>>MichelF has told us his plan of action going forward. True, he did not lay out every permutation and combination that could arise, but he was clear nonetheless.
>>Why can't you just accept that - especially when he said that there will be NO NEGOTIATION on this issue??????
>
>I figure it was an attempt to resolve the issues in a civil and democratic manner before the, or instead of, shutting down the chatter.
>
>>As regards your idea that the thread originator could be a moderator (one of two (or more, I suppose)), hasn't the originator always had that 'right'. Seems to me that an originator was always in a position to further explain positions or refute mis-interpretations, etc. Is there really a need for formalizing that???
>
>I got an impression that Peter's idea was to formalize it programmatically, i.e. giving some actual powers to the originator, which do not exist now.

With some of the recent threads, the originator is the last person I would want directing traffic. As someone already pointed out, they are not always dispassionate observers.

I really think the ball is in our court. If we can't be civil and observe some rules of decorum even when we disagree, we don't deserve to have a water cooler section.

What I would really like to see is chatter morphing back into the amiable, enjoyable place it used to be. My head was nodding up and down the whole time I read JimB's post. It takes a lot to aggravate him so when he is I think it should be taken as a sign that something has gone too far.

This should be enjoyable, after all. Of course people will sometimes disagree but if there is a constant tone of strife and disrespect, as there has been lately, we have diverged from rules more basic than any Michel might set up -- the rules of ordinary civility.