Duplicate Usergroup Copy-from

[TDUBS]

Hey,

I just thought of this idea and I'm sure it's been mentioned but not sure why it's not put on an update as it'd be quite useful. As people make many usergroups, I think there should be a feature like on vBulletin where you can select "Copy permissions from ____." So you can select "Copy permissions from Moderating" and the new usergroup you're creating will have the same exact permissions.

Thank you!

 

[Paul B]

This has been suggested previously but it is not how permissions are designed to be used.

I recommend reading this: http://xenforo.com/community/resources/implementing-permissions-across-multiple-user-groups.358/

 

[xIsabel38]

Highly agree with this @TDUBS. When you have 18 user groups and the only difference between one or another is a single permission or maybe a user color, being able to copy from X is highly beneficial.

 

[Paul B]

It is completely unnecessary.

The fact that you are only changing a single permission is exactly why you shouldn't be duplicating the rest of the permissions.

Read the resource I have linked to above to find out why.

 

[xIsabel38]

I have read that over and over. You wouldn't be duplicating all of the other permissions, you would be duplicating the NEW permission from the new usergroup that is not allowed for a typical registered user.

 

[Martok]

I have read that over and over. You wouldn't be duplicating all of the other permissions, you would be duplicating the NEW permission from the new usergroup that is not allowed for a typical registered user.

You do need to read that resource again then.

You shouldn't be adding a new permission to multiple user groups. You should be adding the new permission to one usergroup and assigning that group as a secondary usergroup to all those who need that permission.

 

[xIsabel38]

You do need to read that resource again then.

Let me say with finality that I have read and understand the resource better than most. I have studied Permission settings here to sickening levels.

Now since it's obvious no one gets it, let me try to explain in more detail.

Lets say you are setting the "Registered" usergroup permissions and you decide you do not want them to delete their own posts or to be able to use a custom title and they have the basic user name color. Pretty standard stuff here.

Now lets say you have three tournaments and want to create a usergroup for each of them so that the winner of Tournament 1 is named after Tournament 1 and the winner of Tournament 2 is named after Tournament 2 and so on. And we do want these tournament winners to be able to delete their post and change their custom title. In addition we want these tournaments winners to have a blue colored name and a blue banner.

This is what the permissions would look like:


In this above example you would need to create a usergroup for each tournament (in this case 3 of them). You would need to rewrite or copy and paste the css color changes and do the banner changes on all 3 usergroups and you would have to tick the allow field for delete post and custom title on all 3 of them. You can't just do all this on Champion 1 because Champion 2 and 3 would inherit the standard options from the Registered group.

You can't just assign "Champion 1" to users that have won Tournament 2 or Tournament 3 because they would display as a Winner of Tournament 1 instead.

Are you with me here or have I lost you yet?

In this case, wouldn't it have been easier to set up one custom usergroup, ie... Champion 1 and then be able to duplicate it and just rename the copies as "Champion 2", "Champion 3", "Champion 4", 5, 6, 7, 1,000,000?

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand here. Changing just the two permissions in the above example for 3 usergroups is 6 total permission changes not including re-adding the CSS color and Banner fields. Sure 3 Usergroups might not be too bad, but what if you have an entire network that looks like this?
Administrators- 2 user groups
Moderators- 2 user groups
Essential services- 3 user groups
Entertainment services- 2 user groups
Official Sponsors- 3 user groups
Championship winners- 4 user groups

What if you don't want to change just 2 permissions, but rather 10? What if you install Add-ons that have their own permission settings?

So the obvious question is why not just make a single usergroup for each of those categories so all champion winners would display in a single generic champion usergroup instead of a more personal "Champion of X" or "Champion of Y" group and graphic designers, developers, and social media personnel would all display as an Essential Service instead of as their specific job title? The answer is simple. 1, people actually prefer personal titles as opposed to generic ones and, 2, when it comes to official sponsor companies such as Razer and Logitech, they actually require their company name displayed instead of something generic like "Sponsor".

