I don't want to speak for Leo.  All I will say is I think this Forum is best when we have a free flow of ideas, even if those ideas are hostile or critical to our own ideas.  I think we need to be less defensive and less protective and less controlling and allow this Forum to be an open place where a wide variety of contrasting ideas are considered and debated.  Lately, I have had some concerns which I have expressed already and don't want to re-iterate here.  The bottom line is I think the Forum is best when it's as free and open as possible.  And that means that we get to hear ideas and perspectives that challenge our own.  That means that we allow in more than we omit.  It's that crucible of many ideas where the magic is allowed to brew and happen.   (A) I would like some clarification from Leo as to what constitutes "Nonduality wars".  We need to be able to discuss ideas and hash out ideas on here.  This issue needs to be clarified.  I would like Leo to look at this issue and give us some clearer guidance and leadership here.  If the moderators are interpreting "Nonduality wars" in a way that deviates from the intention that Leo has for the Forum, and it might also cause people to be punished in way that Leo doesn't intend for the Forum.  Or maybe the vagueness of the rule sets up a space of capriciousness where some people can be selectively punished while others are not.  This is why we need clarification as to what "Nonduality wars" includes and does not include straight from Leo, straight from the top.   (B) I also think we need clarification of what "trolling" means.  I've received warning points by a moderator for trolling whereas I never thought of myself as a troll on here, at least that was never my intention.  Please clarify what trolling means and includes Leo.  That's another one that's rife for abuse and capricious application if it's not carefully defined.  I'm sure all of us can be accused of trolling on occasion, so we need to tighten up when that rule has in fact been violated and when it has not. (C) I also think there needs to be an appeal system in place to Leo for review any decision to award warning points or to issue suspensions by any moderator -- that are appealed to Leo by a member of the Forum.  Moderation can be abused and capriciously applied without proper oversight.  This is the same reason courts are nested within an appeal framework.  This is the same reason why there are checks and balances in government.  Unchecked power can be a problem and lead to injustices within the system.  And that just taints the whole system, like a bad workplace environment for those of you who know what I'm talking about.  We're all human beings, subject to human limitations.  That's why we need checks and balances for human beings.  I've seen some bias, and I'll leave it at that.  Leo knows.  I'm pretty sure Leo understands everything I've said here regarding improving the Forum.  Now it's on him to decide.  I've done my job as I see it by raising some issues that I see are relevant to improving the Forum for the Future.  But this is his baby and he's the leader ultimately.  I think Leo and I have always had a respectful sharing of ideas, and that's all this is. (D) I see an issue where critical thinking may not be encouraged enough on the Forum .  I think part of our work is taking a critical review of your teachings too Leo.  And that includes critically examining all teachings, including Leo's teachings. A person can do two things at once: (1) critically examine yourself and (2) you critically examine all teachings too.  I don't understand why this is even being resisted on the Forum.  This is basic critical thinking.  I'm wondering if critical thinking is being valued enough on here now.   Video on point to watch for (D):