Hisashi

Not to be a downer to this idea as I think it's a really good one, but I'm wondering how this would best be implemented.
1. When someone signs in?  If someone is already signed in, then they wouldn't get flagged.
2. While active on the site?  That could add a lot of CPU overhead to keep checking.
3. When the filter is added?  What if the filter is immediately deleted because it was entered incorrectly?  How would it go back and undo any accounts accidently flagged?
4. As a task?  That could take awhile depending on how many members the site has.  After all, it might be multiple new filters to compare existing accounts to.
Again, I like this idea.  I'd also like to be able to flag a user to change their email address via the ACP without needing a 3rd party app to do it.
 
 

Hello,
It could add to the system, a setting that forces users to change their email preventing access, when a certain address is added to the prohibition filter.
I found some users with temporary email and added these addresses to the filter.

@Stuart Silvester Thanks for the info.
Can you then please move this to your feedback forum? Because I think when deleting an account based on an account deletion request, the admin should get the same options like manually deleting a member, which is:
delete the user's posts hide the user's posts (with options to either keep the user's name or make it anonymous) keep the user's posts (also with options to either keep the user's name or make it anonymous)

Could add new rules for specific days, where the user receives when logging in that period.
Examples...
I want to deliver an badge on date x (12/01) because it's the site anniversary. I want to deliver an badge during date x ~ y (12/01 ~ 12/07) because during this period an event will be taking place

This issue has been resolved in the latest 4.7.11 release. Please upgrade to resolve this, and let us know if you have any further problems.

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention! I can confirm this should be further reviewed and I have logged an internal bug report for our development team to investigate and address as necessary, in a future maintenance release.
 

This issue has been resolved in the latest 4.7.11 release. Please upgrade to resolve this, and let us know if you have any further problems.

I had made an adjustment for the next beta.
Thanks!

This is extremely important, for the security of hacked accounts or if the user gives up deletion within a period of time. An example of this is google, facebook and twitter.
Ways to do this...
The administrator has the ability to set the revoke time. During the period of exclusion, the content remains anonymous only with the ability of the moderators to identify. After the deadline, the administrator can set an automatic action for the account (or manually if desired). It would be great to remove this obligation from the administrator having to evaluate everything, if he wants to make everything automatic and use his time for other matters.

It could create a system that some social networks have to hide content/comments involving a specific tag or word.
This would also be extremely useful for communities that discuss certain subjects such as movies, anime, games, series...
I made a demo in HTML of how it could be.

 

You got it completely wrong... I know the two resources from the link and the ACP tool, it is nowhere near the same as the suggestion.
ACP word filter: Affects the entire community, it goes completely against. Bim hide:  This feature is for administrative use and for the user who posted to block content with [hide][/hide] in exchange for engagement like likes and replies. NE Hide: Again it's for administrative use, that's not the idea. This is a filter created BY THE USER, where comments/content involving a specific word is hidden only for him.
The best example for you to understand: https://twitter.com/settings/muted_keywords

FYI: this doesn't do what has been requested by the OP:
 

For now, we'll keep it so administrators must approve until we get a little more comfortable with the features. We wouldn't want large parts of an established community destroyed by content being de-attributed or removed without a final admin check.

This is extremely important, for the security of hacked accounts or if the user gives up deletion within a period of time. An example of this is google, facebook and twitter.
Ways to do this...
The administrator has the ability to set the revoke time. During the period of exclusion, the content remains anonymous only with the ability of the moderators to identify. After the deadline, the administrator can set an automatic action for the account (or manually if desired). It would be great to remove this obligation from the administrator having to evaluate everything, if he wants to make everything automatic and use his time for other matters.

Those are very nice and much needed features! 👍 Really looking forward to it.
Will there be options to enable/disable either of these fontend buttons? Say, I'd like to have the button for account deletion requests, but not for PII data requests. Will there be options to optionally automate account deletion in some way? E.g. 14 days after an account request for deletion has been sent and with no admin reacting in this timeframe, the account will be gone automatically?

To encourage members to engage with news and other purposes admins are using Pages for, it would be wonderful if we could have polls with Pages. I believe it would help many communities to make their members engage in regard to what they utilize Pages Database for because some people they don't like to leave a comment, or they are much active etc... 

It could create a system that some social networks have to hide content/comments involving a specific tag or word.
This would also be extremely useful for communities that discuss certain subjects such as movies, anime, games, series...
I made a demo in HTML of how it could be.

 

Yes they are. And in full disclosure, I have a large amount invested in this company as I see them eventually becoming very large and taking significant share of the cloud storage market away from Amazon S3. Backblaze B2 is significantly cheaper to use especially since AWS charges such high egress fees to deliver content to end users.

Please consider adding a separate Backblaze B2 storage method. The existing S3 method doesn’t completely work.
B2 is very cheap at $5/TB and when combined with free Cloudflare CDN, B2 has NO egress fees  So, all you pay is $0.005/GB stored  Using Cloudflare Workers, you can even make the whole bucket private.
Making a separate storage method for B2 will allow you to fix the small issues with using Amazon S3 method so B2 works completely.
 

We had FTP but it was really very bad
See 
 
 

Those highlighted are S3 compatible and can be used by Invision Community.
 
Mount it as a volume on your server and access it as if it was part of your file system, and use the "Custom URL" in the file storage setting to point it to the other server.

Suggestion
Ability to schedule publication.

The title is going behind the user's profile picture. @Ehren

The title is going behind the user's profile picture. @Ehren

It looks like this is something your server administrator has set up to block ZIP/archives that have Java script files in them. See https://sanesecurity.com/foxhole-databases/ - The virus error message is a bit mis-leading, but it's how the database flags the file for ClamAV to reject.
I also want to post a reminder than developer tools should never be used on a live or publicly accessible website.