First I would like to answer your second question, about the ability for Reps to lock topics, my opinion towards that area would be no. Reps don't need the ability of such a degree as lock topic but a lower caliber temp lock or a post block from certain members that caused the topic to be locked.
Having the ability is an all or nothing condition, and you could always unlock a topic later on. If you at least had the option of using it, or put it to a vote in important situations, would you rather not have such a tool at your disposal? Are you afraid of repercussions from utilizing such a power?
To answer your first comment/question I feel it's just human nature to dismiss someone they can't see. In other words when your online and you don't agree with someone you can just ignore him or her; or insult him or her as much as you want knowing they cannot touch you. Yet in real life when there is someone you don't agree with you still have to deal with him or her.
Should people be accountable to one another on the forum then? To what extent should ignorance be considered a solution over conflict? Do you believe representatives should take an active role in mediation to resolve issues?
Thanks for your time, candidate BrotherInWar.
Still clicking refresh...
I will answer in written order this time. What I meant was the lock the topic from all that didn't create the topic or are in forum government (If it could work like that), or did you mean lock the topic as in for repeated questions (or fights too)? The fear is nonexistent its just the fact of if a Rep which isn’t as higher power as a Mod gets insulted in a good topic they can kill it if they would like. Yet yes others would be able to unlock it but a determined person could keep it locked until it falls into "I dun' member pa" status.
As for your second question(s) a fight can go on a forum until one of the parties isn't considering the fight a joke anymore. Most fights on forums are just jesting. Yet when a side regresses it isn’t the necessarily the other party who gets a slap on the wrist, it's both sides. If both parties go beyond jesting and start angrily writing posts then both sides need to be punished no matter which one caves. (how pathetic does that sound) People are responsible for their own actions / relationships regardless no matter who they talk to or where they are.
This story leads to the answer to you final question. In my school we had something called peer mediation. Where 5 goody goody kids would listen to all sides of the story and have the fighting parties resolve their issues in a civil legal manner without harsh punishment. More than 3/4's of all mediations led to future fistfights. Mediation solves some things but not all. Sometimes a slap on the wrist with a metal baseball bat is all they need. (IE Post count zap, Temp banning, user name ban, IP ban, and a silencer [where the user can only post 2 times a day / limited time logged in a day, lower than Temp banning on the calibers of punishment if such a thing is possible.]) As in the participation of Reps in these mediations I feel yes but, the position shouldn't be handed to them, all forms of forum government should take part in resolving conflicts between members.
I may not know technologically what this forum can do as in for features, yet I feel that’s a good thing because then ideas aren’t limited.