Don't lock threads, delete them.

I am mainly more concerned that they value not banning people breaking rules instead make a special case. 

Do you realise that you were one of them?

Let's assume you were a violater. From your point of view, would you rather be banned or given a chance to shape up?

Banned while also the other users who were also personally attacking people. I don't want the rules to be bent my way because that just means someone else would get a free pass as well and they can use it in a much worse way. Besides it isn't real life so I probably be banned for a week or month tops. 

I think what should've happened was privately messaging everyone involved who did what and ask them to stop. If they don't while also not apologizing then you can ban them.

I haven't got a private message so I am going with Speedrace doesn't know what he was doing because I wasn't sent a message and I am guessing from people like Speedrace and RM I would be one of the people who would've been banned.

If this isn't how bans work why did bsh1 inform me of a rule breaking before making his decision?

If this has changed as well then f*ck the people in charge for being incompetent or allowing incompetency to occur without apologizing for it.

All I saw was Virtuoso stating he won't do it again so Virtuoso is basically apologizing on Speedrace's behalf.

I didn't like it when I think bsh1 apologized for Virutoso and I don't like it now. Sure the head mod is supposed to manage every other mod but to say they should be more accountable for something that was never done before is in my opinion is the fault of the person who did the new thing. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam, non-moderator thread.

Bsh1 never once, not even one tiny bit, apologised for Virtuoso.

You don't get to control whether or not other people are banned

If you, personally, want to be banned for what you feel is violating content, you can always voluntarily request a ban.

That you believe you probably did violate the CoC, and that you believe you should be banned for it, but haven't requested a ban, suggests that you don't actually want to be banned.

That is an impractical precedent to set.

Decisions such as banning are usually a result of internal discussion and consensus. What we have is multiple instances of behavior entering a grey area where you might have some people agreeing it is a violation but others not yet agreeing. We can view the locking of the thread as a precautionary measure to halt the behavior before it reached a point where there wasn't any doubt and mass warnings/bannings were in order.

What boggles my mind is anyone that views this as the less desirable option than doing nothing until you need to start whipping out the ban hammer. It seems abundantly clear to me that if you can take a simple, less intrusive action that halts the undesirable conduct without having to ban lots of people, clearly that is the better option than waiting for people to inevitably do something egregious enough to warrant a banning.

I cannot attest to the inner workings of bsh1 mind.

I didn't see any apology.

I doubt you will find that anyone involved in the decision would agree with the interpretation that Speedracer did this on his own in some sort of rogue or uniltaeral action, or that the move was one of incompetence. In short, there is nothing to apologize for.

I didn't claim Speedrace (Please get his name right, I thought you, discord DA. was in close communication with DA. I find that funny since you don't even bother calling your peers correctly.).

I claimed an example of a moderator being more accountable than the head moderator is what Speedrace did. It seems like you liked to find the context of Virtuoso not directly apologizing but you forgot to mention where Speedrace told me Ragnar had a part to play. Are you going to feign ignorance or are you just now realizing Speedrace spoke Ragnar specifically and all whatever that is? Link

The issue is you stated what you would like to happen to you contingent on what happens to other people. This is not something under your control.

So you are voluntarily requesting to be banned?

Given that a user is allowed to request that they be banned, what you believe does matter. If you believe you have committed a ban worthy offense and want to be banned for it, all you have to do is ask. Is this a formal request?

While messaging individual users is possible now, it is still a chore, depending on how many users need to be message. Especially when you account for the inevitable bickering and back-and-forth most users will engage in.

Assuming this community will grow, it would simply be impractical, if not possible, to expect that moderators message every single user when an instance of mass, potential violations is in progress.

Locking the thread is a single action. Quick, easy, and painless.

There is a new moderation team with a different style of moderation.

The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge.

you seem more annoyed about rules being followed the way they've always been followed than what is actually best for the users and the site.

An apology implies fault. 

You can do something that turns out to not be the correct course of action without having committed any mistakes or errors or done anything that is fault-worthy.

I cannot attest to the inner workings of Virtuouso's mind.

Perhaps you should recommend that Mike create a medal for that?

That link affirms what I was saying: It wasn't a unilateral action taken by Speedrace himself.

If I wanted to be voluntarily banned then I would ask to banned voluntarily. If I wanted the people who were issuing personal attacks to banned I would like moderators to enforce those rules instead of locking the thread. Ask the question again and I am implying you don't know what I am talking about.

So you want the moderators to ignore responses made to them?

Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.

How would you know?

No conversation was stifled and no one was punished.

