That response goes back to the core substance of what I've been saying.
"Just because you did a good thing afterwards (reporting it to the moderators) does not mean that the way you acted originally was not worth punishment."
This kind of response is the reason why this problem arose in the first place. The issue needlessly escalated to the point where a staff evaluation was necessary because of how the staff responded.
We found the command and begun using it, due to there being so many of us and the size of the richembed it produces the chat was quickly flooded, and we recognized it as a problem. We then pinged the staff making them aware of both the problem and the solution.
What is more productive? Punishing those that discovered a problem, or listening to the community and implementing preventative measures? Which of these approaches would generate backlash, and which of these approaches would peacefully offer a long-term solution? In a completely preventable situation like this, step one is preventing it; if that didn't work, go back to step one.
Moving on from my fundamental disagreement with you on how to handle the situation, your depiction of the community is backwards and even self-contradictory. Which is it: is this a community with a very strong culture of courteousness and politeness, or is it a community you're ashamed to be in? You criticize the community for dog-piling when they otherwise rarely speak, yet your self-defense of not being there was that you were actually lurking and that you rarely speak. To dismiss the widespread consensus for change as a product of only bandwagon effect and dog-piling is itself an example of the bandwagon fallacy as it judges their points' validity or lack thereof based off of the number of people speaking out above what is being said. Many of the actions you're still defending were already condemned by other staff members. When panda threatened that the next person to repost a criticism of him would be banned, shayner told him to "shut the (explicit) up" and when cntkillme and panda started removing people from the server people for posting reactions mondkatze said that you can't do that. It's also worth noting that the blacklisting of users of the bot was so sweeping and unhinged that even mondkatze was put on the blacklist. (Prevented from using all bot features: probiker123, BloodyDemon31, Loleydude, GingeyGamerYT, LifeInDevelopment, XenoOfTheInmortal, BrendonTheWizard, creeperladyman, spider, Mondkatze, lookVector, HardCoreDev) When one of them asked "what did I do" the next response by panda was "I'm gonna say you're a (explicit)" and when I said the bot should have a mute function the immediate response was "Why don't you (explicit) off?"
You said you don't condone that behavior, but that is how the situation was handled and if you believe that it was handled in a satisfactory manner then you're not only condoning but encouraging it. The incident was handled in an entirely unconstructive manner and it entered a state of self-perpetuating escalation until we actively worked to change the subject; the need for an evaluation should be enough of a sign that the behavior in question should not be endorsed. To reiterate, if the top priority when handling a situation is always to just solve the problem then we wouldn't have this problem. Punishments should be used sparingly, temperament should remain calm and reserved for as long as possible, and the staff should always actively think of what the best approach to the situation is before dropping the ban hammer and infuriating the community.