(Original PM sent by Zyn on May 28th, 2024)

Jun 1st, 2024 (Voct):

Most important question:
by when do you need my choice?

Jun 2nd, 2024 (Zyn):

Before June 23rd please!

Jun 2nd, 2024 (Voct):

And are there any criteria this needs to meet, other than "not been used before"?

Jun 2nd, 2024 (Zyn):

And are there any criteria this needs to meet, other than "not been used before"?
Technically there are no hard restrictions, though I do recommend the following:

• rating of at least +20
• posted to the site in the past 2 years or so
• positive comments in the discussion section

Jun 5th, 2024 (Voct):

Realistically, I'm not going to have my choice ready by the end of June. I've got a ton of reading to do for both the Hugos and the Auroras, and I have a novel that I'm processing for a client, and I've got a houseguest coming at the end of the month which means a ton of cleaning. Can you reschedule me to the end of July?

Jun 5th, 2024 (Zyn):

• Can you reschedule me to the end of July?

I can ask the rest of the team if this is alright; however, doing so would effectively remove one entry from next month's pool of Spotlight nominee slots (typically four per month, but if you were to take the last slot, there would only be three current Spotlights for the month of July). Most likely the answer would be no.
Would it be reasonable to pick something from the pages you recently upvoted? The scpper database should have a record, if a list would be helpful.

Jun 6th, 2024 (Voct)

Would it be reasonable to pick something from the pages you recently upvoted?
the list might be helpful, but probably not in conjunction with "from within the past few years".

Jun 6th, 2024 (Zyn):

• the list might be helpful, but probably not in conjunction with "from within the past few years".

Here is your scpper record: https://scpper.com/user/392303
Would you like me to go through your upvotes from the past four months or so, and find something suitable?

Jun 6th, 2024 (Zyn):

Slight addition for clarity: I would be giving you a shortlist of maybe 3-5 pages from your upvote history, and you can pick which one from those to feature for the Spotlight?

Jun 21st, 2024 (Voct)

• rating of at least +20
• posted to the site in the past 2 years or so
• positive comments in the discussion section
• hasn't been done before

and, i assume, not already very highly rated, like +200, and also not something that has my fingerprints all over it?
No, don't think I can get that done in this amount of time. I'm flattered you chose me, but I will not be able to make a selection. I formally ask that you not make a selection for me on my behalf. If you want me to have a front page entry, give me more lead time.
Also, don't do it in June or July.

Jun 21st, 2024 (Zyn):

• and, i assume, not already very highly rated, like +200, and also not something that has my fingerprints all over it?

High-rated is fine, ideally spotlights would showcase material that people will enjoy reading a lot/many people already have enjoyed reading.
Reviewer involvement with the writing is also fine, as it's a good example to up-and-coming reviewers of what they can accomplish.

• No, don't think I can get that done in this amount of time. I'm flattered you chose me, but I will not be able to make a selection.

There is precedent for this; the current feature will simply carry over until the end of the month. Your name will still be listed in the archive as a recipient for this month's features, and will not have an associated feature.

• I formally ask that you not make a selection for me on my behalf.

Staff never picks Reviewers' Spotlights for reviewers. If you can let me know where you heard that misinformation from, I can address it so no further confusion occurs.

• If you want me to have a front page entry, give me more lead time.
• Also, don't do it in June or July.

As Reviewer Spotlight is chosen on a monthly basis, taking into account a reviewer's activity in the previous given month, the most lead time we can give is one month.

Jun 22nd, 2024 (Voct)

Actually, go with 8045.
Do you want a quote or a brief description or what.

Jun 23rd, 2024 (Zyn):

• Actually, go with 8045.

Okay, I've made a note of the feature selection.

• Do you want a quote or a brief description or what.

If you would like to provide a blurb for the feature to use, you may do so. Generally, the spotlight just uses a sentence from the first part of the work, or the first line of the description in the case of an SCP article.

Jun 24th, 2024 (Voct):

• Staff never picks Reviewers' Spotlights for reviewers. If you can let me know where you heard that misinformation from, I can address it so no further confusion occurs.

a) Zoobeeny, but
b) I genuinely forgot that this had already been addressed, sorry
I do apologize for any hurt feelings
As well, I'm a little disconcerted that the choice of one of Jorge's articles has contributed to the revocation of my spot, as not only is it a genuinely good article, but- as a result of my interactions with him - I believe him when he says he did not use generative AI tools to produce any of his works.
Oh well. Good luck with however things turn out.

This section will recap the events of the Cerastes disciplinary threads (1, 2):