Here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3087/new-moderation-policy-discussion

Here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3038/moderation-ama

Here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3019/moving-forward

There are no rules regarding the locking of threads.

Incorrect.

It is not.

Okay.

"Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?

Please read what I say before linking me 3 different things that don't answer what I said. Here is what I said again "neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it."

You've mentioned both, yes. So if you advocate a warning first, then okay. But that just raises the issues of impracticality when it involves a lot of users at once.

You are free to message them or reply to them. You can create an entirely new thread to continue any appropriate conversation you wish.

You have not been punished.

I said: "The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge."

You replied: "Where?"

Those links are in reference to the statement I made.

I don't make the rules here.

If your complaint is that the rules should be more clear about what the moderators can do in certain situations, then I would agree that such a response is justified. But your responses are laced with a level of accusation and insult that I do not find justified.

Because I have already explained why it is not a fault-worthy action.

Because you are asking me why Virt chose to say something he said. The only person that knows that is Virt.

Sure, but I don't think it's beneficial in the long run to set it as a precedent now.

But you are, in fact, free to continue the discussion. There is nothing special or magical about that thread that requires the conversation continue there. The only thing holding you back is you.

"inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code."

We're talking about whether your response is justified. Just because you are not forbidden from doing something by the rules doesn't mean that the response is justified.

No, I do not want to clarify.

I don't know what you're saying here.

I don't.

That is a self-imposed limitation.

No you were not.

As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.

I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind. 

I don't.

Why because it is impractical?

That is a self-imposed limitation.

A locked is limiting me by not allowing me to not use that thread. If it was self-imposed you could point to the thread not being locked but it was. It isn't self-imposed when I am not at fault.

No you were not.

Yes I was. I was punished for someone else or me engaging in personal attacks thus limiting me being able to use the thread.

As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.

Good luck but that is not how it works. No matter how I act I couldn't change Speedrace locking threads. I hope you don't set unrealistic standards to me like you do for your son. Saying it is a self-imposed limitation is lying about the situation or you are saying I am at fault. I am not. 

I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind. 

So this was a fair statement? 

"Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"

It sets a precedent which could very well become impractical.

The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed.

You were not punished.

You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.

Yes.

Under the amount of users it is doable and when it does become a lot to bear then you can work from there. It being impractical only works if the amount of people reported is more than the time that the moderators have to moderate. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am wrong.

The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed.

Why are you changing my objection?

You were not punished.

Showing no argument. Demonstrating the failure you have rebutting the claims being brought forward by me. If you weren't in a position to actually argue against my claims why not say it? 

You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.

Do you think I care? I don't. I will say those things to Speedrace again until the rules are changed.

I care about Speedrace locking the thread under "all" and Ragnar agreeing to it. Don't waste my time questioning my morality or whatever it is here if I don't care too. Actually put forward rules to restrict because I am not going to stop until you do.

Yes.

I am moving on. This to me is clearly showing you are being a bad faith actor. You think I believe that you can read minds even though I have stated I don't care about intentions nor do I want to talk about it.

Even assuming that means you don't actually care about what I say instead put me in the worst light even though I can very well make an argument from what I said you can't even have that as a question.

Me saying I don't care about intentions and saying I don't know how someone else feels to you still means you have to question that I think you read minds. Either you don't bother to read what I said and remember it or you are intentionally doing it. I can't know so I don't care. Either way it points to one direction. 

It is not the case now. It may be the case later. Therefore it would be unwise to set a precedent that could bite you in the butt later.

And given how whiny users are when any little thing changes (case-in-point, this very thread here), it would also be unwise to set a standard now then change it later.

The conversation is only stifled by your voluntary choice to not continue it. There is no requirement (other than one you invent) that it has to continue in that thread.

Being banned is a punishment. Having your posting privileges removed is a punishment. Locking a thread is not a punishment. 

Okay, but you are not justified in doing so.

If you don't care, then don't insist that your actions are justified.

I don't believe that. I was simply letting you know. It was an informational statement, not an accusation.

This runion sentence makes no sense, please rephrase.

Okay.

That is if you don't set a restriction. As in if we reach x amount of complaints within an x amount of time then we would use plan b to deal with things. This can be worked out. It is not complicated.

This is not even talking about you pretty much admitting here that you think there is an objective standard of being fair. How in the hell have you done that? You haven't bridged the is and ought gap nor do I think you are even competent in doing so. You are pretty much stating falsities. Saying you  were being fair is an informational statement is basically saying I know for certainty that I am correct but you haven't demonstrated it. Please do. I would like to see you try to tell me you were being fair objectively.