>Peter,
>
>From your wording I interpret that you have previously suggested/requested that moderators be added to the UT (if it was in an open thread, I guess I missed it).

I don't see how you could come to that interpretation based on what I wrote. But let me clarify. The word 'moderator' has been mentioned by me many times in the past. The word that I can't recall having used is 'add'. And I'm not using that word now either. It's my perception (perhaps it's a wrong one) that moderation always has been in effect, be it a passive one indeed, a process that is started the minute/hour that someone complains. My plea does not necessarilly increase the workload of the current moderator(s). If people complain quicker and the moderator can also block access to the thread or section, then moderation is easier and in time and thus preventing more trouble causing measurements such as definite bannings.
Moreover, I propose that the initiator of the thread too can moderate to a certain extend.


>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??????

If I - as the originator - now had gotten the permission to act as a moderator, I'd most certainly give you a first (private) warning here. Please let me explain and don't take it personal (or perhaps a little bit).

Especially the second sentence of your paragraph could very well mark the beginning of a new flame war. It is not really a question. You are not asking me something. Instead, you are trying to teach me a lesson and also you're yelling at me. When I read that sentence I have this mental picture of a man in a room somewhere in Toronto who's actually thinking about me "What a stoopid dude!".

As I said, such a type of sentence often marks the onset of a flame war.


>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???

Let the originator be more or less responsible for 'proper' behavior in the thread. If the originator makes abuse of the extra features - e.g. by censoring those who merely criticize his/her point of view - then it's always possible to either complain at the higher level or skip other threads that are started by this person.

Hope I explained well.