There's no self-contradiction there. This is a community with high standards for respect and polite conduct, and the incident was very out of character. Do I believe that this was handled in the best manner possible? No, and in fact I criticised the staff in my original post. I think the staff response was mishandled, and it was very clear that they were working at cross-purposes. I am not trying to make the staff appear innocent - you and I both know that is not true. I do not, however, think that the situation warrants this, and it smacks up of a witch hunt. The community is out for blood now, in a way that I think is needlessly punitive and is only going to cause more problems.
What I certainly don't want is the narrative to be manipulated so blatantly in a way that pushes the crux of the issue on the staff, because I don't believe the staff were the root cause of the issue. If you wanted the google search spamming to stop, does revoking the privileges of people to use that bot not count as a fix? Even if you think the initial response was heavy-handed, it prevented +gsearch being spammed in the chat. In your words, "step one is preventing it." Then you all proceeded to challenge the staff decision in #commons, and it makes you wonder why the situation escalated further. What you suggested will most likely be implemented though, so kudos for that. Perhaps pushing it so heavily at the time wasn't the correct decision.
My point about the dog-piling was not that it means your point is invalid, but as an example of the poor conduct of the community on that night. It is clear that both sides were playing dirty that night, but who is going to suffer the most? The staff, because it is the opinion of the discord that only the staff can be held accountable. That is shameful. I don't know of any member that has been punished on an agreed basis (thanks to this staff evaluation, which has managed to paralyse the staff even further) for their actions that night. The discord has never had an issue with the community on this scale before, and I can only attribute it to the fact that the community has changed in a way that I find backwards.
Panda pretty obviously flipped out because the community abused the trust he had placed in them. That is not an approval of his action, it is empathy. You would do well to remember that the staff members are just as much members of this community as we are. It is not remotely difficult to see the reasoning behind his actions, and this reductive narrative that is being perpetuated by those that he insulted will not help the staff come to the correct decision about the changes due to be made.
There are certainly issues with the staff. I am not denying that. But there is much more to the issue than just the staff, and I do not want this situation to be misrepresented.