First Thread

• On the 20th of November 2020, a disciplinary thread for Cerastes is posted by Dexanote.
  • The disciplinary thread makes the following allegation: Cerastes has posted an 001 proposal revolving around an object called "the Great Seal", which was a major part of DrMagnus's Alchemy Department canon. It is argued that Cerastes stole significant parts of this 001 from Magnus' unposted 001 draft, and so engaged in "authorial theft". (It was later revealed that Magnus’ 001 draft did not exist.)
  • The thread includes evidence that Cerastes sent one message to Magnus through IRC asking about the Great Seal, which is shown as an example of Cerastes being aware that what they were doing was wrong. The thread is stated to be "a discussion of how staff should respond to this situation", and that the Disciplinary Team's suggestion is that "Cerastes be demoted from staff for bad faith coopting of another user's intended climactic material, combined with a pattern of behavior unbefitting an individual of staff position."
• The initial responses to the thread, almost entirely made by members of the Disciplinary Team, generally agree with the parent post, making mention of distrust of Cerastes, and calling the act an "incredibly massive dick move". Two of Cerastes' captains suspend them from their respective teams, Internet Outreach (for the duration of the discussion) and Licensing (permanently). A security breach involving Cerastes is mentioned, but not elaborated on.
• Cerastes' response to the thread argues that the item in question, SCP-001-B, is "explicitly not the Great Seal of Alchemy", and that they were not told of any other part of their proposal being similar to Magnus'. Additionally, they ask if there exists a rule requiring approval from a canon's creator before adding to said canon.
• The first non-Disciplinary responses come in, which are confused as to what exactly is the accusation being made, with many pointing out a lack of any actual plagiarism:
  • The Great Seal in Cerastes' article was a minor part of the article, exclusively referencing existing site material, and most importantly – the 001 does not center around the Great Seal nor the Alchemy Department. It is posited that while Cerastes might have needed to discuss more with Magnus, the core accusation of authorial theft is faulty.
• Some staffers claim that Cerastes' vision of 001-B is wholly distinct from Magnus' idea for the Great Seal.
• At this point, there is (broadly) a distinct separation in comments made by Disciplinary Staff and those made by users outside of the team:
  • With the exception of Modern_Erasmus, Disciplinary Team comments continue to insist on Cerastes' guilt, now arguing that it's not the details of the case itself, but rather "the character of the person" being at fault, claiming that while the act was technically permissible, it was "unapologetically selfish".
  • With only two to three notable exceptions, non-Disciplinary comments argue that calls for action against Cerastes are excessive. While some argue Cerastes' actions were faulty, they point out the referenced material was already on-site and that Cerastes developed the idea wholly independently of Magnus. Additionally, as Cerastes removed the allegedly plagiarized passage prior to posting, many say that this is a fruitless discussion.
• The thread now moves to discussing the security breach. At this time, public details of this event are sparse. The breach is cited as precedent warranting demotion is of "problems with communication when it comes to important issues", and "disrespect of other staff members".
  • It is argued that as the security breach in question was not known by the majority of staff, and did not result in disciplinary action soon thereafter, so it is difficult to point to as a pattern of behavior.

Second Thread

• The second disciplinary thread is started, and the first is locked. The parent post of the second thread argues that the actual point of discussion should have been the security breach:
  • Due to a software bug, Cerastes' brother joins staff chat, and then leaves a few hours later of his own volition. Cerastes was aware that his brother had joined, but did not inform any other staffers until specifically confronted. Dexanote states that "without trying to sound overly dramatic, this is basically an unreported security breach, where the private discussions of a number of staff members were in full access of a total stranger for several hours without their knowledge or consent."
• Dexanote mentions that multiple Disciplinary Team members were not even aware of the breach until partway through the original discussion, including himself. As before, the first responses are by Disciplinary Team members, and all agree with the parent post, this time calling for full removal from staff.
• The first non-Disciplinary comments call for no action, claiming the failure to report wasn't malicious but understandable, either being afraid to report it due to being new on staff or "just like, falling asleep". It is argued that Cerastes has already learned from their mistakes.
• UraniumEmpire makes a post claiming that "if the breach wasn't enough to ensure a censure or demotion the first go around, it shouldn't be enough to do so this time", and that the two events aren't a pattern of behavior. This post receives significant support by other members.
• Captain Kirby brings back the issue from the first thread, pointing out that if writing for an open canon with multiple authors is disciplinary-action worthy if you did not discuss your ideas with all those involved, it sets a dangerous precedent for a site based on open collaboration. This post also receives significant support.
• It is pointed out that Cerastes told his brother to leave immediately after finding out he joined staffchat. This is seen as both an indication that Cerastes attempted to correct the situation, and that he attempted to intentionally conceal information from staff.
• An argument is made that, if Cerastes not informing staff of the breach for 12 hours is demotion-worthy, then higher-level staff failing to inform staff-at-large of the event for over three weeks is a significantly greater offense. This point is repeated throughout the rest of the thread.
• stormbreath mentions "the time between Cerastes being alerted to an investigation and volunteering the information [was only] twenty-four minutes", and suggests that claiming the time between both requests was twelve hours is misleading, as less than 30 minutes is a perfectly reasonable timeframe.
• The thread is now filled with users calling for both no action taken, and calls for a formal apology to Cerastes.
• The thread ends with Modern_Erasmus, taylor_itkin does not match any existing user name, and Dexanote apologizing. Dexanote makes the final post, noting that Cerastes will see no disciplinary action.

This section will recap the events which occurred within the Disciplinary Team's official chat space (also called "Disc-ord") during the period covered by this incident. For an exhaustive timeline suitable for public viewing see the addendum at the bottom.

At the time, this space was limited to the Disciplinary Team, and other members of staff did not have access unless they were also a member of the team. Also note that there existed a separate chat for admins and captains (called "AdCap"); the space is separate from Disciplinary Team chat, and discussions there are not comprehensively summarized here.

