Allow editing of member profiles and warnings

[Super Mr Average]

Currently when you edit a member from admincp some fields are editable and some you can only remove like avatars and profile pictures.
Is there a reason for this ?

Also I propose editing of members should link to editing a member in the admincp from the members profile.
Currently Invision has inline editing of some options but these options are quite limited.

Last thing I noticed about Invision was that the warnings only notifys the member that he / she has a warning but includes next to no details regarding which post they commited an offense in

You have received a warning at wAmbAm.Net

Dear test,

You have received a warning at wAmbAm.Net.

LINK TO POST HERE

Reason:

-------

test reason

testing warning system

-------

This warning is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious warnings will never expire.

All the best,

Will version 3.0x be expanding on these features ?

[Digi]

You can expand on the reasons for warnings each time you give them (unless I'm misunderstanding you). There is an option to email or pm the member a specific reason for the warning using the warning panel.

[Super Mr Average]

You can expand on the reasons for warnings each time you give them (unless I'm misunderstanding you). There is an option to email or pm the member a specific reason for the warning using the warning panel.

Yes I know there is an option to pm or email however have you seen the pm or email that is sent ?

It doesn't include a link to post they broke the rules in

[Digi]

Right, I know this, but there are many reason why not to include this. For one, people might not be breaking rules in posts. What about a sig violation, or pm abuse. If I want to reference something post related, I copy the link in my self :)

[Super Mr Average]

Right, I know this, but there are many reason why not to include this. For one, people might not be breaking rules in posts. What about a sig violation, or pm abuse. If I want to reference something post related, I copy the link in my self :)

Vbulletins default behavior allows the pm to include the post link only if you are warning from a post itself

btw what are these many reasons ?

[Digi]

I listed a few, do I really need to list every single reason one might warn a member that isn't related to a specific post or topic reply? No. IPB is not vB, and I can tell you right now that I'd simply be annoyed with the feature that vB added in.

[Super Mr Average]

I listed a few, do I really need to list every single reason one might warn a member that isn't related to a specific post or topic reply? No. IPB is not vB, and I can tell you right now that I'd simply be annoyed with the feature that vB added in.

Well I asked because I don't know the reasons.

For what reason would you find it annoying ? I'm looking from the member's perspective thing that the link would be useful to them so they know what they did wrong.

Btw you listed one and not a "few" as you would put it also no one has said Invision is Vbulletin that is without say.

[Digi]

Well I asked because I don't know the reasons.

For what reason would you find it annoying ? I'm looking from the member's perspective thing that the link would be useful to them so they know what they did wrong.

Btw you listed one and not a "few" as you would put it also no one has said Invision is Vbulletin that is without say.

Actually I listed 2, but I still shouldn't be required to list every reason it is possible that warnings will not be used specifically related to posts. Call me lazy, but isn't the reasoning behind you asking for this feature is the fact that you too are lazy to the point that you cannot just copy the link associated to a particular topic? As I said before if I am able to link to a particular offense I do so myself. Finally, you stated that Invision needs to be like Vb implicitly by using the age old excuse for a new feature "vB has feature X. Why shouldn't IPB?"

[Super Mr Average]

Actually I listed 2, but I still shouldn't be required to list every reason it is possible that warnings will not be used specifically related to posts. Call me lazy, but isn't the reasoning behind you asking for this feature is the fact that you too are lazy to the point that you cannot just copy the link associated to a particular topic? As I said before if I am able to link to a particular offense I do so myself. Finally, you stated that Invision needs to be like Vb implicitly by using the age old excuse for a new feature "vB has feature X. Why shouldn't IPB?"

Yes convenience is something I like so i guess it would be my "lazyness" that makes me ask for this feature lol

I used that only as an example because vbulletin is what I am evaluating Invision Powerboard against also the other reason is that vbulletin is the forum software I am most familiar with since that is what I currently use for my community.
Personally I think that people with an attitude like yours would be the kind that actually loses IPS customers as I have found this community to be quite hostile to new feature suggestions.

