Mandate justification for moderator actions (lock, delete, move, etc.) and that's it

So my previous thread was "answered" by Stalin and immediately locked, despite the fact that the main issue, requiring moderators to post a justification for their actions, went unaddressed. There is no reason whatsoever to not codify this in the site rules, as some moderators already do it as an "unspoken rule", and it cannot possibly cause any harm. Literally the only reason to oppose this is in order to be a reactionary asshole who despises any kind of reform or change. So, clearly, I am suggesting to Stalin (once again, this time without any distractions) that moderators be required to post a justification in a thread whenever it's been locked, moved, stickied, etc. and that they be required to inform us when a thread is deleted and why it has been. These are not unreasonable request by any stretch of the word, and they are clearly wanted by a majority of the userbase, and indeed we should expect something that carries no negatives to be quite popular.

Poll added for arbitrary entertainment.

I voted no.
Because you know, I'm a douche.

and a reactionary asshole.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

Ten bucks say Dead locks this the minute he sees it.

I've had this same idea for ages. Hopefully it finally gets passed.

Is there even a rational argument to be made against this? I certainly can't think of any.

It's a pretty good idea. But regarding Toast, didn't Dead give a reason in that thread? It sounded pretty reasonable to me.

I voted no.
Because you know, I'm a douche.

and a reactionary asshole.

This has nothing to do with Toast. And you voted no even though you think it's a good idea?

No, I didn't mean to hit that.

Are half the people who voted being ironic or are we missing some horrible glaring loophole that would make the forum into a hellish commie police state?

Yeah, I just voted no for the lulz

Maybe Kali shouldn't have made the no option so damn appealing.

Indeed.

I'll be that brave moderator who votes "yes" on this.

This doesn't concern you, Emanuel!

At least two people voted no as a joke, one voted no accidentally, and five people on the no section are staff members. Explain why it's a bad idea, don't just claim you're right.

It actually does. Only a maximum of four people have actually opposed this, and out of them we've got BattalionOfRed and ironchin, who both have a fanatical devotion to whatever the staff wants. I don't know who ComradeQueso is and thelisener is in the same boat as ironchin. In reality the poll should read as (at least) 13 yes and 9 no's, of which 5 are staff members.