Dialogues with Moderators

I understand that the main point of this "proposal" was the absence of coordinators as such.

The moderators of the section themselves stated that Hacker was wrong; what more is there to say? These are the moderators who are competent.
What is the point of "suppressing enthusiasm"? If there is a heated discussion, should it be immediately shut down? Is it not allowed?

By the way, why can't a person who has been on the forum for 3 months say what would be better? Does he become blind in the first year?

No one considers Hacker to be a bad person as such; no one says that he has not done anything good, and so on. But now he was wrong, and he was wrong before, repeatedly and foolishly.
In 80% of his actions, there is only a desire for personal gain (moral). Brandishing authority only in relation to those who he does not like. At least in the near future, this is how it is. This is my opinion.

at least look at an example, so you can dispute the thesis about 3-4 months

I always speak abstractly, without having anyone specific or anything specific in mind. I dispute it because I believe that it does not matter how long a person has been on the forum; if he has ideas on how to make it "better," then they are no worse than the ideas proposed by a super-duper veteran. Again, I do not have anyone specific in mind.
Here, you are more looking at the issue from the position of blind defense, not even wanting to look at and think about the issue.
A good argument: "you are all teenagers!" isn't that right? You are essentially saying the same thing now.