1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lack of Interest Combine User state with Banned state

Discussion in 'Closed Suggestions' started by Luxus, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. Luxus

    Luxus Well-Known Member


    That's all.
  2. CyclingTribe

    CyclingTribe Well-Known Member

    If 'Banned' is unticked (in your version) what user state is searched for?

    ALL users or just Not Banned?
  3. Luxus

    Luxus Well-Known Member

    I guess for all members who are valid, await email confirmation, await email confirmation upon an edit, await moderation and not banned.
  4. CyclingTribe

    CyclingTribe Well-Known Member

    Okay, so how (in your version again) would you search for both banned and not banned at the same time?
  5. Luxus

    Luxus Well-Known Member

    Why do you keep saying "in my version"? There is absolutely no difference between either versions. My suggestion is just a cosmetic change.
  6. Brogan

    Brogan XenForo Moderator Staff Member

    They each relate to separate fields in the database (user_state, is_banned) and as such it makes sense to keep them separate.
  7. Luxus

    Luxus Well-Known Member

    Hm..yeah I would have to agree that database-wise it makes sense to keep them separate, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't make sense because a banned state is part of a user state. Plus I have an issue translating both User state and Banned state. I would translate User state with "Benutzerzustand" or Zustand", but then I would have to translate Banned state with "Sperrzustand" or "Gesperrter Zustand", but that just doesn't sound right in a forum software.
  8. CyclingTribe

    CyclingTribe Well-Known Member

    No, there is a difference, and that's the point I was trying to get across to you - albeit not very well it seems. My apologies. ;)

    Your version is either "banned" or "not banned" - you cannot search for both user states. (y)

    The current version allows for - either, or, and both. (y)

    I appreciate your change is cosmetic - and understand what you're trying to achieve - but I thought it worth highlighting that it would reduce functionality.

    Shaun :D

    [Edit: The image in first post has been modified - making my point somewhat moot].
  9. Luxus

    Luxus Well-Known Member

    What? How can they be different when you just move the HTML? The functions remain the same. You might as well just delete the Banned state phrase or hide it with CSS. It wouldn't make any difference.
  10. CyclingTribe

    CyclingTribe Well-Known Member

    In the right hand side of the first version of your image you had removed both the label and the [ ] Not banned selection - which left only the [ ] Banned option. I questioned this because it would have reduced functionality.

    You've since changed the image to show both Banned and Not banned selections, which restores the functionality and makes my earlier point moot. (y)
  11. Luxus

    Luxus Well-Known Member

    Yeah in the original image I accidently deleted the Not Banned option, but you replied after I uploaded the fixed image so I assumed you didn't notice.
  12. CyclingTribe

    CyclingTribe Well-Known Member

    Ah, okay, I was too quick off the draw then - sorry - I hadn't realised you'd uploaded the replacement image until I looked a short while ago. :D

Share This Page