• Nov 17th: DrMagnus first presents the plagiarism complaint to Disciplinary Team chat with a fractured timeline and significant personal commentary, interspersed with mentions of IRL issues. The general consensus among the team is that this is not definitional plagiarism, but does constitute idea theft and being a dick. The security breach is mentioned once, offhandedly.
• Nov 18th: The tide is against Cerastes, due to Magnus and Malyce spending significant time venting about them. The security breach incident comes to light when it is explained to Dexanote. It is discussed openly by team members as part of a larger pattern of negligent and untrustworthy behavior from Cerastes, though no other evidence or incidents are provided. Magnus repeatedly says he is recusing/will recuse himself, but continues to actively participate and poison the well.
• Nov 19th: The first disciplinary thread draft is workshopped, and prepared with evidence. At this point the first incongruities come to light between AdCap's knowledge and involvement with the security breach and the Disciplinary Team's knowledge of it. The thread is posted; due in part to Dexanote misunderstanding the Site Charter, it is posted as a demotion rather than a discussion of a demotion. Dexanote operated under the assumption that the thread was a discussion of a possible demotion thread and not a demotion thread, but was told by Soulless after posting that this was not possible because the Charter does not make such a distinction. Dexanote is irritated by this, but given that the thread has already been posted, he decides to allow things to take their course.
• Nov 20th: The first posts of opposition in the thread have begun to filter in, changing Modern_Erasmus' mind, and angering Magnus and Malyce, causing further friction. Magnus' anger is exacerbated by significant IRL stress. The chat contains a limited amount of rudeness and venting about other users as team members formulate responses in the thread. At this point, the 001 issue still takes center stage, and the security breach is only really discussed superficially in the context of being an example of a pattern of behavior. The consensus on the 001 issue is that Cerastes did not do his due diligence in asking Magnus' permission to write about the Great Seal even though all offending content was removed prior to posting.
• Nov 21st: Erasmus and Magnus disagree on how staff disciplinary processes should be carried out. Discussion in chat generally follows along the lines that formed in the O5 thread, with Dexanote worrying that the schism has locked him (as captain of the Disciplinary Team) between a rock and a hard place. Team members continue to formulate responses and consider strategy moving forward, surprised that the thread devolved so heavily. The security breach begins to emerge as the central issue. Magnus continues to vent about IRL issues and the way the O5 thread is, in his opinion, misunderstanding and misrepresenting his position. He expresses regret at recusing himself, as he cannot post on O5 to defend himself (though notably, he continues to interact heavily in Disciplinary chat throughout this whole process).
• Nov 22nd: At this point, the Staff Discord ("staff chat") has become the main arena for the argument. Disciplinary Team members primarily appear in team chat to vent or complain about other staff members who are disagreeing with them. The idea of a second disciplinary thread, first mentioned briefly the day before, begins to take hold. By now, the security breach has fully taken center stage, and it is suggested that the new thread should focus entirely on that matter. Discussion regarding AdCap's role and authority in the context of the Disciplinary Team takes place. Dexanote has, between venting and attempting to calm conflict in team chat, been working on the draft for the new O5 thread, which receives critique from other members.
• Nov 23rd: The only event of note is Dexanote posting a link to his draft of the second thread. No other discussion occurs.
• Nov 24th:The majority of the discussion consists of Disciplinary Team members forming a "stronghold" in opposition to wider staff, with participants venting, supporting one another, openly insulting other staffers, commenting on the argument as it occurs, among other actions. Several members believe that intentionally obfuscating the existence of the Staff Discord may be counterproductive, though others argue that the Disciplinary Team lacks the authority to make it public unilaterally. Erasmus says that (as a devil's advocate position) to a user unaware of internal Disciplinary Team or AdCap discussion, this process seems like a witch hunt against a new staff member who angered a veteran staff member. Most others reject this notion.
• Nov 25th: Discussion is brief, primarily consisting of a space for venting about how other members of staff are engaging. Magnus says he cannot comment extensively "as other people have put me in a position where I cannot comment for fear of further issues".
• Nov 26th: No messages relevant to the matter are sent.
• Nov 27th: Team members discuss the process that occurred, debate whether their actions were right, and complain about staffers in opposition. Dexanote expresses regret about how he handled the matter. An argument begins about what the most appropriate action for the team is, with Erasmus suggesting an official apology, and Malyce and Tuomey being opposed. Taylor attempts to re-center the discussion on wider issues which emerged as a result of the incident; arguing continues.
• Nov 28th: Team members briefly discuss making rules around how to engage with disciplinary threads; accusations are levied at staff members who they believe are not engaging with the discussion in good faith.
• Nov 29th – Dec 1st: No messages relevant to the matter are sent.
• Dec 2nd: Team members complain about a specific member of staff.

Context

In August of 2021, the Disciplinary Team engaged in a limited review of the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident. In the wake of Bright and fieldstone's (six month and permanent, respectively) Anti-Harassment Team bans for their conduct in the Anti-Harassment investigation of kinchtheknifeblade, the Disciplinary Team received a complaint against DrMagnus (who at this point had left staff). ProcyonLotor was also mentioned in the complaint, as someone who abused his powers during that incident. At the time, Tuomey was the Vice Captain of the Disciplinary Team, and as such, he took charge of the discussion.

The core argument in the complaint was that Magnus used false information to punish an innocent individual. Since there was now precedent from Bright and fieldstone being banned even though they were not currently actively staff, it was argued, the same could apply to Magnus for his conduct on the Disciplinary Team.

The discussion here took place in a Discord thread within the Disciplinary Team chat. It is not being investigated as wrongdoing in and of itself, but was explored during this process to better understand the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident more broadly. It is included here to better inform the public of what other accountability investigations occurred prior to this one.