I think you have issues with vbulletin personally :P

[Digi]

I (almost) never have an attitude while posting. People assume such because, for some reason any time a response to someone else's post results in opposite stance as the person posting, they automatically think that that person is on a rampage, attacking them directly, or otherwise. Which, though it is understandable given the anonymity via the intarweb and the inability to easily express emotions, is entirely not the case with me. I'm debating the reasoning why NOT to include your suggestion and I have every right to do so just like you have every right to debate my debate to "win" your case to IPS. If you think that me doing such "loses IPS customers" I think that you are sorely mistaken. I can't cause IPS to lose customers just like you cannot be solely responsible for this feature being added to the product.

I don't have a vendetta against vB. I think vB has some ok ideas. However, from a programmer's stance it is my professional opinion that vB is horribly designed and has bad planning in future development. Because of what I can see from my point of view, I do not think that IPB compares in the slightest way to vB other than the fact that they are 2 forum softwares that cost money. This doesn't mean I "have issues". It just means that I don't see how it is justifiable that so many people try to coax a feature in to IPB using the phrase (or one similar) to "vB has it, why doesn't IPB?"

Anyway, I debate when I'm passionate about something. If you felt it was "attitude" I'm sorry ;)

[Super Mr Average]

I (almost) never have an attitude while posting. People assume such because, for some reason any time a response to someone else's post results in opposite stance as the person posting, they automatically think that that person is on a rampage, attacking them directly, or otherwise. Which, though it is understandable given the anonymity via the intarweb and the inability to easily express emotions, is entirely not the case with me. I'm debating the reasoning why NOT to include your suggestion and I have every right to do so just like you have every right to debate my debate to "win" your case to IPS. If you think that me doing such "loses IPS customers" I think that you are sorely mistaken. I can't cause IPS to lose customers just like you cannot be solely responsible for this feature being added to the product.

I don't have a vendetta against vB. I think vB has some ok ideas. However, from a programmer's stance it is my professional opinion that vB is horribly designed and has bad planning in future development. Because of what I can see from my point of view, I do not think that IPB compares in the slightest way to vB other than the fact that they are 2 forum softwares that cost money. This doesn't mean I "have issues". It just means that I don't see how it is justifiable that so many people try to coax a feature in to IPB using the phrase (or one similar) to "vB has it, why doesn't IPB?"

Anyway, I debate when I'm passionate about something. If you felt it was "attitude" I'm sorry ;)

Apology accepted however it wasn't the fact that you had an opposite opinion that lead me to believe you have an "attitude" it was the fact that you were not cooperating.

As an example I asked you to list some reasons as to why not to include this feature so I would understand why too, yet you refused to list altogether.
I'm not opposed to those with an opposite opinion to my own but it's annoying when an opinion is simply stated without anything to back it up.

For example if this were an English assignment and were asked to discuss why blue is better than green list reasons.
I'm sure you agree that saying "Blue is better than green because I like it" wouldn't gain good marks within that particular assignment.

[Digi]

Apology accepted

That wasn't me offering an apology, but rather that I was sorry for you for seeing things in that manner. It wasn't the intended way I wanted to be perceived. That doesn't mean I'm at fault here though.

however it wasn't the fact that you had an opposite opinion that lead me to believe you have an "attitude" it was the fact that you were not cooperating.

Cooperating? Not cooperating is why debates erupt.

I'm not opposed to those with an opposite opinion to my own but it's annoying when an opinion is simply stated without anything to back it up.

What is there to back up here? I gave 2 definitive cases unto which the feature would be useless with a initiative reason that those 2 cases stemmed from.

As an example I asked you to list some reasons as to why not to include this feature so I would understand why too, yet you refused to list altogether.

I never refused to list. I DID list "some" reasons as you requested. Actually, if I recall correctly, I listed them BEFORE you requested. Just because I don't feel the need to list every reason possible that one might use the warning system, which would be flawed to my own perception of the warning system and not all inclusive to all ideas or thoughts related to such a tool, doesn't make me uncooperative. If anything, the fact that you are demanding such action be taking makes you uncooperative for not using your own imagination to elaborate in your own mind exactly what I stated.

For example if this were an English assignment and were asked to discuss why blue is better than green list reasons. I'm sure you agree that saying "Blue is better than green because I like it" wouldn't gain good marks within that particular assignment.

Green is worse than blue because I don't like blue. Which isn't the case because I actually prefer blue over green as it tends to highlight my other features, especially eyes. Besides, this is completely unassociated with the discussion at hand. I never said, "No, your idea is stupid and I don't like it!" I gave exact reasons WHY it is not useful. Specifically stating "people might not be breaking rules in posts". That right there sums it up.

