I think the disclaimer is a great idea.

My intentions here aren't to hide that there are conflicts that arise, especially with the vast majority of them working themselves out on the blockchain. Showing both the conflict and the resolution is very important. This really shouldn't be a place where one feels like they are 'walking on eggshells' when openly speaking their mind as it seems from reading occurred to some degree with the sailing forum you mentioned.

In the last month or so there have been a few 'high profile' conflicts that really seemed to end by flagging/hiding posts and really didn't end with a resolution. There's one that's continuing right now, but I don't want to be drawing attention in that direction, hence my lack of specifics. These rare situations that are being flagged/hidden are what imo need to be taken somewhere so they can actually come to some end, instead of users merely being resigned to silence, which the distrust caused looms and typically grows until boiling over again.

Similar to the sailing forum, I see flagging/hiding posts akin to putting certain topics behind password protection (even though many others are reblogging the post to maintain exposure.) This right here is where I feel some mediator needs to step in to move things to some agreement to disagree or ideally an actual resolution. Honestly, I wouldn't have an issue if this took place on the posts themselves. I merely see a longer term problem with issues being silenced vs truly dealt with, and being a rather steadfast optimist, I will admit I tend view others in the best light possible but I do get shown otherwise at times.

Idk, I'm open to any ideas. The only thing I know is that code won't fix these communication and (perceived or hidden) intention issues. If the parties involved can't resolve it on their own, I feel we need some other method to move towards some common understanding.