- 4,852
- 6,079
I don’t really get this point. Like, just ask for some sort of proof, like, maybe idk, the various sheets of practice and notebooks he has of various languages? Those aren’t exactly “extreme violations of his privacy”.The only sort of thing that could conclusively prove that would also be an extreme violation of his privacy, involving credentials which he may not even have.
(And before you say “They’re not enough by themselves”, it at the very least proves that he is in the process of learning the language, and helps build credibility.)
What evidence??? You’ve very explicitly denied posting the “evidence” publicly for…whatever reason. And like, I’m not saying that you don’t have it or that it doesn’t prove it, but when you’re talking about definitives like this on a very public forum, it’s seems only common curtesy to display why you think so publicly also.No sort of clarification or other side besides "I used an LLM and didn't realise that wasn't allowed" would suffice, imo, given the evidence at hand. Which, in itself, would've been a fine way of following the warning given.
I think I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say here, though that’s probably my fault and not on you. Enable people to do what, exactly? MT? Prove that others are MT? Regardless of the meaning, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t have approached him privately at first, discussed it, and then post whatever you wanted to post publicly after ironing out all relevant details and potential avenues.As I said, I've posted that in private, because I don't want to enable other people to do a similar thing in the future, but to edit out the indicators I saw. But if other staff think it's necessary for credibility, I can.
Also, you still haven’t addressed you not posting a report on the rule violation thread. I’ll repeat: if the evidence is so damning, then he is lying about using MT, which would result in even further punishment , likely beyond just a warning.