Brainy S.

I applies to companies world-wide offering goods and services to EU citizens. It’s not a matter of the company being subject to local law, it’s a matter of wanting to to business with citizens of certain countries. Just as you cannot import illegal goods into a country independent of having a subsidiary in that country. Digital goods and services fall into the same category. Enforcement of these rules is a different matter, but claiming it wouldn’t even apply is factually wrong. 
Please don’t add unnecessary side debates to this. You don’t have to get involved with every discussion here, you know? 

And further changes are on the horizon. https://haerting.de/en/insights/eprivacy-regulation-eu-council/
This sounds good by the way:
 

Or, they're using third party tools, which specialise in privacy law compliance. There are plenty out there.

From an attorney perspective there is a shortfall in how the IPS system natively handles this: the boiler plate {cookie} language that IPS provides I find insufficient, and the mechanics of IPS in cookie consent tracking/removal of consent are basically lacking altogether.
To me a great cautionary tale is the recent case where a German court awarded 100 euros to a plaintiff who sued over a site that used embedded Google Fonts (like many sites...though not IPS) which reveals an IP address to Google which was not adequately disclosed. Adequate disclosure would likely have been sufficient as "necessary" or "essential" for the proper function of the site (making the assumption that authentic rendering of the site visually equates to an essential function). Of course Google farms data left and right at every level one can presume. Between those who use their 8.8.8.8 DNS server, to embedded Youtube videos on a site, to Google Fonts embedded on the site, to any banner ads, analytics, etc. 
In the specific case of IPS, it does use FontAwesome. No idea what they do, probably nothing near as invasive as Google, but the total absence of any mention, disclosure, disclaimer, etc. in the default {cookie} policy provided by IPS is a giant gap on this point.
The default {cookie} policy also does not mention two additional specific cookies that IPS uses: 
ips4_hasJS - Indicates to the site whether JavaScript support in your browser has been detected.  ips4_ipsTimezone - Used to display site events properly for your time zone.  I have pointed these out to IPS in private.
For points 1 and 2, I handle this through a more thorough {cookie} policy. For point 4, one can at least try to make the guest/public area is a "functional" place to sufficiently satisfy some level of "access" without non-essential cookie consent (this being tied to registration). For point 3 and 5 I've repurposed another plugin to serve as the mechanism for managing proof and withdrawal of consent.
The last thing I would want is for IPS to waste any time on something that wasn't necessary that doesn't provide added functionality for users and/or site owners. I would personally rather have some cool new feature rather than IPS needing to dump any development resources into something to just "break even" for legal concerns. However, things do have to be stepped up guys, sorry to say. This is only going to be more of an issue. It's not just EU and UK GDPR, but other places' laws are stepping things up as well.
A lackluster boiler plate {cookie} policy aside, there has to be at least SOME mechanism made available to regular site owners to at least SOMEWHAT A) allow users manage/withdraw consent and B) demonstrate some manner of attempted compliance/proof/record of this that can be demonstrated by a site owner in court for point 5. It does not have to be perfect to be useful for this purpose. Something, in some regard, is far far better than nothing from my perspective, even if it was only 30% of what it needs to be.

From an attorney perspective there is a shortfall in how the IPS system natively handles this: the boiler plate {cookie} language that IPS provides I find insufficient, and the mechanics of IPS in cookie consent tracking/removal of consent are basically lacking altogether.
To me a great cautionary tale is the recent case where a German court awarded 100 euros to a plaintiff who sued over a site that used embedded Google Fonts (like many sites...though not IPS) which reveals an IP address to Google which was not adequately disclosed. Adequate disclosure would likely have been sufficient as "necessary" or "essential" for the proper function of the site (making the assumption that authentic rendering of the site visually equates to an essential function). Of course Google farms data left and right at every level one can presume. Between those who use their 8.8.8.8 DNS server, to embedded Youtube videos on a site, to Google Fonts embedded on the site, to any banner ads, analytics, etc. 
In the specific case of IPS, it does use FontAwesome. No idea what they do, probably nothing near as invasive as Google, but the total absence of any mention, disclosure, disclaimer, etc. in the default {cookie} policy provided by IPS is a giant gap on this point.
The default {cookie} policy also does not mention two additional specific cookies that IPS uses: 
ips4_hasJS - Indicates to the site whether JavaScript support in your browser has been detected.  ips4_ipsTimezone - Used to display site events properly for your time zone.  I have pointed these out to IPS in private.
For points 1 and 2, I handle this through a more thorough {cookie} policy. For point 4, one can at least try to make the guest/public area is a "functional" place to sufficiently satisfy some level of "access" without non-essential cookie consent (this being tied to registration). For point 3 and 5 I've repurposed another plugin to serve as the mechanism for managing proof and withdrawal of consent.
The last thing I would want is for IPS to waste any time on something that wasn't necessary that doesn't provide added functionality for users and/or site owners. I would personally rather have some cool new feature rather than IPS needing to dump any development resources into something to just "break even" for legal concerns. However, things do have to be stepped up guys, sorry to say. This is only going to be more of an issue. It's not just EU and UK GDPR, but other places' laws are stepping things up as well.
A lackluster boiler plate {cookie} policy aside, there has to be at least SOME mechanism made available to regular site owners to at least SOMEWHAT A) allow users manage/withdraw consent and B) demonstrate some manner of attempted compliance/proof/record of this that can be demonstrated by a site owner in court for point 5. It does not have to be perfect to be useful for this purpose. Something, in some regard, is far far better than nothing from my perspective, even if it was only 30% of what it needs to be.