Summary

• Tuomey opens the thread with his opinions as vice captain:
  • Magnus was the complainant, not the deciding voter. This is argued to contextualize things differently to Bright and fieldstone, where fieldstone pushed a knowingly-bad case and Bright carelessly signed off on it.
  • Magnus did not "fuck around" with Cerastes in official spaces.
  • Magnus did socially pressure members of Disc. However, this is said to be dissimilar to staff exerting their authority to get someone banned, or by falsifying evidence. Additionally, any evidence that Magnus was socially pressuring members of Disc came to light after the disciplinary threads were created.
  • Dexanote's evidence was not hearsay, but composed of logs and forum threads. This is argued to mean that the suggestion that Dexanote did not do proper fact checking is invalid.
  • ProcyonLotor is not on the Disciplinary Team, and had no strong bearing on the case.
  • The Disciplinary Team should look for additional evidence regarding this matter.
• Tuomey notes that he will try to avoid drawing conclusions (aside from his introduction) to avoid bias issues, as he was a participant during the event.
• The nature of Magnus applying social pressure is discussed, with some suggesting no screenshots of DMs have emerged to support such a notion, and others arguing that Magnus' position of authority could apply social pressure through his presence even if he did not explicitly attempt to affect proceedings.
• Screenshots between one member of staff and Magnus are provided:
  • Magnus says that Cerastes is getting demoted at minimum, or potentially receiving a permanent ban. The other participant expresses generic support.
  • Magnus says that Cerastes stole his idea, that he "100% wrote The Great Seal as a 001", and that Cerastes is "useless" on Internet Outreach as a staff member.
  • Magnus says he "doesn't trust the guy at all" and also says "It’s also super irritating that I can’t talk to ANYONE about this more or less, because adcap and adminchat are the only places cerastes isn’t right now lol", indicating a desire to vent more extensively about his feelings towards Cerastes.
  • Magnus ports a quote from Cerastes' original draft, which ends with the phrase "Great Seal". He expresses that he feels Cerastes' actions constitute plagiarism.
• The staff member notes that they felt Magnus was telling this "as a friend" and not as staff, but acknowledges it may have altered their view on the matter.
• Screenshots between a different member of staff and Magnus are provided:
  • Magnus says "I didn’t want to say this in the channel, but… If people decide this isn’t demotion worthy, I’m going to call for a general ban on grounds of plagiarism. Sure, he can stay staff, technically, but he can eat a b&" [sic].
  • The other participant notes that they agree, and if Cerastes is not demoted they will be upset.
  • Magnus says that he is "not threatening", but that he would leave staff if Cerastes were not demoted.
• Malyce says they never felt pressured by Magnus. They disclose a potential conflict of interest with Magnus. They say that Magnus' actions were excusable because of the severe IRL stress he was undergoing at the time. They later acknowledge that, because they were already largely aligned with Magnus' view, they were not likely to be a target for pressure.
• Some staffers express that the framing of the disciplinary case as plagiarism was unfounded. One described the Disciplinary Team's actions as a tactical error, and another said they initially trusted Magnus' assertions that the actions were plagiarism.
• cybersqyd recuses verself for a potential conflict of interest.
• There is discussion about ProcyonLotor's actions, why members of the public found them objectionable, and whether the Disciplinary Team had relevant jurisdiction.
• The matter of whether Dexanote is culpable is brought up. One member says he is to blame, but only because he was the Disciplinary Team captain. Another says that it would be inappropriate to censure Dexanote, as it would merely be a way for hostile outsiders to punish political opponents.
• A suggestion to create a disciplinary thread for Dexanote is raised. In this idea, all relevant evidence would be presented publicly, it would contain a stern reprimand for his behavior as captain, and would say he has taken ownership for the mistakes and is sentenced to time served. This is raised as a way of satisfying those in the community who are "trolls". The proposal is controversial.
• Mann joins and explains that he suggested censure for Magnus, Dexanote, and himself, as a means of taking responsibility for the incident. He says he approved the disciplinary thread despite not giving it a proper level of attention.
• A Disciplinary Team member notes that they do not have any PMs with Magnus regarding this case.
• No further discussion occurs in the thread, and it is automatically archived after a day of inactivity.

Analysis

The thread begins with Tuomey, a major player in the events of the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident, stating his own opinion on Magnus' role. As Vice Captain, his opinion carried official weight, and he was able to frame the discussion before any team members had an opportunity to weigh in. Unfortunately, several of the points in his initial bullet list are untrue:

