>>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 predict you'd be pleasantly surprised with the effect. Allmost all originators will feel responsible for proper behavior on both sides. And since most participants in threads also regularly start a thread themselves, they'll understand the acts of the originator/moderator.

I want to add the idea that a remark is displayed to the originator when creating a new thread, for example:

You, as the originator of this new thread, are responsible to a certain extend for proper behavior of all involved in the thread. You have access to special features that enable you to moderate. Read this text for instructions on when and how to moderate.


>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.