patty made a fair point earlier about it being nothing to do with me, but at this point it needs people who aren't involved to step in because you lot don't ever seem to feel like stopping and you're so distrusting of each other that any attempt any of you make to placate the situation's viewed with suspicion by the others and just adds fuel to the fire.
You have as much right as anyone else to have your say. These arguments aren't in private.
I disagree with (some of) your analysis though. There's limited merit in relative bystanders stepping in to a group therapy session where most people have no idea of what's going on in each other's personal lives, and conversation is via keyboard rather than face-to-face. All that achieves is a further hardening of boundaries, doubling down on intransigent positions, which is what we're seeing. We've also seen it before.
Having said that, and in the spirit of total contradiction... :/
It does need a clarification about whether there are any limits to what can be said on here. Luka made comments on that locked thread to Thirdform that were obviously abusive. That's not his usual character, and I can't imagine that it's not about more than an online annoyance with another poster. I think latitude needs to be given to
anyone* who transgresses boundaries because most of us will have difficult stuff happening IRL that spills onto these pages. And that of course includes Thirdform, which is why that thread should never have gone the way it did. Talking about banning people is always a bad look. whoever's doing it. The challenge of coexisting with other people is to work through this stuff, not give up on others and seek the easy way out.
And a lot of the rest of what's happened here is healthy working through of stuff that needs to be worked through. Pattycakes has made great posts, Barty too.
*which hasn't always happened in Dissensus history - a lot of it has been factional