[Super Mr Average]

That wasn't me offering an apology, but rather that I was sorry for you for seeing things in that manner. It wasn't the intended way I wanted to be perceived. That doesn't mean I'm at fault here though.

So you are not sorry for me perceiving things in that way rather you think my intelligence is deficient because of percieving the situation in that way. Which I will add is an insult in itself.

Cooperating? Not cooperating is why debates erupt.

Lol indeed state the obvious

What is there to back up here? I gave 2 definitive cases unto which the feature would be useless with a initiative reason that those 2 cases stemmed from.

I think you don't know the difference between one reason and two reasons

Right, I know this, but there are many reason why not to include this. For one, people might not be breaking rules in posts. What about a sig violation, or pm abuse. If I want to reference something post related, I copy the link in my self :)

Here it says what if the violation is sig violation "or" pm abuse. Well that translate into one arguement because it simply says what if the violation isn't post related hence one arguement and not two

I never refused to list. I DID list "some" reasons as you requested. Actually, if I recall correctly, I listed them BEFORE you requested. Just because I don't feel the need to list every reason possible that one might use the warning system, which would be flawed to my own perception of the warning system and not all inclusive to all ideas or thoughts related to such a tool, doesn't make me uncooperative. If anything, the fact that you are demanding such action be taking makes you uncooperative for not using your own imagination to elaborate in your own mind exactly what I stated.

This is you refusing not to reasons

Actually I listed 2, but I still shouldn't be required to list every reason it is possible that warnings will not be used specifically related to posts.

Also again you reiterated your previous 1 reason I see you have difficulty between the number 1 and 2 and the term few.
Lets study this aspect

1 means single
2 means more than one less than a few because 2 is also equal to a couple
3 or more could be considered a "few"

Green is worse than blue because I don't like blue. Which isn't the case because I actually prefer blue over green as it tends to highlight my other features, especially eyes. Besides, this is completely unassociated with the discussion at hand. I never said, "No, your idea is stupid and I don't like it!" I gave exact reasons WHY it is not useful. Specifically stating "people might not be breaking rules in posts". That right there sums it up.

It is completely associated because from where I stand I asked you to elaborate and you refused to elaborate it was already known at the time that you listed 1 reason previously but the post I made was at a further date hence saying that you have already answered the request previously is completely false

I can't cause IPS to lose customers just like you cannot be solely responsible for this feature being added to the product.

Well its not completely false here either as one of my draws to a product is the community surrounding it I wonder how many people's decision this would influence.

You are a part of the IPS community and as a relative newbie you seem to be one of the faces that represents the IPS community and related to that I don't know anyone else so for me so far you represent the community
I can't help but have a negative view so far.
As I recall in this post

I (almost) never have an attitude while posting.

People assume such

because, for some reason any time a response to someone else's post results in opposite stance as the person posting, they automatically think that that person is on a rampage, attacking them directly, or otherwise.

See I highlighted people assume as such which means that you already know the kind of view you output which translates to me as you already know that you are being awkward.

[Digi]

I think you don't know the difference between one reason and two reasons

Here it says what if the violation is sig violation "or" pm abuse. Well that translate into one arguement because it simply says what if the violation isn't post related hence one arguement and not two

You are right. I gave one all encompassing reason with examples to such reason which truthfully translate in to reasons of their own.

Anyway, though it was fun, I'm done here as I think we've off tracked enough. :)

[Super Mr Average]

You are right. I gave one all encompassing reason with examples to such reason which truthfully translate in to reasons of their own.

And I think you need to get out more often. If you see some guy at a bar that you don't know and he's acting "odd" you perceive him as odd with no understanding of what he may be like outside of that situation. The same goes for posts on the internet. Most people assume, as you did, that any retort to a subject is usually related to attitude in one manner or another. And, because of this assumption, you stereotyped that I qualify as such. Either way, that is your loss not mine. Maybe if you spent more time learning about the IPS community and less time trying to over analyze a stupid request for feature topic you'd be able to get an accurate opinion about the community rather than being bias toward one member involved in it. Anyway, though it was fun, I'm done here :)

No comment on getting out more because you don't know me you can't comment on that as for stereotyping . That is completely false we all have our own ideas of how what we percieve as good conduct I'm not willing to bend my values to accept your conduct as good because in my view it isn't.