 

[Jeremy]

In that situation you should have 4, 3 groups for the styling changes and one group to apply the permissions.

 

[Martok]

In that situation you should have 4, 3 groups for the styling changes and one group to apply the permissions.

The advantage of doing it this way is that, if you wanted to give an additional permission to the tournament winners at a later stage (or even remove one of the additional permissions) then you only needd to make the change to one group, not several.

 

[xIsabel38]

Not sure what you guys are talking about though. What do you mean by make 3 groups with the styling changes and 1 with the permissions?

If I make 1 with the permissions they wouldn't inherit to the other 3 because it's not a default permission for the registered group.

 

[Paul B]

Add the members to the group.

 

[xIsabel38]

Members are already in the Registered Group.

If you just change those permissions then no one has any unique settings. Care to elaborate a little bit more in detail as to what you're talking about rather than just a few words. I think I made a pretty valid argument above that isn't covered in the permission guide resource. If you guys are seeing something I am not, you're not explaining it very well.

 

[Paul B]

It has already been explained several times by different people as well as the resource itself.

Create a new user group with the additional permission(s) you want those members to have.
Add all of the members to it.

Create three more user groups with the title and styling you want.
Add the members to one of the groups so they inherit the styling and title.

 

[xIsabel38]

Do find me where you said this in the resource. I'd love to see exactly where you wrote it.

Create a new user group with the additional permission(s) you want those members to have.
Add all of the members to it.

Create three more user groups with the title and styling you want.
Add the members to one of the groups so they inherit the styling and title.

This explains a lot more than anything else said in this thread and is worth more than simple 5 word remarks as now and only now has it finally been explained.

 

[Paul B]

It is clearly explained in the resource.

The feedback and reviews are testament to that.

I'm not entirely sure why you are lashing out at those trying to help you.
Doing so just makes people less inclined to do so in future.

 

[xIsabel38]

What is your problem with me? Seriously?

I read your resource several times over and over. CLEARLY I wasn't getting it. Maybe it's me, maybe I'm dumb, maybe I can't read English very well. If you recall I raised this same question half a year ago, and you of course came into that thread and insisted everything was in order and that because my identical user groups where based off of the primary Registered Usergroup that it's no tedious matter to do it the exact same way I explained above.

Yet, the truth is it is very tedious to do it that way. I didn't explain everything in detail in that thread, but lets not forget that I actually sent you a PM following that thread and demonstrated my above scenario in which you replied to saying, it was long and then ignored it. That was my attempt to explain everything. Yes it was long, I wanted to be as detailed as possible. Given the fact that you wrote the book on permissions (literally) who better to learn from than you? My mistake.

If anything this is a clear track record that I am having difficulty understanding how to handle the situation I have demonstrated. Back then you said nothing about it being in the resource because you said yourself that "having two identical groups with different images and styling is unusual". And now instead of actually being helpful, you persist to just tell me it's in there.

Why not take the time and just write this:

1. You set your permissions as normal for the "Registered" group.
2. You then create a New Usergroup for each of your categories such as "Champion Usergroup", "Sponsor Usergroup", etc...
3. You set all of the permissions you would like in these respective permission groups and you assign that to your users.
4. If you must have your users have different styling and names, you can create an additional (third) Usergroup with just the styling and name changes (do not use any styling in the generic usergroups created in step 2)
5. Now to give a winner of "Tournament 1" the correct display and permission you would set their secondary usergroup to "Champion Usergroup" created in step 2 and the Specific Usergroup Styling created in step 4. This means they are now Registered as primary with both of the new usergroups as their secondary.

Instead, you just come back with one-liners as if suddenly other people are just supposed to know because hey, you apparently know it all so why doesn't everyone else? If your resource does explain these 5 steps above, and I still argue that it does not, then it's very vague and not easily apparent. But it seems like when someone tells you, you get defensive rather than actually pointing out where it is written or rather than actually trying to help. These 5 steps I wrote above could have solved this entire issue nearly six months ago when I brought it up in the first place.

 

[Paul B]

I'll leave you to it.