation to associate or give work to anyone including Zak S.

Freedom of speech is also limited to the government slinging you in jail. It doesn't provide you with job protection or social ostracized etc. The only consequence is jail that you're protected from. And that's the US.
 



This. You're under no obligation to associate or give work to anyone including Zak S.

Freedom of speech is also limited to the government slinging you in jail. It doesn't provide you with job protection or social ostracized etc. The only consequence is jail that you're protected from. And that's the US.
I don't think anyone's talking about freedom of speech.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement1

In Our Store!

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top