Implemented Change "Follow message moderation rules" phrase

[Martok]

I'd like to propose that it is permission phrase is changed to "Make posts without moderation".

It seems that many who are new to Xenforo are confused by the current phrase and often think that setting "Follow message moderation rules" to Allow will mean a user or group will then have their posts moderated or that setting it to Not Set(No) or Never (though we know to never use Never!) will mean their posts aren't moderated. Of course we now know it's the opposite of these.

I think that the suggested alternative would make the permission clearer.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

I will concur on this one that I have been and still am completely lost on this permission. I thought that setting it to Allow would mean the users posts would get moderated. Now I see that could mean the opposite, or not, depending on the forum permission? Ugh.

 

[LuvMeSumZen]

Set it to Never for the user in question.
That will override the Allow set elsewhere in any user groups they are a member of.

Just making sure I have this. I have a member that I need to moderate their posts - as in they submit their post, but I do not want it to be visible until a staff approves it. To do this I set that user's "Follow message moderation rules" permission to Never . . . . correct?

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Correct. Instead of doing it per-user, which can be hard to track, you might consider making a new User Group and have everything set to N0 (Not Set) except for "Follow message moderation rules" set to "never". Then you can easily put people in and out of this group, and run a simple search via ACP to see who is in the group.

Setting individual user permissions can make things very difficult to track. I wouldn't do it.

 

[LuvMeSumZen]

I see your point. If I had more than 1 or 2 users I needed on moderation I would do it. As it stands I only have 1. Think I am just gonna leave it as is for now but will take your suggestion if I see I have to do it more often.

 

[PaulB]

I just spent 15 minutes explaining how the option and permission are related to a perfectly competent admin. His closing words were, "Ah, that's stupid."

Can we please simplify this to just a permission? "Post without moderator approval: Yes, No, Never"--simple. Why must we make things so unnecessarily complex?

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

IIRC that is the way it was before, and it was changed to the way it is now.

I'm pretty sure you understand the way this now works, took me a bit to get it myself, so I wrote this

http://xenforo.com/community/resources/node-and-permission-moderation-settings-explained.3322/

I think it works just fine. The node setting is global if checked, if not, then any permissions combination that does not result in an Allow condition means the message gets moderated.

 

[Harpers Tate]

"Post without moderator approval: Yes, No, Never"--simple.

If you have a node where ALL posts for ALL users are Moderated, then this person's posts would nevertheless still be Moderated. So that phrase would be inaccurate. And if the functionality were changed to support your phrase, then the system would not allow for the behaviour {all posts in the node are moderated} to occur. Whereas (confusing terminology or not) it currently allows a node to be so specified AND it allows a user to be Moderated even when outside such a node, or not. It's not the wording I'd choose, but I see why it is as it is.

 

[LuvMeSumZen]

What I would like to see is for every member to have a "moderate posts" option in the moderator tools drop-down menu in their profile. The reason for this is because when I set a members FMMR to Never *individually* I have to do it under user permissions, which populates that list with another name. I only want that list to be populated with my staff members where I have various levels of permissions given to them that I cannot give by mere UGs.

I don't know if this could be done by plug in without changing the current system but it would make things much easier for me. Every forum has its own nuances and for mine this would be a nice addition. As it stands I don't see any way to remove a member from the User Permissions list once you use it to taylor their permissions using that route and that is cumbersome.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

Why not just create a new usergroup with everything set to No (not set) except for FMMR which is set to Never. Then place problem users in that group (as a secondary group - all users should have their primary group as "Registered"). The only thing that changes for users in that group is that all their posts are now moderated - all of them, everywhere, because the Never permission is a global override, it takes precedence over all other permission settings for all other groups that user is also a part of. And you can easily search to see who is in that user group.

 

[Martok]

Why not just create a new usergroup with everything set to No (not set) except for FMMR which is set to Never. Then place problem users in that group (as a secondary group - all users should have their primary group as "Registered"). The only thing that changes for users in that group is that all their posts are now moderated - all of them, everywhere, because the Never permission is a global override, it takes precedence over all other permission settings for all other groups that user is also a part of. And you can easily search to see who is in that user group.

This is pretty much what I do. I have a "Naughty step" group with the FMMR permission set to Never (and a few others too). Anyone who misbehaves simply gets added to the group. Quick, easy and no faffing around with individual permissions.

 

[LuvMeSumZen]

Why not just create a new usergroup with everything set to No (not set) except for FMMR which is set to Never. Then place problem users in that group (as a secondary group - all users should have their primary group as "Registered"). The only thing that changes for users in that group is that all their posts are now moderated - all of them, everywhere, because the Never permission is a global override, it takes precedence over all other permission settings for all other groups that user is also a part of. And you can easily search to see who is in that user group.

