I will admit that this particular piece was more hard-hitting than - in retrospect - was probably warranted at the time. Before I get into the meat of the details of WL's post, I want to specifically rebut this statement that he included within his piece:
I never received any form of an apology,
I apologized to him in Discord (and I can share logs, if needed, but I will maintain the privacy of what I said there unless WL wants to dispute my statement), and I also apologized in the thread itself, specifically in
this post. (see the last line)
**
Regarding, my "SC all-access pass," I addressed that to some extent in
this post in the CA that I made earlier, but I can and will go into more detail here.
I don't remember everything that I "gained access to" as Supreme Chancellor that I didn't already have access to prior. However, I do know that I can see more now than I did then. I'm hoping that naming forums won't get me in trouble for a Protected Areas Act violation, but here's a quick list, as best as I can recall.
What I gained access to as SC that I didn't have access to as VC:
-Situation Room
-Tomlinson
-Founder's Study
-Nebraska hyper.gif
-Senate Prelim Discussions
What I still didn't have access to as SC, before I was made admin:
-A lot of the Navy subforums. I can't remember which ones, but I wasn't in most of those.
-The hidden Court subforums. I could guess at their names, but I figure those that can see them know which ones I'm talking about.
The Supreme Chancellery - for me - wasn't an All-Access pass. The things I gained access to were related, in my view, to the new promotion I was receiving (from VC to SC) and the associated responsibilities.
1) Sit Room - Correct or not, the SC's have traditionally had access here. Perhaps that one should have been more classified as "Admin" versus "SC," and that's certainly worth debating in the future.
2) Founder's Study & Nebraska - Access granted at my request when I wanted to have a forum-based place to plan stuff for SC things. It's still fairly lightly used, but - for example - when we drafted the
SC statement/speech on harassment, we did that in that location.
3) Senate Prelim - I think Honored Citizens (previously) could see this, so it being granted with Senate Speaking Rights (as SC) makes sense.
4) Tomlinson - As I alluded to in the CA thread, there have been conversations there in the past that SCs have chimed in on. I don't want to disclose those details, but that was why we (Lethen and I and possibly other admins) decided to add Tomlinson access as a part of my SC mask. Additionally, I had talked to the President at that time of my confirmation (Trinnien) to clarify if he was comfortable with me viewing and chiming in on Tomlinson discussions. I don't believe that I had a similar conversation with WL when he was elected President, and that is definitely something that - in retrospect - I should have done differently. I did make a point of asking that question of Calvin recently, but I don't remember if I talked to Aexnidaral about that when he was President. And now this is reminding me that I should check in with Darcness too ... >_>
**
My "hit piece" was pretty much what the title said -
Why I Resigned. When you feel unappreciated and attacked for no good reason, people resign. (Breaking news.) Writinglegend alleges in the article above that, "the Supreme Chancellor in question went into Tomlinson to reinforce a hit piece against someone she politically disagreed with."
I forget the exact timeline (with regards to when my resignation happened, relative to all of this), but I remember there being posts or statements made somewhere (forum or Discord, I frankly don't remember as 6+ months have passed) that
we had talked about repealing the Spam Accords prior to my posting them to Gameplay. I had zero memory of this happening, and I checked various relevant places that I could view
to see if I had completely missed or forgotten said post or discussion. I didn't find it - as alluded to in the piece I posted - and the only way I could refute the public statements was to post what
wasn't there.
If you're going to attack me in public for totally fucking up FA policy by posting something to Gameplay when we had "discussed repealing it before I posted it" ... why shouldn't I be able to defend myself by saying that the discussion you claim that we had isn't anywhere that I can find? If you're going to hold me responsible for something that I admitted - in retrospect - I shouldn't have done or should have done differently, why should the President be able to claim/allude that a conversation
that never happened exists in a protected area?
I mentioned this in my CA post as well, but I wasn't sure if my making that reference in the piece would be legal prior to my doing so. I remember consulting with at least one Europeian legal scholar - and possibly a few - to check and see if that was legal, since I wasn't sure if that was kosher or not. I was told that since I wasn't disclosing info - only observing on what was not present - it should be legally permissible.
At the time of that posting in Europeia, I was the recently-resigned WA Delegate (with associated EAAC access) and Supreme Chancellor (who technically had Tomlinson access as a result of that, but I think - though I won't check so I'm not technically disclosing anything, hopefully - I had probably chimed in a on a few WA related topics there through my two-hats thing). The blending of offices and which side of which person is doing which thing can be confusing, most definitely.
The only reason I checked Tomlinson for the aforementioned content that I didn't find is because - plausibly - a discussion between myself and WL and the then-MoWAA (Kaboom, maybe?) and I think the then-MoFA (Brun?) could have happened there about the WA Spam Accords. If I am being told that there was a conversation about repealing it, and I can't find it anywhere I have WAD-related access to (see: EAAC), Tomlinson seemed like the next most logical place for that discussion to have happened.
Writinglegend, I'll reiterate this again - I'm sorry if you feel that I unfairly targeted you in what you obviously view as a "hit piece." I didn't view it that way at the time, but I will admit to being emotional and frustrated with how I was being expected to take all of the blame for the bungling of the WA Spam Accords when I felt that there was plenty of blame to share as a result of poor communication. I will reiterate that I did not do "research for my hit piece," but rather that I did research to figure out if I had completely forgotten about about a conversation that I was being told that the interested parties had that I couldn't recall. The primary reason I included it in the article was regarding Item #4 in the list of complaints that I had.
I have, in my view, legitimate reasons to have access to Tomlinson as Supreme Chancellor. If you (or a current or future President) disagree, we can have a discussion about that. However, I don't believe that it was "wrong" for me to check Tomlinson or the EAAC to see if the aforementioned conversation that I couldn't recall happened. I also don't believe it was "unethical" to release a rebuttal of blame that was being shifted my way by disclosing what
had not happened. As others have alluded to here, leaking information as an "unnamed source" has happened before from protected areas, so I would even argue that it's not really "breaking tradition either."
If this was still a concern for you, 6 months later, I wish you had come to me to discuss it further. When we talked about things prior to the apology that I had posted (linked above), I considered the matter resolved, and I didn't realize there were further ill will regarding the post on your side. Again, I apologize for whatever difficulties - mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. - that my post may have caused for you.
I don't believe that I've misused the Office of the Supreme Chancellors - then or now. However, if there are things that I have done or said that you feel have crossed a line, I encourage you (or others) to air them in public so that we can have a frank discussion about them, rather than whispered conversations that do our community more harm than good.
