Lack of interest User banners consistent with username permissions

[frm]

...it would be nice to expand on this to also throw user banners into the moderation queue for new members (possibly posting inappropriate stuff, case by case, and forum by forum).

I propose a new permission, mimicking username changes, where custom photos can be vetted in user groups so the older-the-wiser can update while we have people join and post of R-ratedb cohtrntin children's education forums.

 

[Paul B]

I presume you mean profile banners?

XF 2.2 - User profile banners, Username changes, Security locking accounts and more!

Welcome to the first of our "Have you seen...?" (HYS) series for XenForo 2.2! To ensure you're kept up to date with future threads, we strongly recommend clicking the "Watch forum" link here and enabling email notifications if you haven't done so already 🙂 Over the course of the next few weeks...

xenforo.com

I don't see how those are any different to avatars or any attachments members can upload.

Restrict permissions for newly registered members if you don't trust them to abide by the forum rules.

 

[frm]

I don't see how those are any different to avatars or any attachments members can upload.

Avatars are smaller, and I do. However, you can have a large pornographic photo compared to a small avatar. By following the same logic as username changes for 1 group, you could then start creating user group promotions with automatic trust.

Restrict permissions for newly registered members if you don't trust them to abide by the forum rules.

As I am, until X posts with promotions.

But it seems that if you can approve/deny a username change, even with a reason, there shouldn't be a reason why you can't have a 1000+ pixel wide image of a PlayBoy spread (even later on, until the top of echelon with trust) with moderation as seen with username changes as they can change to "F* YOUR WEBSITE" (as an example).

Maybe avatar approval should be considered too, at least for the first 3 days... and obviously up to admins with user group promotions.

 

[frm]

I don't see how those are any different to avatars or any attachments members can upload.

I missed this, but it goes to prove my point as well: You can restrict attachments until they grow too. Implementing permissions for banners (apart from avatars) makes it much more consistent with permissions already in place.

Upload attachments to posts and Upload video/audio to posts support my argument as banners (and avatars) are the only ones lacking.

 

[Paul B]

I don't really understand your posts.

There is already an 'Upload a profile banner' permission.

 

[frm]

I don't really understand your posts.

There is already an 'Upload a profile banner' permission.

But there's not a Change username without approval, i.e. change user banner without approval, permission which is very fitting with both profile banners and your provided examples of uploading attachments.

I am proposing that banners, too, should not be allowed without approval in new user groups. The same could go with avatars, but they are smaller in comparison and the detail can't be seen as much (but still requires moderation unless a permission is added for that too (at least a member for 24 hours or something, determined by promotions.

It's somewhat not logical to change a name without permission while you can change a banner whenever and freely, all the while allowing restrictions of uploaded media.

I hope this makes my stance a bit more clearer.

 

[Paul B]

I hope this makes my stance a bit more clearer.

Nope.

There are many things members can do without approval.

I don't see what's so special about profile banners.

 

[frm]

There are many things members can do without approval.

As to why it's a suggestion.

I don't see what's so special about profile banners.

X[something spammer program] could create a user banner attack uploading ads, which wouldn't be annoying as no links, or bots (or people) upload a lot of porn as banners which would be harder to see and control than in XFMG or as attachments in a thread, etc. (being paranoid, but these things could happen) as to why I am making my case that it should be approved based.

I rest my case and will just see if other admins see it this way too and it's upvoted enough to get attention as some people run G rated forums and want more control.

 

[beerForo]

I have profile banners on another platform that has existed for well over a decade and this issue has not come up once. In my opinion this would be a bloat permission.

 

[frm]

I have profile banners on another platform that has existed for well over a decade and this issue has not come up once. In my opinion this would be a bloat permission.

I also had profile banners as a 3rd-party add on. That could quite potentially be that there are so few sites that had it, so it wasn't worth X's time (even with its hefty price tag) to develop a user profile banner attack.

Now that 2.2 is out and there could be thousands upon thousands of forums this effects as people upgrade (as opposed to the hundreds with profile covers in an add on), it's a permission that ought to be looked into.

X may update a spam attack to not only include profile links, but update profile banners to make essentially an advertisement that goes unnoticed to many, but unwanted altogether.

The question really now, is do you want to take a chance that 1000 members join throughout a month to three, uploading banners to "join a casino" or "buy Viagro" online, as there is no permission to moderate profile banners until the member is in a trusted user group? My answer is no. As to why I suggest a preventative measure to moderate profile banners through a permission and let us choose how members are trusted to change them automatically.

 

[beerForo]

As @Brogan stated use group permissions and promotions.

 

[Mendalla]

I don't see why you wouldn't just take the "upload profile banner" permission away from Registered and make it a promotion? Make the requirements for the promotion fairly stringent. Spammers generally don't have the patience to make 30 posts in a 30 day period or whatever. I am on two boards that restrict posting pictures and links until you have 20 posts for just this reason. Does not completely stop them, but definitely deters a segment of them.

 

[frm]

As @Brogan stated use group permissions and promotions.

I suppose this one would work for the sake of xrumer (set to No, of course)


Nonetheless, I still stand by allowing moderation of them too. This could be a 2nd level for real users to get an insight into their future behavior on the forum.