1. I disagree that me bringing the matter up was inappropriate. Certainly not to the extent that this should require Disciplinary action of any kind.
At the time I asked multiple times if staff members objected to me discussing this there, sought permission to ask specific questions or release specific material, and asked multiple times if there was a better locale for such a discussion. Further, I made an effort to acknowledge responses to this.
There were multiple of both of these parties present including OriTiefling, Pedagon, Ariadnesthread, Kufat, torcsandantlers as well as several other staff members present in the conversation.
There was one request for a pause by Ari, who requested people take a breather until torcs was available. Once torcs entered the conversation a moment later she retracted her request. While she requested this however, I acknowledged it, and respected it. (1, 2, 3
There was a request for a pause by Naepic. I acknowledged this. When Naepic finished typing his next message I asked a follow up question. I do not believe this was in violation of his request, though I may be incorrect.(1 ,2, 3, 4)
There was at least one implicit agreement that the discussion could continue in the public staff channel by member of Disc and admin Oritiefling. (1, 2)
Further, an early response by Kufat, a member of Disc, furthering the discussion rather than attempting to shut it down led me to believe the discussion was acceptable. (1)
2. I disagree that I ignored calls for sensitivity in the discussion. I discussed what Naepic referred to as sensitive in the sensitive channel, and not in the public channel. I do not believe that the discussion having a sensitive aspect to it means that the entire discussion needs to be sensitive. If Naepic believes I disregarded his calls for sensitivity I can only apologize, that was absolutely not my intent.
If I was unintentionally disregarding his request for the entire matter to be sensitive then I wish this had been re-iterated, because I did not understand this to be the case. Even upon revisiting the case I do not read Naepic’s messages in this way.
If I overlooked anyone's explicit call that the discussion must be moved or stopped I would please like the message in question specifically linked so that I might avoid such misunderstandings in the future.
3. My messages were certainly not intended to misrepresent the situation or messages I received. They may have been inaccurate, but they reflected my understanding of the situation, which was imperfect. This is not malicious, at most it is a misunderstanding. I will also note that a large part of this misunderstanding and my accompanying agitation came from action being taken before I was given complete information, allowed a rebuttal or allowed to offer an alternative solution. Even if those would have been rejected right out the gate I think that nonetheless would have been the proper thing to do.
Insofar as Disc’s issue with me assuming torcs was acting in his capacity as Disc, I suppose in reviewing our direct messages torcs never mentioned acting in a capacity for Disc, but clearly I was correct? I'm confused about what the issue is with this assumption.
Additionally, while indeed I did request an update, I also initially requested they not occur on that Sunday the message was sent to me, or the day after. Though of course torcs was able to disregard my request. I'm not sure if this is relevant as I'm not certain what issue is being taken here with my assumption. I also find it odd that Disc correctly mentions this here while at the same time suggesting that no one had been able to speak directly to me. Surely they could have spoken to me directly at that moment, especially given my explicit offer of elaboration and hoping to clear the matter up.
Regardless, if a member of Disc could clarify the issue with my allegation that torcs was operating in a Disc capacity I would appreciate it.
As for the claim that I was "deliberately attempting to frame the conversation against the Disciplinary Team", I am somewhat confused at the meaning.
I felt, and continue to feel, that Disc has handled this matter improperly. I have made no secret of this, including it directly in my response to torcs’s message reporting the deletion and in staffcord. I suppose in that way I could have been "deliberately attempting to frame the conversation against the Disciplinary Team", but I fail to see the problem inherent in such. People disagree with staff, staff teams and staff decisions, quite vocally, all the time, be it on social media, privately or in staff channels.
Certainly in this very thread I could be said to be "deliberately attempting to frame the conversation against the Disciplinary Team" by making a defense disagreeing with Disc's interpretation of events. Yet that should not be a problem, I fail to see how I could otherwise make the most effective defense.
I requested multiple times, in general, to be told a more appropriate venue for such a discussion and to my recollection (and skimming the public discussion) I was not provided with an answer, nor told that the public staff channel was the improper place for such. Indeed, as detailed in 1 there were multiple individuals present who were fully empowered to tell me this was the improper place, and I myself asked multiple times, and though the discussion was had it did not, and still does not seem to me that I was incorrect in having that portion of the discussion publically.
While as specified in 2 Naepic requested certain information remain sensitive, to my understanding this related to a specific Licensing matter and not to discussion of the Disc case as a whole. indeed i did move to the private staff discussion for this specific segment of discussion.
I also fail to see how a user, or staff member, discussing a disciplinary case against them or deletion of their work in public, in a general sense, is in any way barred as the charge of “prematurely engaging in this conversation” and “inducing bias among the general population” seems to suggest. It may be that Disc is referring to doing so in a staff capacity, but really truly when I first brought up the topic of plagiarism it was meant in response to an already commenced discussion and I felt it was relevant. When multiple staff members, including disc members and admins, continued the thread of discussion I saw no reason to be cagey regarding the topic. (1) . Further, if that is the charge, I believe Disc has poorly conveyed it.
I reject entirely the negative characterization of me either "knowing better and acting intentionally" or "having a level of familiarity with Disc process beneath the trust given to me" imposed for a variety of reasons. Certainly I could name the persistent lack of onboarding information for members of Disc or admins as a reason for a member "not knowing better" if indeed you believe I do not, but from my time on staff I believe that I handled this sufficiently appropriately.
I clearly disagree with certain members of Disc on this specific case (and of course being it’s against me I’m biased), but it is entirely possible for staff members to disagree quite radically on matters, especially subjective matters such as these, without necessarily being less trustworthy or less knowledgeable. I don’t believe I am less knowledgeable or trustworthy than my fellow Disc members for interpreting things differently than they, for the same reason I do not believe they are any less knowledgeable or trustworthy for interpreting things differently than I.
I got emotional at times, used harsh language, and to an extent I regret that. I worry that some members of staff may think I hold ill will against them, I want to reiterate that this is absolutely not the case. But this sort of emotional discussion is not unheard of in staff chat, and certainly I feel this was tame compared to some I've witnessed. It was not my finest hour, but certainly not dire enough for a Disc response of this nature.
Had there been a stop order I understood as such at the time, I would have obeyed it. Instead from those disc and admin members present I understood implicit support from all present, except for the brief stop request by Ari and the request for a small piece of the discussion to be sensitive from Naepic.
I can fully understand holding admins to a higher standard, but nobody can be expected to have infallible judgement or understanding, especially when it comes to unwritten rules, implications or otherwise unclear directives.
