My issue with the forum these days is how easily threads are locked stifling discussion, which is the whole damn point a forum exists!
There was a thread about how Death Stranding comments on the era of Trump, but it was locked because 'there was an OT thread' . Guess what? The discussion didn't continue in there!
Nobody was hurting anyone in that thread, there was no harm in it existing, people were in discussion. Then it was stamped out for no good reason. Threads can get locked for 'going off topic" too, which is maddening. We are human beings writing to each other, sometimes even enjoying ourselves! Why lock threads so easily? Are we trying to save on bandwidth or something? Is this thread going to get locked for "running its course" because "there's nothing else to say"?
Often locking a thread helps to reduce the number of folks who got banned. There's a good reason for locks at times. Also locks in the case you mentioned are judgement calls.
One thing I"ve noticed is that unlike before, threads like these criticizing the site. are staying open. I expected the mods to lock criticism like they had until the trans community put the mods on blast. To me, this is a sign that at least they understand they've got some problems, and are willing to listen.
I think a concrete solution is needed: my steps
1) More warnings before bans. If someone does something, they should get a warning first, unless it was particularly egregious. You shouldn't go straight to long bans just because the mod was in a bad mood that day, or it's their personal issue.
2) An Appeals systems for bans, where folks who are not mods can suggest overturning or reducing a ban (also increasing though). Have about 20-30 members, 2-3 of which accept appeals. If they feel the ban was excessive, or the poster makes an explanation that they feel was in good faith and mitigates, they can suggest reducing the ban. If they feel like the behavior was particularly bad they can suggest increasing, though this should be rare. In either case, the top level of mods would have the final decision, and certain things would not be appealable (legal liabillity stuff) Appeals should be finished in 48 hours whenever possible, so 1-2 day bans would likely not have any change, but longer bans would.
3) The folks for appeals should be from a cross-section of the site, with preferably 1/2 the members from groups that have traditionally been marginalized here.
4) None of this should jeopardize the true core values of this place. Bigotry and hatred should never be tolerated here, but I do think there needs to be more of an assumption of good faith. In cases where there's some ambiguity, ask folks to clarify a position before reporting/biting their heads off, unless it's a common bad faith tactic.
