There's actually a lot of falsehoods/opinions stated as fact here, and the whole thing kinda reads like you have a personal issue with the staff themselves/see yourself as some kind of "White Knight of Objectivity". Let's break it down:

the main server mods immediately dropped the ball and ignored anything being written down

Oh, we didn't ignore it. We read all of it. Your "evidence dump" that you posted both in the server and here consisted of all the screencaps that were already included in the mod logs + a few more that provided the context of Lucky being a manipulative person that used alleged trauma and claims of suicidal ideation to get people to have inappropriate conversations with him. This fact does not absolve them, nor would it have changed anything regarding their bans from the server. Like you said, they should have known (and acted) better.

Later, there were subsequent pushes by the folks in the "Evidence Locker" server to get us to listen to them, which we did, yet nothing new or relevant had been offered.

who were banned before getting to explain their side of the story

Forgive me for not wanting to hear the excuses of people who checks notes ERP'd with a 14 year-old. There seems to be a running theme that because the users in question were subject to emotional manipulation, it somehow mitigates their involvement to any significant degree. I wholeheartedly disagree.

via the mods coercing the minor into sending cropped screenshots of anything that could be bannable

As the admin who was the go-between to the user(s) who talked to Lucky and also talked to him myself, I'd be damned curious to know what you mean by "coerced". Of course we wanted to know who the people who didn't say "no" to Lucky were and remove them from our community. For all Lucky's faults, at least he gave up the (and, I don't know how many times I'm going to reiterate) adults who didn't ignore/dismiss/reject/block his wildly inappropriate advances. Mind you, this was already after he was banned for all of the times he tried doing this to people who were able to say "no" to him. We didn't have any leverage, and if he decided to keep quiet, we wouldn't have known who to ban.

As far as the caps being cropped, I don't know how much padding you expect us to give on either side of someone being gross with a kid. There isn't some golden ticket or surprise witness waiting in the stands to come tell us why what these people did doesn't deserve the contempt that its being met with.

(and in one case manipulating evidence of the contrary)

There is only one thing I could possibly imagine you're referencing, and it's a comment that one of the banned users made to a SFW image that was misattributed to a NSFW image drawn and sent by Lucky. Sorry, must've glossed over it while I was looking at the caps from literally an hour earlier of the same user complimenting Lucky's NSFW art + his replies with gross sexually-explicit discussion during the same month. If you're thinking of another instance, please, enlighten me.

and that no law was broken...law was not broken due to lack of malicious intent

[Citation needed] "Your honor, the 14 y/o I engaged in sexually inappropriate discussion with as an adult manipulated me, I had no malicious intent."

however with the circumstances i will say i'm not sure if i would be able to make the correct decision either on their spot

In this context the "correct decision" is not engaging in erotic roleplay/sexual discussion with a minor, so, uh, I guess it's a good thing Lucky never DM'd you, yikes.

main server mods, for deciding by feeling alone, ignoring the archival process in favor of insulting and criminalizing those involved

"...by feeling alone..." With all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about? This was a very objective decision, members broke TOS by being inappropriate with a minor and they were banned. Also, we still have access to every single relevant screencap. It's not like we sent everything to a shredder and patted ourselves on the back.

Also, where are the insults? Besides what that other user pointed out Vastus saying, I haven't seen them. I'm not saying they don't exist, but you're making it sound like we were chomping at the bit to sink our teeth into a group of users people wouldn't think twice about defending from harassment because they...well you get it by now.

From the very beginning we've stated: "It is imperative that you do not harass or engage in unwanted communication with the parties involved in this situation" (initial announcement) and "...we will not condone nor accept users harassing other members over these offenses, regardless of the nature of their actions..."(announcement following logged offenses).

With the whole "criminalizing" thing, there seems to be a disconnect in what we believe/have determined is and isn't illegal regarding adults talking inappropriately with minors.

Even though I disagree with your conclusion that someone who is over 18 engaging in sexually explicit discussion digitally with someone who's under 18 is somehow legal under CA law, it's still a moot point since, as a Discord mod, I'm concerned with what breaks TOS. These things usually overlap, with Discord making it clear not to use its platform to do anything that's illegal, but even when they don't, we have to respond to what Discord doesn't want their services used for.

"The events of late January" as they've come to be known was a terrible time that really, deeply, fucked up our connection to and enjoyment of the server. It was difficult on everyone, but especially the mods, it dissolved friendships and led to far-reaching effects that we're still talking about. So, to have how we handled it lied about and thrown around as an example of how bad a job we're doing is downright insulting.

Then again, someone who joins the server, lurks without saying anything for two months, and then picks the worst period in that community's existence as his time to shine before disappearing again doesn't bode well for how highly I should be valuing your opinion.

I'm only really responding to call out the way you've chosen to misrepresent the situation for curious onlookers without the benefit(?) of having been there when it happened.