Q:

How come our main chat, Mos Eisley, got frozen this time?

Mos Eisley is currently frozen#, apparently indefinitely. I assume it has something to do with the users mentioned in @Shog9's banner, but is it possible that we be told - at least in concept - what happened in our room to make it get frozen again?

If the rest of you want to create a new room for this site, think twice about it.
  If you decide to do it anyway, learn from the lessons of this room.  
—Shog9#

Please bear in mind that this involves users being banned, so the usual "don't talk about what isn't your business" rule applies.

# Link will only work for users with 10K+ reputation in chat.

A:

A year and a half ago, I froze Mos. We don't need to rehash that again here; the linked discussion covers it thoroughly. At the time, we (the employees of Stack Exchange) were of two minds as to whether we should reinstate the room at all; eventually we decided to do so, with the hope that a bit of encouragement could avoid future problems. I've come to believe this was unwarranted optimism.
Lemme be clear: there are plenty of reasonable people who regularly participated in the room. This isn't about punishing the members of SFF, most of whom are still free to use chat; I froze and later deleted the room to correct the mistake I made a year and a half ago. If you've ever battled tomato blight, you know that once it gets into the soil there's no sense in planting new tomatoes there until it dies out; new plants will just become infected and die. Mos Eisley is infected soil; it is my opinion as a gardener and community manager that investing further time into it is a waste for both me and you.
A year and a half ago, I wrote,

Listen when someone speaks up. If you're told that someone's uneasy about the current topic, then ignoring them is a slap in the face; be respectful of others (#1) and stop intentionally hurting them.

The continuing inability to do this was, to me, a sure sign of the room's sickness. In any active venue, things will be said that prove problematic to the larger audience; that's to be expected. How the group handles it determines whether they will continue to function. When yesterday's little episode crossed my desk, what dismayed me wasn't the off-color jokes - it was the fact that they continued after flags were raised, continued after a moderator stepped in to handle the flags, continued after the moderator attempted to reason with those who remained in the room.
There are many times more people active on this Q&A site than were ever active in its chat rooms; chat exists to serve them should they need or want it. A chatroom, promoted here as the primary social gathering place for the site, which becomes hostile or unresponsive to the larger community it purports to serve... Has lost its purpose and needs to end. 

A:

It's not a complicated answer. Users known for being troublesome in the past continued to be troublesome in a room well-known for troublesome behavior. As such, the decision was made to ban the troublesome users in question from chat, and permanently freeze the room that is almost defined by its troublesome culture and seems to act as a magnet for troublesome behavior.
So in short, trouble got Mos Eisley in trouble. If you want a new room to survive and thrive in the way that Mos Eisley didn't, just ensure that troublesome users don't keep causing trouble (mainly through controversial statements).