• Tuomey asserts that Magnus was merely the complainant, and not a deciding voter. Because of this, the situation was very different from Bright and fieldstone.
  • It is correct that Magnus originally brought the complaint to the team. He was not a "deciding voter" in a certain sense because he did not participate in any formal votes on O5.
  • However, this implies his involvement was limited to making the original complaint, and not participating further. This is wholly untrue; despite being prompted to recuse by multiple people, and several times claiming he would recuse himself, at no point did he fully uninvolve himself from disciplinary proceedings. He was a prominent participant, helping to steer the conversation, proposing possible disciplinary sanctions for Cerastes, and ardently insisted on a particular framing of Cerastes' actions. To say he had no or marginal influence beyond the initial complaint and additional evidence is unjustified.
• Tuomey asserts that Magnus did not "fuck around" with Cerastes in official spaces, unlike Bright and fieldstone.
  • Magnus did say that he did not intentionally complain about or belittle Cerastes in staff chat, where Cerastes and his peers could see. He did mention that AdCap and admin chat specifically were venues free of Cerastes where he could vent about them.
  • Unless this point is suggesting that only staff chat proper is an "official space", then this point is also untrue. The Disciplinary Team chat where all this conversation occurred is an official staff space, sanctioned for discussion of disciplinary matters. Within this chat, Magnus spent large amounts of time discussing Cerastes and his perception of events, as discussed above.
  • An alternate interpretation of this point is that Magnus did not directly belittle or insult Cerastes, as he preferred to complain about him in spaces wherein Cerastes had no visibility. However, then the comparison to Bright and fieldstone (then) of the Anti-Harassment Team would not make sense, as AHT likewise has a blackbox chat space where non-team members are not permitted inside.
  • Either "official space" matches the conventional definition of the term, in which Magnus unambiguously pursued disciplinary consequences for Cerastes, or it only includes the main staff chat channels, in which the comparison to Bright and fieldstone does not apply, as they also did not insult or pursue punishment for kinchtheknifeblade there.
• Tuomey concedes that Magnus did socially pressure members of the Disciplinary Team, but argues that this is dissimilar from a staffer exerting authority to get someone banned or falsifying evidence. He then argues that Magnus' applied social pressure was not known until well after the case ended.
  • Tuomey contends that Magnus was not exerting his authority to get someone banned. It is true that there is not any evidence which suggests Magnus was deliberately forging evidence, as in the case of fieldstone. However Magnus was a direct participant in the disciplinary discussion from which he was recused, and is admitted here to have socially pressured Disciplinary Team members. Like the Anti-Harassment Team, this was done behind closed doors, where the opportunity for public review of a case is thus limited (though the final judgment comes in an O5 disciplinary thread, which is where this differs from AHT).
  • In the second note within this point, Tuomey suggests that the social pressure only became known to the Disciplinary Team after the case ended (i.e. meaning when the disciplinary threads went up and discussion therein took place). This suggests that the only social pressure was in DMs with Magnus, as posted by Disciplinary Team members. The implication appears to be that Magnus' continual engagement within the disciplinary channel, despite being recused, being a high-ranking staff member, nor clearly having a particular perspective on the issue did not constitute "social pressure".
  • As such, the discussion throughout the thread assumes all conduct in the main Disciplinary Team chat was acceptable and involved no pressure, and instead sought "smoking gun" direct messages that Magnus sent.

At the time this re-evaluation was being carried out, the composition of the Disciplinary Team had changed somewhat. Magnus had resigned from staff, and some new members were added to the team. Notably, they were now able to see the chat records for the original deliberations if they went far enough back, but were not present for the discussions at the time.

Despite this, the primary participants in the re-evaluation thread included both Tuomey and Malyce, who were major participants in the original incident, and were both generally inclined to defend the Disciplinary Team and its actions during November 2020.

• Tuomey was the Disciplinary Team Vice Captain, and in that role it may seem appropriate for him to conduct the discussion (as Dexanote was experiencing IRL issues, like in the initial incident). However he should not have led with an editorial to frame the discussion, and was not mindful of his role in the incident being discussed.
• Ultimately, Tuomey should have designated an uninvolved Disciplinary Team member (meaning, someone who was not a participant during the incident) to lead the discussion instead. He indicated himself that this kind of discussion was desirable, saying that he wanted more uninvolved members to comment to ensure neutrality.
• Similarly, it may seem appropriate for Malyce to participate extensively, as they provided information they had access to. However, like Tuomey, they should have not participated in the bulk of discussion, and primarily should have answered questions / provided documents when requested.
• Malyce admitted that they were opposed to Cerastes, and were very skeptical of the complaint that spurred the re-evaluation from the start, and largely had the approach of wanting to terminate the discussion, as they felt it was fruitless. This is corroborated with several statements made by themselves (and similar statements made by Tuomey) about how there existed a "mob" both within and without staff which was seeking to punish innocent persons such as Magnus.

The participation of Tuomey or Malyce in this conversation are not severe offenses in their own right, especially given the messiness of this case overall, but are demonstrations of improprieties which hindered the Disciplinary Team in being able to neutrally and properly analyze the complaint. This also stands in contrast to cybersqyd, who recognized a potential conflict of interest, and so did not participate in discussion.

Recusal was not consistently applied (nor is it properly documented as site policy), which was similar to the original discussion of Magnus' plagiarism allegations. It clouded the discussion with both findings of fact and the opinions of those who, due to their role in the original team discussion, were more liable to frame or understand certain issues in a particular way.

Additionally, the thread archival mechanic of Discord (at that time limited to a period of one day) meant that the matter automatically "cleared itself" once it became slightly inactive, rather than needing to be deliberately closed when team members believed the matter was resolved. As such, this re-examination lacks a formal conclusion or summary report.

DrMagnus: Magnus took an otherwise-minor exchange with Cerastes, interpreting his actions very harshly, and inappropriately presented a disciplinary complaint. He was strongly, and repeatedly, involved in the internal Disciplinary Team discussions about this complaint, despite recognizing and stating multiple times that he should recuse himself. His presence and persistence within the team's discussion poisoned the well, marring Cerastes' credibility to a degree that some form of wrongdoing was assumed before the team had a serious opportunity to investigate specific claims. In addition to having a self-acknowledged conflict of interest due to being both a complainant and a deliberator, he referenced his IRL stresses which had the effect of manipulating other team members into being overly sympathetic towards him, vilify Cerastes, and justify the legitimacy of the case. Rather than distancing himself from staff matters entirely due to the IRL circumstances he was in, he instead spent a significant amount of time on the case, inappropriately using it as an outlet for his stress.