It may be my loss however I'm sure you are aware that if you reserve the right to speak for IPS you in retrospect also represent the community.

My conduct in pre judging may or may not be wrong but you already know you can't stop people thinking stereo typical thoughts I may be vocal about my views but I'm sure you know there are many who may not care to argue their case and simply leave with a negative view.

Also I wasn't analysing the community as a whole I just disliked your the tone of your comments to me they sounded arrogant and I simply argued my case as such.

Btw you didn't make any comments on the other suggestions ?

[Digi]

It may be my loss however I'm sure you are aware that if you reserve the right to speak for IPS you in retrospect also represent the community.

I don't speak for IPS. Not sure what you mean. I may be associated with them through IPSB, but I'm a bit beyond that border now ;)

I edited my post for a reason. I am sorry that you saw that (actually sorry, not the sorry for you like above :P). One reason why I don't post when I first wake up (and have been working 12 hour shifts). I still think you are reading in to my posts to find some sort of attitude that was never present (with only minimal exception to the above), but I suppose that is your opinion on the matter. Anyway, my edited post is where I wanted to stand in the situation. :)


P.S. I assume that the only way you were able to quote me was because you had been subscribed to the topic. I think it is a bit underhanded that even after coming here and seeing that I edited my post, and given the context of the original post most likely regretted it in the first place thus why it was edited, you proceeded to try to humiliate me. If your morals are really as strong and "good" as you claim they are, you too stepped outside of said morals to accomplish this. If you can bend the rules to your bidding, what is to say that your own morals are of any sound ground to associate my personality in the first place. Knowing thyself comes first. :)

[bfarber]

Ok, ok, think this topic has gone off-track.

msimplay would like to include the post that caused a warning to be issued included with the warn email.

Digi disagrees because warnings can stem from many more actions than a post.

Since there is an argument about what actions, I'll list a few

• Inappropriate content in a member's signature
• Ban evading
• PM abuse (i.e. cussing at someone in PM, or harassing another member)
• Spamming someone via PM
• A naughty display name
• General nonsense on the bard (i.e. stupid replies to several topics)
• Misconduct in a component (bad gallery image or download file submitted, bad blog entry submitted, bad bug report submitted, etc. etc.)

There are several reasons an administrator might want to warn a member, and they do not always directly relate to a bad post. :)

I could see why you'd want to include the post, but I don't see an easy way to make it automated, while still preserving the general nature of the warn system (as opposed to making it a post-infraction specific type system).

Currently when you edit a member from admin cp some fields are editable and some you can only remove like avatars and profile pictures.

Is there a reason for this ?

Maybe you could explain to me exactly how you would edit an uploaded image? :unsure: You can change the text in a member title, for example, but what could you do to an uploaded image besides delete it? I don't personally agree with allowing the admin to upload a new image over top of the member's uploaded image.

Also I propose editing of members should link to editing a member in the admincp from the members profile.

Currently Invision has inline editing of some options but these options are quite limited.

This is by design. These are limited moderator member editing capabilities so that if an admin is away, a moderator might be able to deal with some of the common things unruly members might "exploit" (bad content in their sigs, or an inappropriate avatar, for example). For full editing capabilities you should login to the admin cp and edit the member, but it is expected you wouldn't give a moderator ACP access to begin with.

[Super Mr Average]

Maybe you could explain to me exactly how you would edit an uploaded image? :unsure: You can change the text in a member title, for example, but what could you do to an uploaded image besides delete it?

I don't personally agree with allowing the admin to upload a new image over top of the member's uploaded image.

lol you knew exactly what I meant by editing :P
Previously members would always ask either a moderator or myself to change their avatar / profile picture for them incase they were unsure of how to do it themselves.
Although it is a feature that is requested for convenience reasons really however I was unaware that it would be an issue.

I can think of privacy reasons so far of not allowing this however an admin still could access the database to change it manually.
I would say it comes down to trusting of the administrator ?
Are there any other reasons ?

