>>>>>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

I assume you refer to Sergey's more recent proposal Re: Updating a message Thread #943834 Message #943963, rather than to his initial proposal Re: Updating a message Thread #943834 Message #943845.

I reacted to his initial proposal. His more recent proposal is okay.