Quite possibly true, Peter.

I'm just going on the basis that long ago I proposed something of similar "scope" regarding threads that wish to "discuss" (i.e. describe a condition and see if someone can solve it) bugs and it has never seen the light of day.
It too would have had a button to be clicked when a person starts a thread that is a about a bug and that button would simply have pre-populated the reply top with the standard factors that matter for all bug discussions, like VFP version/SP, OS version/SP, standalone/shared app., network type, expected result, result obtained o be filled in by the thread originator.

But I hope you are right.

cheers

>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