Laissez faire means that we're going to be taking a more hands off approach in moderation. Not that we're just going to do whatever we want ourselves.

By the way, Jeremy isn't just an administrator on this forum. He's the owner. I literally couldn't remove him if I wanted to. I couldn't remove him if he wanted to. (We actually tried once when he wanted to step down.) He's not the owner of the new forum. I would be more worried that between the massive cloud of poison now in front of the new forum's entrance and natural human hesitation, you've made a move unlikely and thereby Jeremy untouchable.

I feel like a lot of members never enter this thread. maybe you can put up a banner announcement or send a mass PM to each member?

Brian wrote:

It's impossible to define inappropriate conduct with sufficient clarity before hand.  Honestly, if you think the way you were treated is unfair, you should say something.

And say something is exactly what I have been doing. I said what the unfairness consisted in, namely locking threads when there is no rule about it, which is why I asked if debates are discouraged altogether. Why would I ask it? Because there is no rule about having debates either! Moreover, I directly proposed rules to address the issue as impartially as possible. Was I not clear, fair and impartial?

Your response to all this: Laissez faire, i.e. you explicitly prefer the current lawlessness to rules.

Forecast: Conflicts over this will continue to come up until I get banned or until you adopt rules to address these conflicts.

Besides, having a debate is not even a conflict. Debates can be easily regulated. You can borrow experience-tested rules e.g. here https://forums.serebii.net/threads/debate-forum-rules.623301/

But I get it: Likely the problem is that *I* make proposals to solve the issue. If anybody else did it, it would have been done already. You have not completely demotivated me yet, but you are quickly succeeding.

And Etzelnik made a good proposal: Mass PM everyone about the move. This way everybody is bound to get the message.

seigneur wrote:

Your response to all this: Laissez faire, i.e. you explicitly prefer the current lawlessness to rules.

My response to all this was to adopt a policy that explicitly reins moderators in from the kind of heavy-handed threadlocking you're worried about. 

What you're proposing would actually increase moderator power. Based on the rules you just linked and what Jeremy has said, he would have banned you at least half a dozen times already.