Tripp★

I have removed it and reinstalled it, I'll see if that fixes it. So far so good after a few hours. I'll let it run for a few days and if I will let you know what happens. This is all odd to me too. Perhaps what I should have stated is that there seems to be default settings when you load the plug in, in. What this would do before I uninstalled and reuploaded it, was turn everything off, and set all the numerical stuff to zero after a length of time. I will play around in the ACP and see if it resets again though. Thanks for your response though.

@opentype - I dare classify it as anything. But there is something wrong with the plugin, in that it doesn't retain my settings, and I have to go back and set it all back up, over and over and over again. I'm not sure what's going on, but when I set it, it does work and my settings save, but after a little while with no further interaction in the ACP all the settings reset back to default.

@All Astronauts Did you change the + Create bit at all in this version? Before (with KS15/16) in the IPSFocus skin (Shift) it displayed as a pencil, which is what I wanted, yet now it just shows "+ Create" regardless of setting choices.

I've spotted a "Possible Bug"... If you don't understand what I've written please ask me to clarify it. If a member has a club (A normal member with no ACP access) with the forum feature, that has topics/posts in it, they can delete that feature. But: When they delete it, they get shown to a screen where they can move the content (or Delete it). The problem is on that screen (Bare in mind that the member doesn't have ACP access) it says: This message is meaningless to them because they don't have ACP access. I reckon it's easily fixed through changing the languages, but I figured I'd let you know.

It seems to work perfectly.

... sure, why not. I can at least test it out for you... And I didn't see that post, I went to get some lunch and I came back and just carried on writing the post.

I don't mean exploit as in a security exploit, I was talking from the perspective of someone using an intended feature - in an unintended way. Abusing it to do something malicious. I'll stick to 'Cat Lover' for this example sinareo: Member makes Club, calls it "Cat Lover's Club". This member is the Club Owner of that club. The Club Owner (The Member previously mentioned) changes the club owner to the Site Administrator. Who wasn't even in the club to begin with. The Site Administrator is asleep, they had no say in becoming the Club Owner, and didn't ask to be the Club Owner, but now he automatically is. Even though he wasn't even in the club to begin with, he's added into the club automatically and set to the "Owner" despite the fact he never wanted to be in said club. The OLD Club Owner (The Member) leaves the club. The Member takes screenshots of the Site Administrator being the owner of the club (Falsely accuse the Site Administrator of creating it as these things like change of ownership and such don't appear in the activity feed). Aftermath: Member now parades screenshot as 'Proof' that the Site Administrator (Who is still asleep but the new club owner, and never asked for it) is a cat lover. I do not know if I can get clearer than that, dude. I was painting the scenario out, and asking if there could be some kind of accept/reject. So that when the club owner changes the owner of the club to someone else, that very same someone else gets a notification asking if they want to be the club owner or not, where they can actually say Yes/No, so that it doesn't do it for them without their permission. Or make it optional for the site owner to disable it...

What on earth are you talking about?

No it can't though. A normal user cannot do this, not on my site. They can only do it in the clubs. I am not talking about staff. I am talking about normal members. A normal user cannot change a topic's author. A normal user cannot change who wrote a blog. A normal user cannot change who uploaded a gallery image, and I don't know about the Download system - I don't have it. This is not normal IPS behaviour at all. I don't think you understand what I put at all.

Other than the exploit thing... I never said that though! What the hell?! Dude... Actually read what I put. When I say "Now change it" I was talking about my example! I even quoted the words! I wasn't talking about changing the actual club! Okay I see I was probably way misunderstood because you're flying off the deep end when there's no need to. I am just trying to tell you of a potential problem - IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM did I say YOU were responsible for it. Nor did I imply that! I am going to need to spell this out in steps: Member makes Club, calls it "Official Nazi Club" Member Changes the Owner to the Site Administrator. Site Admin is now added without a chance to reject such a stupid change, whilst he is offline. Member Leaves the Club. Member Takes Screenshots of the Site Administrator being the Owner of the club. Member then splashes it around the site as "Proof" that Site Administrator is a Nazi.

Whoa dude! There is no need to go hostile on me. I never said nor did I even remotely imply that. Please re-read what I put.

I have had a rather unfortunate exploit shown on me today... With Change Club Owner, someone can make a club (Say "Official 'Cat Lovers' Club) and transfer it to someone else, say a Site Administrator and immediately - it will look like that the Site Administrator owns and created the club. The original owner will be a Co-Owner and can leave the club, and then take screenshots to prove that the Site Administrator is a 'Cat Lover'. Now... Replace 'Cat Lover' with 'Nazi' or 'Communist' or anything else nasty and you see why this is a problem... Is there any way that this can be changed to be an invite-like system? So the person you're changing the owner to can approve or unapprove, and actually have some say in it? Because right now someone (and I already have been) can be framed for something they don't believe in, aren't apart of, and otherwise. At least I can confirm that the ban from Clubs feature works and it's a God Send at this point. Thanks in advance.

Is this tied in, in anyway to: For example if someone gets MotM, they get an Award or something? ---Edit--- I have also found quite a serious bug. If I have iAwards enabled, when I try to edit a usergroup in the ACP I get this error (Stripped of private information): ErrorException: Argument 1 passed to IPS\awards\extensions\core\ContentRouter\_Awarded::__construct() must be an instance of IPS\Member, instance of IPS\Member\Group given, called in /home/site/public_html/system/Application/Application.php on line 788 and defined (4096) #0 /home/site/public_html/applications/awards/extensions/core/ContentRouter/Awarded.php(38): IPS\IPS::errorHandler(4096, 'Argument 1 pass...', '/home/site/pub...', 38, Array) #1 /home/site/public_html/system/Application/Application.php(788): IPS\awards\extensions\core\ContentRouter\_Awarded->__construct(Object(IPS\Member\Group)) #2 /home/site/public_html/system/Application/Application.php(300): IPS\_Application->extensions('core', 'ContentRouter', true, Object(IPS\Member\Group)) #3 /home/site/public_html/applications/core/extensions/core/GroupForm/Content.php(35): IPS\_Application::allExtensions('core', 'ContentRouter', Object(IPS\Member\Group)) #4 /home/site/public_html/applications/core/modules/admin/members/groups.php(188): IPS\core\extensions\core\GroupForm\_Content->process(Object(IPS\Helpers\Form), Object(IPS\Member\Group)) #5 /home/site/public_html/system/Dispatcher/Controller.php(85): IPS\core\modules\admin\members\_groups->form() #6 /home/site/public_html/applications/core/modules/admin/members/groups.php(34): IPS\Dispatcher\_Controller->execute() #7 /home/site/public_html/system/Dispatcher/Dispatcher.php(146): IPS\core\modules\admin\members\_groups->execute() #8 /home/site/public_html/ACP/index.php(13): IPS\_Dispatcher->run() #9 {main}

Got it and tested it for you dude. The plugin's basic function still works, and it counts time up as we'd want it to do, however opening multiple tabs and then clicking on something in each of them after 5/10 minutes no longer works, in some cases I saw that the time only went up by a single second, which is consistent with how long it took for me to change tabs. So it literally didn't count them at 5/10 minutes of activity, and actually counted the second it took to change the tab therefore not completely invalidating it. This was a very perfect implementation of the idea. I do not see any problems whatsoever with what you sent me, man. And to lack a better word, it seems that this can no longer be exploited in the same way anymore. Excellent work man, and I deeply appreciate you spending time to patch that problem.

Sure, I'm ready when you are.