Ehhh. Vecht didn't participate in the discussion in any meaningful sense. Their original report requesting the threadban made no such reference (and appeared after you made the claim anyways), and you didn't link that post either; you simply said it must be so. So yes I think it's fair to say you were the source of the claim in this discussion since there's no clear sign it came from Vecht when you mention it, or elsewhere in the thread.
The Council had information collected in the Council Discord before it was given in the tribunal thread. My tribunal posts were the culmination of discussion, not the only source of them, and were drawn from reasonable inferences of Vecht's posts. We could, after all, all read the report well before it was posted in the tribunal. Councilors have wide oversight and research powers including report access.
My failure was neglecting the public element of the discussion and that from the user-side it seemed as though I was making the claim independently, which I acknowledge and apologize for, but I did not mislead the other councilors and they are capable of thinking for themselves- I do not believe I was the original person who ascertained off-site interaction, as a number of councilors came to the same conclusion together. I do not believe the implication of the claim, that I was misleading other councilors, is true, although if other councilors disagree they can speak up and I would be happy to apologize.
Many of the current councilors are accomplished people, former councilors, or incumbents, and thus I think my voice is just as authoritative as anyone else's on this matter where I had no special advantage or knowledge; I had drafted the rules before this came into effect, and I had no experience with the rationalist community. I do not think I had any special influence through that voice on the tribunal.
But A: I acknowledged that, and B: Squishy did invite, as was pointed out, commentary on this, but the Council more or less avoided offering it and stuck to a judicial role of deciding if the rules had been followed, not exercising their advisory function, or exercising it by refusing to comment and giving tacit support. Despite some of them expressing reservations about it, no one opted to suggest any changes.
It was fairly difficult to juggle all three criteria in a single thread, though. I was personally hoping for additional prompting from the administrator which didn't come to discuss #2 further and #3 had very little discussion at all- the tribunal was posted publicly without any council discussion on whether or not the thread should be posted and no opportunities for council revision or conclusion, which I felt was simply because this was our first tribunal and we were getting used to the new format. A more sequential format in which each question was put to us after the previous question had been exhausted would have been more useful.
I appreciate the criticism, by the way. It's good to have public attention on the tribunals and for people to actively work through them and ask questions of councilors.
forums.sufficientvelocity.com
