@ganymede
Thank you for this.
Transparency is arguably the most important element to these proceedings, and I think it's been where some of the major heartburn has stemmed from. I would urge the three of you to reevaluate some of the decisions that were made in the heat of the moment, and I hope that's being considered.
Bannings, especially, should be reserved largely for people who have gone far beyond the pale, and I think when the door was locked to the hogpit, it's quite natural that it spilled out. Some folks in that initial wave got slapped down for what were, ultimately, pretty innocuous statements.
I don't think it's impossible to restore goodwill, and I do think that even if unbanned, plenty of folks wouldn't come back anyhow, but it represented an inconsistent application of moderation, and I think everyone involved struggled with keeping a level head about it as the situation compounded.
I'm nevertheless glad to hear that course correction is being considered, and codifying the rules of engagement to be less floaty (to avoid inconsistent application of moderation) is something that should be considered. It needs a second pass to remove some of the ambiguity, which can currently be read as, "You can be banned if we feel like it."
While that's generally true of any online space, I don't think that was quite your staff's intentions with revising the rules of engagement, and it's how it reads from a mostly-neutral stance.
I do hope this is taken in the spirit it's intended, with the intent of being constructive.