TrixieTang

Currently if you go to someone's profile and try to send them a PM, if you decide you need all the editor options you don't have them, and there isn't a way to get to them short of copying what you typed so far, going to your messenger, typing in the name of the member, and pasting what you had written...

There really needs to be a link on the "Quick PM" popup like their is on the fast reply, "Use Full Editor" which keeps what you'd written, who you're sending it to, and takes you to your messenger to send a PM with access to all the editor options.

What I want to see in 3.1.


Thread Tagging Option for users to ignore/hide threads based on tags. Option to make it so that when moderators ban a user the user's group is changed to the banned group. it is so annoying having to log into the admin CP and change a member's group manually. And it makes it extremely hard to make a system where banned members can view an appeal forum, because if they're banned by a moderator then there's no way to give them access to an appeals forum until the admin changes their group. No more hard coded special permissions for super moderators. I don't want my mods (or admins for that matter) mass deleting posts, but if I have super mods they're automatically allowed to mass delete and there's no way to set it so they can't. This seems so stupid when you realize that you have pretty much complete control over admin permissions yet all these super mod permissions can't be changed at all...

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

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

Well, there you've stated it. The older license type has "added value" which you are not willing to let it go. To be honest, you can't have everything. Your older license has other values while the current one has its another (and unproven) values.

Though I find that some people here are really overreacting to this. This sort of thing happens all the time with my cellular phone company and ISP.

charles is usually on something...

I'm especially nice.

<-- nice

I think Charles is on something today... He's lying to himself a lot. ;)

http://mashable.com/2009/07/16/ie6-must-die/

If there's anyone still using IE6 (presently 12 or 13 percent of my visitors), I don't really want them on my site any way. Stupid people p!$$ me off.

There is another feature, that seems to be unique to vBulletin, but should be fairly simple to add to the new codebase.. user ranks, seperate from user titles, such that if a user sets a custom title, it doesnt override/replace their post-count rank. While vBulletin has a strange implementation by keeping these completely seperate, I have seen one advantage to their setup that I would like to see available in IPB 3.1. Particularly with respect to customising the text and having multiple assigned ranks seperate from, but associated with, the user's primary/secondary user-groups.

IPB: A users title, is set according to their post-count rank, cannot be styled or adjusted with HTML, and under normal circumstances only an administrator can change it until they reach set amount of posts. A users title, if changed, overrides the post-rank title they would otherwise have. A user gets rank-pips or a custom image associated with their current post-count rank, which is overridden when the user's primary group is changed to one that has a custom image set. A user's group title can be customised and is displayed below the rank bar, "Group: Admins".

vB: A users title, is initially set according to their post-count, and overriden if a default title is set on their user-group, "Admins". A users rank, is also set, according to their postcount and usergroup, and a user can have multiple ranks, ranks can be images or text formatted using HTML.

Is it possible, then, to have it where if a user and/or an admin sets their own custom title it just slots in above their avatar.
To drop the custom-group image that would override a members rank-pips/rank-image and replace it with stackable ranks.
Stackable ranks being either images or html-formattable text that can be assigned to a usergroup (and displayed for members of that group) or for all groups and shown underneath the users avatar.
This would enable admins to have a standard set of post-count rank 'titles' and optional images for each rank-title (by making the text and image either/or), as well as custom 'titles' that are assigned to the member's usergroup such as having a seperate rank image for Moderators, Admins or General site staff. Admins can also optionally, have no rank-titles and just have images for each rank, and still allow members to have a custom title.
On one site I frequent, this is used to grant an additional title to staff on the main website who may not be staff on the forums while allowing them to have their own custom user titles and seperate rank-title based on their posts.

I think it has the advantage of moving all this related code into the one place, having the one system for managing the whole lot, independent of the usergroup system as well as adding a little more flexibility to the postbit display that could be exploited to good effect.

What I want to see in 3.1.


Thread Tagging Option for users to ignore/hide threads based on tags. Option to make it so that when moderators ban a user the user's group is changed to the banned group. it is so annoying having to log into the admin CP and change a member's group manually. And it makes it extremely hard to make a system where banned members can view an appeal forum, because if they're banned by a moderator then there's no way to give them access to an appeals forum until the admin changes their group. No more hard coded special permissions for super moderators. I don't want my mods (or admins for that matter) mass deleting posts, but if I have super mods they're automatically allowed to mass delete and there's no way to set it so they can't. This seems so stupid when you realize that you have pretty much complete control over admin permissions yet all these super mod permissions can't be changed at all...

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

Currently, in order to edit a hook to change something like which template it hooks into, you have to turn on IN_DEV mode. This is bad because it puts the whole site into developers mode. We should be able to edit a hook's properties without having to enable IN_DEV.

IPB is dyslexic.

When it's ready

I wonder why these features weren't added SO FAR:


possibility reset/restart polls possibility lock polls but continue in topic

Personally I think this new way is how it should have always worked, I don't think the old way was really confusing, but the new way is definitely more logical.

And I do think that 3 tickets a week complaining about something really does indicate that that's the majority's opinion.



To say that because of one feature being changed is really overreacting if you ask me.



A ticket isn't going to nor is it meant to make them change it back, it will let them help you to change it back on your forum, but it's not going to make them change it back in a future version.

Thats your opinion not fact...

Works fine for me.



Again, works fine for me.



Ummm.... not sure what you mean "decent". If you don't like the look/feel then by all means... design one you think is better or grab one from the various resource sites.

What I want to see in 3.1.


Thread Tagging Option for users to ignore/hide threads based on tags. Option to make it so that when moderators ban a user the user's group is changed to the banned group. it is so annoying having to log into the admin CP and change a member's group manually. And it makes it extremely hard to make a system where banned members can view an appeal forum, because if they're banned by a moderator then there's no way to give them access to an appeals forum until the admin changes their group. No more hard coded special permissions for super moderators. I don't want my mods (or admins for that matter) mass deleting posts, but if I have super mods they're automatically allowed to mass delete and there's no way to set it so they can't. This seems so stupid when you realize that you have pretty much complete control over admin permissions yet all these super mod permissions can't be changed at all...

Because IPS offers hosting, and unless they pay for copyright removal all of their forum's pages will have a link to a competitor's site.

InvisionFree's new lame software.