Jim,

I somehow have the feeling that the implementation won't be a real problem for the UT-team. The site is already quite sophisticated and probably has a lot of 'hooks' that can be used.

>Peter,
>
>The "work" I was talking about was the design, code, test and implement part, not any added day-to-day work by moderators.
>
>cheers
>
>>Hi Jim,
>>
>>Thanks for reading, and apparently approving the main concept. See also my comment hereunder.
>>
>>>Hi Peter,
>>>
>>>I'll offer a general reaction only...
>>>
>>>For myself I particularly like the concept of "exclusion" from the thread, (UT) forum or the UT in full.
>>>I also like the concept of read-only access for members excluded from a forum specifically or the UT in general.
>>>
>>>While your proposal looks quite elaborate, I do think that this may constituite the "next level" of trouble handling for moderated forums. It may represent quite a bit of work for the UT ownership, but their doing it would surely become the "leading edge" in the handling of this kind of issue.
>>
>>If it really causes a lot of work for the moderator(s), then it needs adjustments. But I think that it might also cause less work than the current practice, since there is no longer a need for the moderator to read along with all potentially sensitive messages.
>>
>>'Leading edge' would mean exposure in magazines?!
>>
>>>I am not a big fan of anonymous complaining but I guess it must be there.
>>>
>>>Jim