This is by design. These are limited

moderator

member editing capabilities so that if an admin is away, a moderator might be able to deal with some of the common things unruly members might "exploit" (bad content in their sigs, or an inappropriate avatar, for example). For full editing capabilities you should login to the admin cp and edit the member, but it is expected you wouldn't give a moderator ACP access to begin with.

Indeed however the link to the admincp could be not shown through an if conditional which I think Invision does support.

That is a good design however maybe it could be expanded for admin use and show different options depending on wether the member is an admin or moderator through if conditionals ?

Also on the subject of privacy there are certain aspects wrong with the profile for example some members may not want who their buddies are online to be exposed. Although that would be for another thread :P

Since there is an argument about what actions, I'll list a few

• Inappropriate content in a member's signature
• Ban evading
• PM abuse (i.e. cussing at someone in PM, or harassing another member)
• Spamming someone via PM
• A naughty display name
• General nonsense on the bard (i.e. stupid replies to several topics)
• Misconduct in a component (bad gallery image or download file submitted, bad blog entry submitted, bad bug report submitted, etc. etc.)

• Inappropriate content in a member's signature [given]
• Ban evading [ maybe you would ban them again ] ?
• PM abuse (i.e. cussing at someone in PM, or harassing another member) [Harrasment would probably be in a post but it would be impossible to verify via pm unless there was a report pm feature ]
• Spamming someone via PM [ impossible to verify via pm unless there was a report pm feature ]
• A naughty display name [given]
• General nonsense on the bard (i.e. stupid replies to several topics) [ Given ]
• Misconduct in a component (bad gallery image or download file submitted, bad blog entry submitted, bad bug report submitted, etc. etc.) [ some things could still include a link back to for example which gallery image which blog etc , given on bad bug report though ]

I see what you mean about preserving the nature of the old warning system though

[Super Mr Average]

I don't speak for IPS. Not sure what you mean. I may be associated with them through IPSB, but I'm a bit beyond that border now ;)

I edited my post for a reason. I am sorry that you saw that (actually sorry, not the sorry for you like above :P ). One reason why I don't post when I first wake up (and have been working 12 hour shifts). I still think you are reading in to my posts to find some sort of attitude that was never present (with only minimal exception to the above), but I suppose that is your opinion on the matter. Anyway, my edited post is where I wanted to stand in the situation. :)

P.S. I assume that the only way you were able to quote me was because you had been subscribed to the topic. I think it is a bit underhanded that even after coming here and seeing that I edited my post, and given the context of the original post most likely regretted it in the first place thus why it was edited, you proceeded to try to humiliate me. If your morals are really as strong and "good" as you claim they are, you too stepped outside of said morals to accomplish this. If you can bend the rules to your bidding, what is to say that your own morals are of any sound ground to associate my personality in the first place. Knowing thyself comes first. :)

Sorry I didn't see that you had edited your post up until reading this post :blush: .
I had no intention of humiliating you only to defend myself I apologise if I made you feel that way.

[bfarber]

lol you knew exactly what I meant by editing :P

Previously members would always ask either a moderator or myself to change their avatar / profile picture for them incase they were unsure of how to do it themselves.

Although it is a feature that is requested for convenience reasons really however I was unaware that it would be an issue.

An issue, maybe so, maybe not. I can see why you'd want it, but I've just never pictured it that hard for a member to browse for a picture, and click upload. Perhaps I am naive. Likewise, this request hasn't really been brought up that often (in fact, at all that I can personally remember, though there are too many pages in this forum to go sifting through every past report)

I can think of privacy reasons so far of not allowing this however an admin still could access the database to change it manually.

I would say it comes down to trusting of the administrator ?

Are there any other reasons ?

No, privacy mainly

Indeed however the link to the admincp could be not shown through an if conditional which I think Invision does support.

We could, but you'd have to login, and depending upon what happens, it's quite possible that the software wouldn't be able to redirect you to the correct page - I can look into it, but it doesn't seem too difficult to me to just copy the member's name and paste it in the "Edit Member" box right there on the ACP home page either.

:)

That is a good design however maybe it could be expanded for admin use and show different options depending on wether the member is an admin or moderator through if conditionals ?

This is something to consider - we do want to overhaul the edit member capability for 3.x

Also on the subject of privacy there are certain aspects wrong with the profile for example some members may not want who their buddies are online to be exposed. Although that would be for another thread :P

Indeed

:thumbsup: