TrixieTang

Hi guys, I'm new to the IP Board and I'm trying to find the "Profanity Filter" in my Admin Control Panel and I'm not having any luck. Is there anyone who could point me in the right direction?

Thanks

Do you need technical support?

You can obtain support via the client area, or you can try to obtain peer-to-peer support at IPS Resources.

This is an old thread, but I think this is still valid:

So what is this skin called? Is it the "IP.Board XML" style? Can the search bots really read XML?

In 3.0 it was IP.Board Lo-Fi, in 3.1 it's IP.Board Mobile.

Allow displaying the profile picture in topic view (a replacement of the avatar).

Problem with that is in the fact that users have less control over photos in some ways. You can't use remote images as photos, you can set gallery images as avatars but not photos, etc.

They really need to make it so you have the same options for both avatars and photos and then allow the admin to easily place/replace them where they want by placing/editing just a little bit of code.

EDIT: And they need to make it so they can all be replaced easily with a simple search and replace.

1. More control over where to display avatars and photos, and the same options for each one.

For example avatars should have per usergroup limits like photos do. Photos should have a remotely hosted image option. And there should only be SIMPLE edits needed to replace photos with avatars and vice versa.


2. Better control over permissions for super moderators, no more of those hard coded permissions.

• When you suspend a member (in the Warn Page) - The member automatically will be moved to Banned Group and his title will be changed to Banned. When he's back from the ban, he will automatically be back to the Members Group and his title will be changed.

I agree, but it should be a bit more complex, it should save their original group and then put them in the banned group. So if you unban them they'll get their old groups back.

Category Supervisor - In the Forums tabs in the ACP, you can choose a category and add her a moderator.

You mean moderators per category?

+1

I do not want to change what we have now. If I wanted to change the visibility to Banned, then I use the old method of banning (separate group). The new and alternate method is not visible and I do not want it changed. It was introduced in 3.x and should remain the same. Suspending a member also should not be visible to others as it always has been that way and must remain so.

It's a good idea and it should be an admin option, not everybody runs their site the same way you know.

I caught two so far, three to go :D ... any way, I haven't figured out how to upgrade my IP.Pikachu yet, can any one help me please? (w00t)

I think IP.kachu sounds better.

But I'm sure that IPS will refer to it as both IP.Pikachu and IP.kachu in different places on the site. :P

Sorry this doesn't grab me. The difference with Wordpress and other apps is they are loaded on your computer. IPB is loaded on a remote server and this no doubt creates a number of issues. I find the current method pretty straight forward and probably much more reliable than any any automated system.

3DKiwi

Wordpress is actually a blog software, so it is on a server and not on your computer.

But I have to agree that uploading the files yourself is easy and more reliable than some automated update thing could ever be.

Log out and log back in.

Do you think that Invision will sort out the IE Problem?

It's not a problem in IPB. The problem is in IE not supporting curved borders, and there's really not much IPS can do about that.

And licenses aren't tied to a version like you seem to think that they are.

If you really think it's a bug them post in the bug tracker, but it sounds to me like this is just a big misunderstanding on how licenses and upgrades to new versions work.

There are only IPB licenses, there's no such thing as IPB 2 licenses or IPB 3 licenses, a license is a license and it allows you to use any version of IPB, 2 or 3.

In other words, I don't think what you're saying is even possible.

I'm sure you could add something like this yourself if you wanted to by using custom BBcodes, but it would present so many problems that I doubt you'd keep it for long if you did add it.

For one, the anchors would have to be per page, they couldn't be per post as far as I know.

And then there's the issue of others adding anchors with the same name in their posts and screwing things up.

Not worth the trouble.

Or they could just make more accounts to rep themselves.

And now everyone who looks at this thread knows a name they can put into Google to find warez...

I've always thought that the staff avatars make you all look like a bunch of robots. :P

And I think it's really confusing when you all have the same avatars, I mean I can't tell any of you apart until I read your avatars, and reading avatars is really boring. :P

Because they're trying to confuse us.

That has been there since 1.x or 2.x..

Yep. :lol:

It wasn't removed, go to edit the member and click the "Actions" button and you'll find it.

I can say positively that nulled boards get nothing from us...

That's no fun, you should make it so if nulled boards try to use the service they'll blow up.

This is just another thread about how IE6 isn't supported. But there is a solution to that problem, and that is...

Problem solved.

Stop using IE6.

Well, this brings up an "interesting" point though (not to go too far off topic).

I'm sure there are plenty of features in vB that aren't in IPB (and vice-versa). Would you say this is the single most important one that converting users want? Say we had time to add one feature in IPB3.1 ... would this be the feature you'd request?

I can't speak for everyone, but if I personally had to choose then this would definitely be my choice.

The rest of the features vB offers that IPB doesn't are for the most part minor things, avatar limits by usergroup, multiple group icons, and other things that would probably be better off as mods anyways.

The only other thing I can really think of that might be something that most people would want, well, that would be the permission system, vB offers a lot more per forum permissions than IPB. But personally I think they offer more per forum permissions than most people really have a need for, so I think that's more bloat than anything.

[quote name='G

See, allowing moderators to ban a member is a slippery slope I'm sure many admins aren't comfortable with. We've traditionally felt that actions that actually alter a member account are best left to the admin control panel, which a moderator can't access.

Of course each admin has their own wishes/way of running things. Personally I think it's best to leave banning to the admins myself.

And there a lot of us who trust our moderators enough to let them ban and don't think that it's a "slippery slope" if it's done right, but we aren't exactly given many options, are we? Our mods can suspend members, but they can't change groups, guess how much of an effect that can have if you have components/applications that have user group based permissions, or if you want to set up an appeals forum for banned members.

I think you should let the admin decide how banning will be done on their board, keep the current way for those who want it, and for those who want their mods to be able to change user's groups add options so they can. That way your customers can run their forum the way they want rather than the way you seem to think that most of us want to run our boards.

I'm sorry, but those so-called banning system improvements in 3.0 were hardly improvements, and vB is still ahead of IPB when it comes to their banning system. I really hope that you make some real improvements to the banning system in 3.1, because 3.0 didn't improve much at all.

Really, all that's needed is simple, make it so the admin can choose to let mods ban, let admins set "banned groups" and users can be put there when banned by mods/admins and moved back to their old groups when unbanned. It's a little improvement but it's one that's desperately needed. Why is it needed? It's needed because some admins want to let their mods ban, some admins don't want to have to go to the ACP just to ban, some admins want to be able to choose the restrictions put on banned members, some admins have other applications/components and need an easy way to control their banned members permissions in, and the list goes on and on.

This topic is already here:

1. [*]This thread was made first. [*]They aren't really the same.