Jump to content

Biker.GA

Friends
  • Posts

    713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Profiles

Downloads

IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Forums

Store

Everything posted by Biker.GA

  1. Yes. I even went through the DB to ensure the appropriate usergroups are listed. They are, yet, it only works for 2 usergroups. Administrators and Moderators.
  2. OK. This is driving me absolutely nuts. The usergroups allowed to use the modification are listed in the database, but yet, any usergroup other than Administrator or Moderator cannot see the option in the UserCP.
  3. Ran into a snag with this one. All the file edits were accomplished and it works wonderfully for the Administrator and Moderator usergroup. But that's it. It doesn't even appear in the UserCP for all other usergroups that were assigned. This is with 3.12.
  4. A suggestion for a future version. The ability to prevent a forum from being blocked. It could be something simple like a check to see if the admin has made a particular forum immune to being blocked with a message to the user if they attempt to block it.
  5. Sorry. I think the report center is an abomination. It's a nice concept that was poorly implemented.
  6. I prefer the personal touch. Canned responses usually don't foster good relations between the staff and membership.
  7. Correct. It's set within the usergroup itself. You need to edit the Administrator usergroup and set "Can bypass badword filters" to No.
  8. Don't see what the issue is. If the last post is a long one, and I want to quote a portion of it, I'll use the "Reply" button and then edit the quote. If users are using the "Add Reply" button all the time, rather than using the quick reply by clicking on the text box, that's a user education issue. The existing system is just fine.
  9. While this may look great on paper, realistically, I see a LOT of users complaining about initial load times for forums using this method of caching. There are a lot of folks still using dialup and subpar DSL connections that would not handle such a load nicely. This is something that would have to be activated on a case by case basis by forum administrators.
  10. 1. Doesn't it do this already? ;) 2. Disagree. The additional query load doesn't warrant the negligible information it provides. 3. No hard feelings on this one. Don't really care. 4. This is also shown (in a way). My heartburn with the Report Center is it's still treated as a modification with no real integration into the forum software. Personally, I'd prefer to see it go away with reported posts being displayed in a forum of my choosing.
  11. Set up your "null" address and then in AdminCP, change the outgoing address only. :)
  12. What I've done is set up a "null" email address for system generated messages. Any replies go to the "null" mailbox which are immediately deleted. If users can't read the "Do not reply" line in the email, well...... :D
  13. Amen. And as far as I know, the modification you speak of does not work with Sphinx (at least it didn't the last time I checked). I've had to block certain forums on our site from the search engine for all users, and I HATE doing that. Would much rather make it a user selectable item. This is needed desperately as a built in function of the software.
  14. Wouldn't posting the link without using the media tag just post the URL?
  15. Members who do that do not last long on any site. If one is too thin skinned to participate in a discussion, I don't want them. Period. And those who do cry every time they feel they've been slighted are told to grow up or leave. I have no time for them, nor do I have the patience to hand hold the whiners. Again, letting the membership to decide who can and can not read their posts should never, ever be implemented.
  16. A better solution is to prohibit new users from creating signatures and using the conversation system until they've made "x" amount of posts, where they are then promoted to a usergroup that allows those perks.
  17. Tachy Goes to Coventry was a nice concept that was horribly designed and implemented. If someone was giving you that much grief on a site, then perhaps moderating the member is sufficient to straighten them up. However, allowing the membership to determine who can and can not read their posts should never be implemented.
  18. While access masks are nice to have, they're not what I would consider the top of my wish list for the forum software. It's rare that someone would need to fine tune permissions to the point to where they'd need an access mask system. In addition, having a third tier of access permissions does make for some hairy troubleshooting when things aren't working right.
  19. How about an option that allows us to choose the reporting behavior (report center vs forum). It would seem to me that the report center is just being treated as a separate forum or comment area. Although, notifications via View New Content is a much needed addition for new comments in the report center.
  20. I would like the option to send reports to a specified forum (similar to vB) rather than the report center. While the Report Center is a nice concept, it really doesn't fit in with our needs, nor is it really tied into the software. It's still treated as a modification.
  21. While this is something that has been requested by my users in the past, it's not something I've been too wild about pursuing. IF this can be accomplished in a secure manner, I'd definitely have some happy users. Especially if it can be applied to posting as well as private messaging. However, it has to be able to follow the posting permissions set by the administrators on the boards, including the use of PMs. If it fails to follow those permission settings, it's not something I'd even consider using.
  22. Not sure I want the forum software tied directly into the mail server. I have enough security headaches without having to worry about another avenue of attack coming in via email. Just because it's "neat" isn't enough for me (and I suspect other admins) to justify opening up that particular "hole" as a possible avenue that could compromise our server.
  23. I've already stated I have no issues with providing information that would identify myself as an authorized contact. Whether it be a copy of my license or some other means of maintaining a record of who I am and a method of contacting me other than a UserID and email address. That, in conjunction with the express approval of the account holder should go a long ways to helping cut down on unauthorized use of the software. If an account owner is going to allow unauthorized downloads based off their account, preventing alternates from downloading doesn't prevent anything. All the account holder will do is download the software and provide it elsewhere. Even if it were based on a case by case basis, where the account owner specifies that the alternates have the ability to download, with the full understanding and agreement that the account holder will be held responsible for any unauthorized use of the software would go a long way. While I can understand the frustration that past issues have caused (both downloading AND license transfers), the fact remains that the need is still there.
  24. Seems they prefer to take the easy way out on some things, rather than attempt to find a middle ground that's agreeable to all parties. One only needs to look at the alternate contact issue to see that.
  25. You should be using your own personal email address for your account. PM notifications are sent to the email address associated with the account. Site notifications are sent to the address you specify in the AdminCP, and if you have them set up, forwarded to the other addresses as specified in cPanel.
×
×
  • Create New...