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

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.

 

[darjr]

I don't know what murder is? I've never seen it. What really could be wrong? Is victim warrented?

 

[Guest 6801328]

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."

 

[Todd Roybark]

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....

 

[Guest 6801328]

The person he sued lives in Australia, hence he could bring the suit there.

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

Ah, gotcha. Didn't know that.

 

[OblivionDrive]

Ah, gotcha. Didn't know that.

No worries. It's all good.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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]

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Of course no one has a requirement to do so. Did anyone stipulate that?

Well you did say "whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?" in a context that had nothing to do with U.S. courts.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Well you did say "whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?" in a context that had nothing to do with U.S. courts.

Exactly. Which my meaning had nothing to do with U.S. courts, but instead the philosophy of William Blackstone.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.