Consequently, as the case evolved differently than he imagined, he hardened his position, interpreting much of the opposition as personal attacks. He applied his personal friendships with Disciplinary Team members as well as his access to the discussion to influence the case, and did not admit fault during or after the incident. His actions were born from high personal stress, but were still incredibly inappropriate, severely affected the case, influenced the Disciplinary Team's perception of Cerastes and inhibited a proper study of the evidence.

Dexanote: During the incident, Dexanote did not express strong views of his own, and instead attempted to de-escalate as the situation spiraled. However, as captain, he failed to do due diligence before acquiescing to the strongest voices in the room, and in this he was negligent. For instance, he did not properly vet the plagiarism allegations, he was not aware of the Discord incident for some time and treated the plagiarism accusation as the core issue until the Disciplinary Team shifted its stance to center the Discord incident.

Overall, his behavior during the incident can be best described as negligent, which manifested in his inability to function appropriately under the pressure of the discourse and being caught between loud and persistent voices on the team and later staff as a whole. He was concerned that the situation had soured so badly, and that there was no longer a decision he could make that would de-escalate the situation while pleasing all sides.

Dexanote was also subject to significant IRL issues, which prevented him from giving the case a proper level of attention. As the Disciplinary Captain in a staff disciplinary case, he was repeatedly re-drawn into the matter. This is not directly his fault, however given the gravity of the matter, he should have recognized his incapacity to properly handle the case and explicitly designated another (i.e. someone who could do proper diligence) to be Acting Captain for the case, permitting him to take a needed break from staff matters.

MalyceGraves: MalyceGraves was heavily involved in the original incident, and significantly shaped the Disciplinary Team's reception and posture towards Cerastes and the case against them. Malyce exhibited a consistently strong stance against Cerastes that extended into the realm of personal animosity, repeatedly arguing in various ways that they behaved in manners unbecoming of staff, and that they felt they deserved some degree of disciplinary action for their poor character. Malyce spent a significant amount of time in the Disciplinary Team chat supporting Magnus' positions, demeaning Cerastes, and later, aggressively venting about and insulting other staff members. Much like with DrMagnus, their presence and persistence within the team's discussion poisoned the well, marring Cerastes' credibility to a degree that some form of wrongdoing was assumed before the team had a serious opportunity to investigate specific claims.

Tuomey Tombstone does not match any existing user name: Tuomey was not involved heavily in the case initially, and primarily became an important part of the discussion around the time the second O5 thread was being drafted. His actions were in many ways comparable to Malyce's: he was one of the loudest venters, complainers, and insulters, to a lesser-but-still-inappropriate degree. He was, along with Malyce, an important part of the Disciplinary Team's insular culture of treating its staff space as a sidechat (private chat space for friends) and its hostility to the rest of staff, and grounding it as a "stronghold" where participants could discuss and strategize how to respond against the "opposition" in staff chat and the community.

DrEverettMann: Mann was scarcely present during the course of the incident, and only sent a handful of messages over two weeks. None of his messages took a particularly strong stance on any issue. He was not the captain of the Disciplinary Team, and had no ethical obligations towards the team than any other member. While he did not intervene to ameliorate or de-escalate the situation, he also did not worsen it, and was largely irrelevant to the matter.

taylor_itkin does not match any existing user name: During the initial stages of the case, Taylor did not look particularly deeply into the case and largely followed the recommendations and judgments of others. However as the incident wore on, they earnestly tried to resolve the situation productively, and curtail the poor tendencies of other Disciplinary Team members. The worst mark against them throughout the case was their initial trust of their fellow team members.

Modern_Erasmus: Erasmus made an active effort to question the evidence, the disciplinary procedure, and Magnus' continued involvement in the case. Despite heavy backlash from other members of the team, on several occasions he called out behavior in the chat he found inappropriate, such as the culture of venting in an official chat space, and what he saw as an ad hoc modification of the rules to enact disciplinary action, at significant cost to his own credibility within the Disciplinary Team.

SoullessSingularity: Soulless initially went along with the wave of other Disciplinary Team members, and did not particularly question the evidence, the narrative, or cross-reference Magnus' claims as Modern_Erasmus had done. Their primary concern throughout the incident was staff cohesion and Charter Disciplinary procedure in the course of the investigation. As the threads continued on, this manifested in the form of attempted de-escalation once it became clear staff-at-large did not support the endeavor and Magnus’ behavior was called into question by Erasmus and others. Soulless' actions were comparatively infrequent and subdued, and concerned more with minimizing splashback than any stance on the matter itself. They did not significantly affect the situation.

Based on the behaviors of the participants in the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident, the group has made the following disciplinary recommendations:

DrMagnus: Magnus was under considerable IRL stress, but nonetheless engaged extensively in the case in an inappropriate way. He did not properly recuse himself, instead opting to influence the investigation through several different means towards outcomes he felt were acceptable. Intentionally or not, Magnus abused his position as a member of the Disciplinary Team through venting, complaining, and generally inappropriate behaviors targeted at Cerastes and other members of staff who disagreed with him. On a less formal level, he also (again, intentionally or not) leveraged his friendships with the members of the Disciplinary Team to frame Cerastes' actions as a personal attack on himself.

Recommendation: Blacklist from staff, temporary ban of three to six months. (disciplinary thread)

Dexanote: As captain, Dexanote had several obligations towards the Disciplinary Team. In the event that he knew he was incapable of carrying those obligations out, he instead had an alternate obligation to delegate those duties. As a consequence of both IRL issues and social pressure, Dexanote was negligent in the disciplinary investigation, failing to perform due diligence on the team's motions and the complainant's claims. He also presided over a team with a harmful culture which held staff-at-large in contempt and attacked other staff members in official spaces. As captain, he had an obligation to ensure that team members acted properly and that disciplinary matters were conducted properly and fairly, and he failed to fulfill that obligation.