Amazingly, that means to mass-collect personal data (like IP addresses from guests), which should violate the GDPR itself. 

Thanks for looking into this!!
I just wanted to correct a small mistake in what I said. What I should have said was, "although the Ignore Forums plugin gives the option inside clubs to ignore/stop ignoring a club forum, the "clubs forum on forums index" plugin seems to ignore this and still shows the club anyway in the main forum index.
 

They can work together; I don't see why not. Will take a look in a few days.

What's New in Version 1.6.2:
Added compatibility to Achievements System When a member completes a quiz Quiz creator and player can earn points/badges Added compatibility to Webhooks When a member completes a quiz

I've been wanting to add the quiz system to my site for awhile now but since my site has so many different categories I would love to be able to keep the site clean by adding quizzes to certain clubs.
Example: I have a DJ club so I would like to have quizzes on how to hook up the equipment, what to do in certain situations, etc.. then on another club I have technology club that would focus on knowledge of the different products.
If I have only the one page of all quizzes, it might be unappealing and confusing.  Also with the clubs I could do the paid clubs so the clubs I have quizzes its part of the bonus of paying to join the club.
Anyhow, was curious if you had any thoughts about adding quizzes to clubs?

You've been refunded and purchases isn't allowed anymore for this file.

I would be interested as well.

Doesn't work since 4.6
[[Template core/front/modcp/report is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]   Got this error message... After deactivate the plugin, everything works well.  

Has anyone seriously considered this? I would love to have this plugin back.

Anyone know of any alternatives to this plugin? Had some users express interest in it and were bummed to find that it was no longer being worked on.

I still consider this great support on your part that you looked into this and gave it a good go even though it turned out not to be practical. Thanks!

Hello, clubs missing:
1. Ability to configure a forum with restriction of Start Topic for members. 
2. Ability to configure a forum only can see by clubs staff members. 
3. Ability to define default sorted in each forum. 
4. Status Update for clubs. Clubs with that ability can use it as their club front page, as announcements or members leave messages there.
Engagement from clubs across all website members. 
5. Ability to post a topic or article and blog (if they can get integrated into the clubs features) in name of Club, similar the Blog can post entry in name of the same Blog. 
Imagine that clubs like so many groups, each club have their homepage where all can see and read the announcements or topics posted in name of each club... 
Engagement or environment of a really community. Each member can open their topic in forums, wity their name, clubs can have their club front with contents in name of that clubs names. 

Hi @Brainy S.,
I have bad news. I looked into the templates. But I can not hook into the code without extreme overhead.
For example I want to add the verification icon here:

But the code looks like that:
<ips:template parameters="$club, $members" /> <ol class='ipsAreaBackground_reset ipsList_reset ipsPad ipsGrid ipsGrid_collapsePhone ipsClear' data-ipsGrid data-ipsGrid-equalHeights='row' data-ipsGrid-minItemSize='170' data-ipsGrid-maxItemSize='400'> {{if \count( $members )}} {{foreach $members as $member}} [...] <h3 class='ipsType_sectionHead ipsMemberCard_name'> {$member['core_members']['name']} <-- This is where the hook must go </h3> [...] When I create a hook I can only access $club and $members, not the single member I need. So Invision should use a template to display the member name - then I could create a small hook to display the icon.
I know I could create a hook to override the complete loop - but I don't want to do that. It's such a big change and could break every core update.

I will have a look at the next weekend for that.

I think it would be great if this also displayed a member's verification status icon when the member is listed as part of a Clubs member listing/pending application.
Is there a bit of simple code you can suggest that I could try adding to the "member row" template for Clubs that would do this?

Never mind, it's working fine.
 

Thanks for clarifying this for me.
For anyone else interested or facing the same issue, I did find a solution for my specific need using this plugin:
 

If the member cannot edit the value, it would not show on the front-end, only in the ACP, I'm afraid.

Thank you! This was indeed my issue.
To clarify for anyone else reading this I had added new fields (such as URL, Phone Number, etc.) that were not showing up when users on the front end would go to create a new record to contribute.
My issue was indeed permissions on the new fields were not granted (not even to myself as admin).
Thanks again!

If its just an on/off, of course you would use the same as mentioned by opentype above. You just switch permissions for everyone to be off. Although what the purpose of the field would then be, Im not sure, as nobody can see it.