I think this is a good idea because currently the CCNS Admins private band chat is being used for this. There's two interests at hand here, that we want all communications to be default public, and that we want a chat-style way to talk about things.
Personally, I previously assumed a forum-style board would be better for decorum than a chat-style board, however, recent events disprove this. So, I'm not opposed to a chat-style thing. However, on the other hand, having both discord and the forum is a relatively large burden for people to take on.
On whether any update is necessary, re: @ShiningKnight - I think some change is necessary here, actually. We are currently using the CCNS Admins chat for this, but using that goes against a core tenet of the forum, which is that information should be public if we make decisions based on it. Especially since the larger part of the reason we're using the CCNS Admins chat is out of convenience, instead of out of any actual secrecy wishes.
Here's my idea. I think we should have a discord server, but keep it for admins only, but have the chat logs be available to the public when an appeal is closed. This sidesteps the need for any complex Discord authentication of members of the public, while also allowing us to discuss and potentially vote in relative temporary privacy (without the appellant being slowly disheartened at the votes, or whatnot), but still with the common knowledge that the chat logs will be public at the end of the appeal. This also gives us the flexibility to redact anything we feel a significant need to. (Of course, any such redaction would have to be either with consensus or of content that is not considered in the appeal. Otherwise, it goes against the transparency rule). Another benefit is that we can use all the conveniences of Discord, like role @pings and temporary muting, to manage our discussion about cases.