>>>>Why don't you disable Update for "Sensitive messages"?
>>>
>>>I didn't think about that so far. I would have to see with our team to see if that would be better or worst if we could implement such flexiblity.
>>
>>Or you could add a text saying that the message has been edited after being posted, you could also add a counter.
>
>IMO, this is by far a better proposal then what Sergey proposed.

Well... if a person has edited a message, which means that no one has yet replied to the message, then what's wrong with Sergey's suggestion?
It is NOW clearer that rules enforcement only occurs on receipt of a complaint at UT HQ. Let the person planning to complain about a specific message first take the step necessary to PREVENT any updating by replying to the message.

Online forums are "hot" places at times. Many people, whether in forums or even in e-mail, have wished that they could change a message after they have sent it. UT affords that luxury. Yet a person may be penalized anyway! This is hardly sensible and can EASILY be prevented by requiring the offended person to reply as such to the message before they launch a complaint. This not only serves to "freeze" the message forever but it also give the originator a chance to change it if the offended person elects not to reply.
Any complaint should be based on the message as it NOW reads and not as it once read.

Cheers from a convicted obscenist