Recommendation: Removal from captaincy of the Disciplinary Team, censure of three to four months. (disciplinary thread)

MalyceGraves: Malyce was strongly opposed to Cerastes at every stage of the case, which is an opinion they are entitled to. This said, their reinforcement of their friend Magnus' aggressive approach against Cerastes shaped the Disciplinary Team's view before and during the bulk of the case. Additionally, Malyce was a strong adherent of the team culture which treated Disc-ord as a sidechat where staff members they disliked could be openly disparaged and denigrated. They took advantage of the closed nature of the channel to minimize and dismiss conflicting opinions. Malyce's extensive verbal abuse of most of the opposing staffers heavily contributed to the defensive posturing of the Disciplinary Team throughout the O5 threads.

Recommendation: Removal from staff in poor standing, blacklist from staff, temporary ban of three to four months. (disciplinary thread)

Tuomey Tombstone does not match any existing user name: Like Malyce, Tuomey was also a major participant in the Disciplinary Team's hostile relationship with other staffers, insulting staff members who were not present on more than one occasion. His treatment of the team as a force to dominate staff affairs rather than serving at the consensus of staff-at-large is unbecoming of a Disciplinary Team member. Additionally, Tuomey did not recuse himself from the re-analysis of the case despite being a major player in the original incident, and instead framed the discussion as a response to criticism rather than an honest analysis of missteps made during the Cerastes case.

Recommendation: Removal from staff in poor standing. (disciplinary thread)

DrEverettMann: No action.

taylor_itkin does not match any existing user name: No action.

Modern_Erasmus: No action.

SoullessSingularity: No action.

Several institutional failings allowed this incident to occur as it did. The group understands that individual punishment alone cannot and should not stand in for systemic fixes: as such, a number of institutional recommendations are being made here.

• A formal recusal policy should be put in place.
  • The rules surrounding what recusal is and how it should be applied should be codified, and not merely dependent on self-policing. There should be clear guidelines that apply to any number of situations wherein a staff member may have influence over a matter wherein they have a conflict of interest.
  • For the Disciplinary Team, if a team member is the complainant, then they may not be the one to port the matter to Disciplinary Chat. They will submit their complaint as their statement, and may not be present for deliberations.
  • If a team member is the subject of a complaint, then they may not see the complaint, and should have no input on the matter.
  • The Acting Disciplinary Captain is responsible for ensuring recused Staff member(s) are unable to see the relevant chat space(s). All communications with the relevant recused member(s) must be through direct messages, as if they were a non-staff community member. They may not be solicited for thoughts in Disciplinary Team chat, even if it is convenient.
  • In the event that the captain of the Disciplinary Team is recused, these responsibilities will fall to the Vice Captain, or other person designated by administration or staff consensus.
• Disciplinary Team staff should gather statements from aggrieved and accused parties.
  • In clear cases such as obvious vandals, then gathering statements for procedure only is wasteful. However, in any case that affects staff members or notable members of the community, the initial complaint may paint the situation one-sidedly; as seen in this incident, this has the potential to be catastrophic.
  • As such, the team should have an obligation to gather statements to weigh in its body of evidence. In the event of a complicated or unclear case, the team should have a tendency to gather too much information rather than risk having too little.
  • Were Cerastes able to share their side of the story, and were the Disciplinary Team not lobbied directly by the complainant, it is very likely that this case would have ended differently.
• Explicitly note conduct obligations on the Disciplinary Team hub.
  • The Site Charter makes brief mention of the need for staff to have conduct befitting of their position; this should be more explicitly formalized.
  • An increased standard of conduct for Disciplinary Team staff (such as not disparaging the parties involved, such as other staff or community members, and especially not in complicated or high-stakes cases) should be developed and applied.
  • The captain of the Disciplinary Team and fellow members of the team are responsible for ensuring that team members hold themselves to high standards in the course of their duties. There should also be some mechanism by which staff members outside the Disciplinary Team have the capability to review improper conduct.

This case is the conclusion of a long process that has taken many diverging turns and faced a number of complications, which will be summarized briefly here.

Attempts to investigate possible Disciplinary Team wrongdoing over the course of the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident began shortly after Cerastes' disciplinary threads were first posted to O5. During November 2020, the Disciplinary Team was significantly more insular than it is now, and even in the face of strong pushback from the rest of staff on O5, this only hardened its opposition. In the period after the threads were resolved and no action against Cerastes was taken, the team was highly resistant to the possibility that there were systemic faults.

Around the time of February 2021, there was mounting pressure from the community to take action, as the incident affected more than just staff internally. Some administrators, such as Mann and Modern_Erasmus, were interested in restitution for what occurred. Outside of a disciplinary process, Mann suggested censures for himself, Dexanote, and Magnus as one possibility. Magnus, an important actor in the events of November 2020, was highly disinterested in this proposal, and resigned from staff soon after.

As mentioned above, the first Disciplinary Team re-examination of the November 2020 case occurred in August of 2021. Complaints were made to the team in light of Bright and fieldstone, who were then both not current staff, receiving Anti-Harassment bans for their inappropriate conduct in an Anti-Harassment case. An argument was made that similar logic would apply here, and even though Magnus had departed from staff at this point, disciplinary consequences could still be levied.

