Archiving or deleting an argument now asks first

The owner menu on an argument card used to act on the first click. Both "Archive Permanently" and "Delete Permanently" now put the question in front of you, and each says what specifically goes: archiving destroys the unpublished draft and leaves the published versions readable, while deleting is only ever offered on an argument that was never published, where the draft is all there is. Neither can be undone, and neither happens until you say so.

Focused text fields no longer draw a line through their label

Clicking into any outlined field painted a second ring inside the field's own outline, which crossed the floating label and read as a border struck through the label text. The field's outline is the focus indicator now, in a colour that is legible on the light background as well as the dark one.

Semibold text is finally semibold

Around thirty places in the app ask for a semibold weight — card titles, claim titles, premise headings, section labels. The font was never told to load that weight, so every one of them was quietly rendering in bold instead. They now render as intended, at no extra download.

Clearing a review is more careful about saying so

Clearing your review deletes it from the server. If that delete cannot be completed, the review is now left entirely intact and you are told, rather than the panel quietly doing nothing.

Published arguments are checked before they go public

Publishing an argument now checks its text against a narrow set of categories — sexual content, content involving minors, graphic violence, instructions or intent to self-harm, and illicit activity — and refuses to publish if it matches. Until now nothing was checked before publication, so the first person to see a piece of prohibited content was a member of the public.

The check is deliberately narrow, and it stays out of the way of the thing Proposit is for. It does not decide whether an argument is disagreeable, unpopular, or wrong. Strongly worded argument about a contested subject is not a violation, and harassment and hate speech are still handled the way they always were — by people, after a report — rather than by a detector that cannot tell an attack from a case.

If your publish is refused, your draft is left exactly as it was. Nothing is deleted and nothing is made public.

A new page explains moderation, and how to appeal

The page says what the automatic check does, what it does not cover, and how to contest a decision — including what to put in the first email so a person can find the decision you are asking about. It is linked from the footer on every page.

When a publish is refused, the message now offers an Appeal button that takes you straight there.

Some usernames are reserved

Names that speak for Proposit itself — anything containing "proposit", and "admin" exactly — can no longer be registered or changed to. The refusal says the name is reserved rather than telling you it was formatted wrongly, and the profile editor tells you before you press Save. Ordinary names that merely resemble them, like sysadmin or administrator_fan, are unaffected.

Child safety standards are published

A new page sets out Proposit's zero-tolerance standards against child sexual abuse and exploitation — what is prohibited, who may hold an account, how to report it, and how we respond. It is linked from the Terms and from the Community Guidelines, and it is listed in the sitemap.

A few places no longer show you the last thing you looked at

Opening the graph for one premise, then another, briefly drew the first premise's graph before the second one was laid out. Expanding a second import stage did the same with the first stage's timings. And after the argument view resynced with the server — which it does when an edit has to be rolled back — it could keep showing the state from before the resync until something else on the page happened to redraw. In each case the view now shows nothing until it has the right thing to show.

Reviews now ask about constraint premises

A premise that constrains rather than infers — "not both of these", "at least one of these" — was silently skipped when you walked through a review. It was part of the argument, it counted toward the result, and you were never asked to decide it. Those premises now get their own step, offered as Grant or Decline. If an argument you have already reviewed contains one, your review will have a step it did not have before.