having slept on it, I think I'm better able to articulate why this whole thing triggers me--yes, literally: mock away, fuckers--me so much https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1264826404677419008

oh, and btw, I'm not fucking reading replies to any of this, because no, I literally don't give a shit what the Twitter masses who haven't worked at a game company and haven't been targeted by an internet campaign have to say about it

And the first thing is while, in general, I'm opposed to the idea of the internet deciding who game companies do and don't employ, that principle is one I subordinate to "get actual dangerous abusers out of positions where they can harm people"

But I don't extend that as far as secondary enablers.

And here's the thing: I absolutely think Mike Mearls *should* have been fired for passing on harassment victims' confidential info to their harasser.

But that should have happened either as soon as anyone internal found out about it, or as soon as public outcry about Zak S penetrated corporate consciousness enough for them to remove his credit in 5E.

Not because the internet demands it now.

And maybe I am personally biased, given that Mearls is one of exactly two men in the industry who have ever genuinely apologized to me for something they've done to me

(plenty of men have apologized for stuff *other* men have done to me, of course)

Mearls sicced a mob on me (ironically, for something *I* didn't say and wrote a post disagreeing with), and blocked me when I called him on it (and some other stuff)

he also made one of the few actual (not "sorry if I offended you") apologies I've ever gotten

And look, I can turn it around and say I don't think he ever did the other half of it, which would have been publicly acknowledging the harm done.

But either way, it probably has softened my view of him.

Ultimately, though, what it comes down to for me is, as I said last night, that this doesn't actually teach game companies anything other than "don't employ anyone the least bit controversial."

Which covers almost anyone who's been public about the industry needing to change.

And that if they are getting any sort of significant, sustained callout, they can respond by firing a dev.

(Like, that's really what this going from "WOTC was in bed with Zak S" to "fire Mike Mearls" is showing them.)

I think it was great that public pressure got them to remove his credit--it would have been more effective if, rather than having them make a change to future printings (very cheap), the demand had been to recall the current print run (very expensive).

But they did it, and issued an apology, and I honestly don't have a good answer for what actual corporate accountability beyond that is--what it actually looks like to have learned the *right* lessons from it

And the other piece of this is that I don't know--and I doubt anyone beyond a handful of people knows--how much Mearls acted on his own here.

And before you come at me with "just following orders" not being a defense, I fucking cut my publishing industry teeth on Holocaust memoirs and have been studying denazification for two decades so please spare me your facile understanding of the Nuremberg trials

because "'just following orders' isn't a defense" wasn't the *end* of the whole thing--there was actual investigation into, y'know, who gave the orders and that's not something the public really has, without a lawsuit, any power to get from a company

and ultimately, that's what I think is the main thing that's grossing me out so much about this:

like, what's the actual *plan* here? you get Mearls fired, cool, what comes next? what's the actual goal?

and if the actual goal is "this one guy will suffer consequences for aiding and abetting a harasser" cool, fine, maybe I can even agree with that

but don't pretend you're proving any *larger principle* than "internet outrage gets devs fired"

which we already fucking knew.

Because okay, if this is about a principle, as people keep saying it is, *what actually comes next*?

What's Step 2?

Get someone specific hired to replace him? (They won't ever grant you that power, and even if they did, what will *that* actually prove?)

Is it reparations of some sort? (It'll never happen, but unlike the internet dictating who game companies fire and hire, that's at least a precedent I think would be non-terrible.)

Is it money behind anti-harassment initiatives? (I have serious doubts about that ever actually being anything more than a gesture, like coding camps for high school girls, but again, at least that's a precedent that isn't just "more internet control over devs.")

Like honestly, I don't know how to get to positive change in the industry, how to actually get companies to learn the right lessons and not just "no remotely controversial employees" (with the attendant "if you want to work in games, keep your mouth shut about Issues")

The only way I see change happening is breaking up the Old White Boys Club, which involves a *lot* more strategy than "get this one dude fired" (I mean, it also means "ensure a *lot* of people stop getting treated as 'luminaries'" for starters)

It involves continuous, sustained pressure on multiple fronts to keep harassers out

and it also involves coordination between people outside companies with people within them

so, like, what's Step 2?

and yeah, I freelanced for WOTC before and have probably screwed my chances of freelancing for them again by saying this

(and the only reason I *can* say it is because I don't need the freelance income)

but ugh, like we all know there's no actual plan here, just vague "well, we won't stop with Mearls"

anyway, muting this thread now because you don't fucking get unfettered access to me