I guess the main reason is because I really do not have a 100% success rate with getting the numerous permissions that are all over the place to do what I want. For those of you who understand them it's easy but for those of us who don't fully understand the xf permission matrix - a simple "moderate posts" in a member's profile would be easy. For those on the development side or those of you who understand it from that perspective it probably seems like guys like me just want an easy way out but that's not the case. I simply don't have the time to devote to understandning the software like I want. It's easy to say (like I have been told before) "Spend the time to understand the software you are using" and in a perfect world I could. But my time is literally stretched so thin I cannot sepnd hours a day getting this complex array of options down to a tee.

After enough time it will finally come but until then I, like many xf admins, will continue to have trouble getting the most out of the software. Not a complaint and not whining just a mperspective I think many of the xf brainiacs seem to not appreciate at times.

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

I wouldn't say that I am a brainiac, but just organized. So the permissions system the way it is set up works for me because it allows you to organize things so that they do make sense. I understand where you are coming from but the work-around you mention is just that - a work around.

I've been going through that resource list, all of them, in preparation for a potential forum transition and there are a ton of useful ones out there, and one that might fit the bill for what you are wanting to do - be able to add users to a usergroup via their profile page. But it would still require you to set up a dedicated "naughty" user group, which is very simple.

It's really not that hard to understand once you learn how it works, and set things up properly. If you continue to set individual permissions, it will become very difficult to manage.

http://xenforo.com/community/resources/understanding-permissions.360/
http://xenforo.com/community/resources/implementing-permissions-across-multiple-user-groups.358/
http://xenforo.com/community/resources/node-and-permission-moderation-settings-explained.3322/

What I did was create a spreadsheet with all the permissions setting in the first column, then each column to the right was for the particular user group with their settings. This way you can look, at a glance, how each usergroup permission is set and how it is inherited across the groups. So if you ave 10 user groups and group 3 has a permission set to "allow", you can leave all subsequent permissions set to No (not set) which will mean they will inherit the "allow".

I think the tool that you (and many) might find useful is a integrated version of my spreadsheet that allows you to look at all usergroup permission settings in one large table instead of having to look at each individual user group and trying to remember from one to the next what was set. I think I just came up with a suggestion for an addon.

 

[LuvMeSumZen]

So if you ave 10 user groups and group 3 has a permission set to "allow", you can leave all subsequent permissions set to No (not set) which will mean they will inherit the "allow".

That's one of the things I haven't understood completely I think. I would like to have a copy of your spreadsheet if you're offering.

Floyd I really appreciate your information and ideas, but especially your attitude.

 

[Paul B]

It is explained here: http://xenforo.com/community/resources/implementing-permissions-across-multiple-user-groups.358/

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

That's one of the things I haven't understood completely I think. I would like to have a copy of your spreadsheet if you're offering.

Floyd I really appreciate your information and ideas, but especially your attitude.

Sure thing, happy to help on things I can!

I'm considering posting it in resources. Gotta clean it up a bit.

 

[PaulB]

If you have a node where ALL posts for ALL users are Moderated, then this person's posts would nevertheless still be Moderated. So that phrase would be inaccurate. And if the functionality were changed to support your phrase, then the system would not allow for the behaviour {all posts in the node are moderated} to occur. Whereas (confusing terminology or not) it currently allows a node to be so specified AND it allows a user to be Moderated even when outside such a node, or not. It's not the wording I'd choose, but I see why it is as it is.

I don't think you understand what I'm proposing. My proposal is to change it to a "forum" permission, which would offer all of that functionality.

As it stands right now, this "feature" basically breaks the permissions model--or, rather, undermines it.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I don't think it does. The wording of the user permission label is rather confusing is all.

Users have this oddly-labelled setting "Follow message Moderation Rules" and it is a positive permission like all others; with this permission, users can do more than without. So it follows the standard. It's just the label that misleads, I think.

The functionality is this
- in a node where "Moderate All Messages..." is true, then all posts will be moderated regardless of any user setting.
- in a node where "Moderate All Messages..." is false, then
--- if the user has this permission set to Allow, posts will not be moderated
--- if the user has this permission Not Set (= No), posts will be moderated.
Not Set/No is a lesser permission than allow.

I dislike the wording.
If it said "Post without moderation in unmoderated nodes" then it would describe the functionality better (IMO - but this is just how my head works).

 

[LuvMeSumZen]

If it said "Post without moderation in unmoderated nodes" then it would describe the functionality better

+1

 

[Floyd R Turbo]

If it said "Post without moderation in unmoderated nodes" then it would describe the functionality better (IMO - but this is just how my head works).

Agreed as well, this would make the current function clearer.

 

[PaulB]

Agreed as well, this would make the current function clearer.

The current function wouldn't need to be clarified if it weren't so lousy.

This behavior is still causing issues and confusion for us.