How come our main chat, Mos Eisley, got frozen this time?

Question

Mos Eisley is currently frozen^#, apparently indefinitely. I assume it has something to do with the users mentioned in @Shog9's banner, but is it possible that we be told - at least in concept - what happened in our room to make it get frozen again?

If the rest of you want to create a new room for this site, think twice about it.
If you decide to do it anyway, learn from the lessons of this room.

—Shog9^#

---

Please bear in mind that this involves users being banned, so the usual "don't talk about what isn't your business" rule applies.

---

^{# Link will only work for users with 10K+ reputation in chat.}

Answer 1

A year and a half ago, I froze Mos. We don't need to rehash that again here; the linked discussion covers it thoroughly. At the time, we (the employees of Stack Exchange) were of two minds as to whether we should reinstate the room at all; eventually we decided to do so, with the hope that a bit of encouragement could avoid future problems. I've come to believe this was unwarranted optimism.

Lemme be clear: there are plenty of reasonable people who regularly participated in the room. This isn't about punishing the members of SFF, most of whom are still free to use chat; I froze and later deleted the room to correct the mistake I made a year and a half ago. If you've ever battled tomato blight, you know that once it gets into the soil there's no sense in planting new tomatoes there until it dies out; new plants will just become infected and die. Mos Eisley is infected soil; it is my opinion as a gardener and community manager that investing further time into it is a waste for both me and you.

A year and a half ago, I wrote,

Listen when someone speaks up. If you're told that someone's uneasy about the current topic, then ignoring them is a slap in the face; be respectful of others (#1) and stop intentionally hurting them.

The continuing inability to do this was, to me, a sure sign of the room's sickness. In any active venue, things will be said that prove problematic to the larger audience; that's to be expected. How the group handles it determines whether they will continue to function. When yesterday's little episode crossed my desk, what dismayed me wasn't the off-color jokes - it was the fact that they continued after flags were raised, continued after a moderator stepped in to handle the flags, continued after the moderator attempted to reason with those who remained in the room.

There are many times more people active on this Q&A site than were ever active in its chat rooms; chat exists to serve them should they need or want it. A chatroom, promoted here as the primary social gathering place for the site, which becomes hostile or unresponsive to the larger community it purports to serve... Has lost its purpose and needs to end.

Answer 2

It's not a complicated answer. Users known for being troublesome in the past continued to be troublesome in a room well-known for troublesome behavior. As such, the decision was made to ban the troublesome users in question from chat, and permanently freeze the room that is almost defined by its troublesome culture and seems to act as a magnet for troublesome behavior.

So in short, trouble got Mos Eisley in trouble. If you want a new room to survive and thrive in the way that Mos Eisley didn't, just ensure that troublesome users don't keep causing trouble (mainly through controversial statements).

Answer 3

First and foremost, I do NOT question the action that was taken. I was not there, I was not consulted, I simply found the equivalent to a 404 tab. I will NOT question those that made the decision.

I will ask for clarification, such that a new user (does not mean a new to life person) does NOT repeat what ever it was that did happen.

I chose to do this as an answer as opposed to messages. IF I am wrong to do so let me know and I will delete the answer. My goal is to be constructive, not to criticize.

@DrRDizzle, terdon and others.

I have no clue how serious the conversation was as I was not on and can not learn/understand what happened.

BUT to use another venue as an Example. Everquest creates Blue (No PvP) Servers and Implements Evil Races and Class's. How does one Role Play Evil in such a scenario? Isn't it in a sense Bait and Switch, Suck them in and say no you can not do that? I get that EQ couldn't do that and cater to the target market.

I think SE wants to be open and allow "Freedom of Speech". I understand that "Freedom of Speech" SHOULD require one to be responsible with what one says ON the other side of that I understand that IT IS POSSIBLE to tell people "If you do not like what goes on in here then don't come in". IF I revert back to EQ the Red Servers were PvP enabled and the classic answer was "If you do not want to engage / participate in PvP then do NOT COME HERE".

I understand that SE has a Big Picture of it's Users desires and interest and it's reputation on the Internet.

I understand that SE needs to steer the site to meet the goals it has established for itself.

What may be required is to establish that this SE is a Blue Server with "Play Nice" as the rules and not be overly concerned with "Freedom of Speech" and providing a form of protection from those that see speaking freely is not what should be done.

I have problems with every chat room I participate in and the parent Q/A ... Many times I see the question containing words, material, themes that may not be suitable for younger people and may pose problems for Parents of young people. The standard reply is the "community" (I assume the people in the chat room are the community) have decided to be very lose with ....

I am no fan of censorship, but I also am no fan of posting things that go after the reader of post's.

It is my opinion, that if one wants to make an example of something, then one needs or should also make clear what the point is and provide examples from "The Example" of what went over the line.

It is my opinion, that often times just deleting the posts WITH an explanation to replace them as to what went over the line. In addition IF there is a need to ban posters then do so.

BEGIN EDIT: The following section is wrong, it was based on a flawed understanding and should be disregarded. Perhaps IT should be a LEARNED thing that one does NOT flag posts in such a contentious room, ever, even to the extent of removing the ability and changing it to a community event section, such as We will be airing "This Movie Name" on "This Date and Time" and would like to invite you all to join us.

EDIT: Phantom4 said "No. Just, no. The answer to people behaving poorly isn't "just don't let them say something is wrong". I beg to differ, the theme behind the bad feeling is the Flaged Messages. I may be wrong but isn't that the star one hits to "flag it'? Honestly I can be wrong so explain this. IF I am right then in a contentious room, isn't that a method to draw attention to the worst of that room? END EDIT FOR DISREGARD

EDIT: "no, absolutely not. SE does not want to be open and allow freedom of speech, not when that freedom means "I get to say whatever I like and I don't care who it makes uncomfortable". A better description would be that SE wants to make sure the site they have created can be enjoyed by all people irrespective of cultural background and sensitivities. This means that freedom of speech comes a very distant second to civility of speech. – terdon"

I think your not saying anything differently than I said. Do you literally mean we are not free to say what we think here? No, you make it clear there are limits. I said "I understand that "Freedom of Speech" SHOULD require one to be responsible with what one says", perhaps you just missed that line. BUT if "literaly" are not free to speak, responsibly, then were are the guidelines, of what can and can not be said, so I can do a due diligence on not crossing the line?