This examination was carried out by Tuomey, at that time the Vice Captain of the Disciplinary Team. He created the Discord thread that the discussion occurred in, and in its creation, framed the resulting examination. The examination was framed not as a systemic failing of the Disciplinary Team, but instead looking at individual failings only, and limiting the scope only to then-current staff. The consensus was that the actors in the original incident did not behave in a way warranting any disciplinary action.

On June 21st of 2021, Dexanote (as captain of the Disciplinary Team) posted Statement on Events of November 2020. This document was drafted by Dexanote with review by Cerastes (the wronged party). It is not a disciplinary thread, but rather a statement; it details the timeline of events from Dexanote's perspective and provides context to his actions.

On October 6th of 2021, aismallard became the Vice Captain of the Disciplinary Team.

On October 12th of 2021, in a discussion in admin chat (now #admin-sensitive), thedeadlymoose became aware of the closed nature of the Disciplinary Team chat, and either learned of or connected it to the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident.

For context, when the original team structure was set up, disciplinary processes were meant to occur in open staff chat or in a similar space, with all final records made public on O5. During the period when staff functions began slowly transitioning to Discord, a separate guild ("server") was created for Disciplinary Team functions, which became its own isolated chat with time. Because Discord guilds can only be joined with an explicit invite, unlike a typical IRC channel where joining is more fluid, this strictness of channel boundaries contributed to the culture of the team becoming very isolated from the rest of staff. Discussions therein began to be considered highly secret, as if the space constituted an administrator-authorized blackbox. This is relevant, as the events during this incident were able to occur as they did because non-Disciplinary Team members were entirely unaware of the investigation into alleged plagiarism, and in the wake of the incident, how exactly the incident unfolded internally occurred was only visible to members of the Disciplinary Team.

As part of a series of reforms initiated by Moose, this invalid separation was undone, and general Disciplinary Team channels are now visible to operational staff members (or higher). On November 14th, 2021, an administrative fiat was invoked which formally recused Dexanote from matters involving staff discipline, an action taken by aismallard at the recommendation of Moose.

This set of changes also included Moose working with aismallard (now Acting Captain of the Disciplinary Team, since Dexanote was recused for this matter) to formally conduct a disciplinary case to re-examine the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident. This involved a series of communications, primarily in direct messages, over the course of more than a year. Several matters related to the organization of the case were discussed, but material progress was minimal due to several complicating factors (see below).

During a discussion in staff chat around the six hundred day mark (from the date of the first disciplinary thread being posted), concerns were raised about the time taken in the case. It had been a sore point for several staff and community members that no visible action had been taken in response to the November 2020 Disciplinary Incident.

At the outset, aismallard left a short response noting that Moose's guidance on the case was needed for it to be properly executed. After, Moose weighed in themselves within the thread. They noted that they were repeatedly pulled away from assisting aismallard due to several emergencies which occurred on staff, as well as the lack of interest from administrators generally in Disciplinary policy and history. They expressed frustration that some staff members actively impeded their work and were primarily interested in punishing Dexanote specifically rather than properly weighing the case.

After Moose's comments, aismallard posted a message draft that was developed in parallel (i.e. not yet taking Moose's messages into account), which described difficulties as a result of inconsistent communication with Moose and Pedagon's illness.

There was a detour discussing the emergencies that Moose made mention of earlier, as well as some policy issues. Following this, the conversation turns to staffing the investigation. This is an important aspect, as bottlenecks from individual availability up to this point severely limited the pace at which some actions within the case could be performed.

The next day, Moose made a post describing their perspective of the process and why it faced delays. They noted that they have "not been in charge of the Dex investigation for well over this entire year", and that it was handed over to aismallard, who was very burned out and unable to be offered substantial support. They then detail the current state of investigative segments (such as mentions of administrative and captaincy reviews for Dexanote and Mann).

The day following, aismallard posted a large statement describing a series of crucial misunderstandings and miscommunications, which were significant contributors to the delay. Notably, she was under the impression that Moose held joint custody over the investigation, and that consultation on all decisions was mandatory. Consequently, Moose being unavailable resulted in periods where the case was fully blocked. Secondly, staffing could be assigned to ensure there was sufficient manpower. The only other individual involved was Pedagon, which Moose suggested, feeling that even then they were potentially stepping too far. On the contrary, aismallard felt that only Pedagon was permitted because it was the only personnel recommendation that Moose had made (in an attempt to defer to her). She rejected the notion that burnout, staff emergencies, or technical issues were hard blockers that prevented progress, instead attributing it to the above miscommunications.

After further discussion, reconciliation, and clarification, aismallard announced that she was drafting a new plan for the investigation, which was based on the now-corrected basis that she was in charge, and Moose was a consultant. Several days later, the project plan was published and discussed within staff chat, and this iteration of the investigation (which among other things, yielded this document) was launched.

In summary, regarding the time taken in this case, there are two spans which should be noted. The first is when Moose began pursuing Disciplinary Team reform, which was around October of 2021, which until November 2022 is a period of about a year. The second was after the above-mentioned staff chat thread cleared up several misconceptions, which permitted the launching of a focused group to fully work on the investigation, which began in July of 2022, which was a period of about four months. While the duration of time in total since the first Cerastes disciplinary thread is two years, a proper case to analyze it has only existed for a shorter period, as a number of historical issues (first within the Disciplinary Team, and then communication problems after its composition was altered) prevented such a case from being properly organized sooner.

• November 2020 Disciplinary Incident Records (hub)
• Exhaustive timeline of events in Disc-ord during the incident