Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Energizer last won the day on April 19 2009

Energizer had the most liked content!

About Energizer

Recent Profile Visitors

29,213 profile views

Energizer's Achievements

  1. I do not think anyone takes the trouble to find out. Example many illegal sites on the Internet lives since many for years. If IPS give not the license data by request for the lawyer out there, then they have no problem, that your identity is known. you have today a problem, when you hosting a Community. ever-changing laws and they are responsible for compliance. If they make a mistake, then they can cost a lot of money. Lawyers are waiting of your mistakes. You must decide for themselves whether they want to live under these conditions a community. You can delete community, they can join the EU nonsense or they can hosting safe and have peace. You have to choose. Another way I do not see. I love having a community, but I would therefore not financial Problem, or have one foot in prison are standing, because I made a mistake with the EU-Nonsense or because lawyers want to earn money with such nonsense. I can understand not everyone is in my opinion and can understand my poor English. ;)
  2. Hello, I miss the display of total friends: apparently it was removed from ipb 3.1 to 3.2 I wish this function returns....please.
  3. I do not think customers have said they removed online / offline status. It's for me a step back and I like ipb because of the functions and not because they have copied the look of facebook, or because they remove features. I no longer have to use many reasons IPB! I wish that existing features are retained and developed further, but do not remove easily. This development is not in order, and leads to many annoyance of my customers and my members, not only with me.
  4. I agree with this! I do not understand why good features must be removed. I am also disappointed and angry about this. It is a step backwards. IPB 3.2 is good, but these things disappoint me! Let them but old functions as they are, what's the problem? :no:
  5. Hello Sunlite...

  6. One should not exaggerate the support. I needed in 7 years one technical support. Much can be done yourself, you have to support not exploit to the utmost. They enjoy the lifetime license, but not overdo it with the support. Do they appreciate it, but do not overdo it, i think thats not OK, even if IPS this promise fulfilled.
  7. What is the next Version? 3.2 or 4.0? i am not sure. I wish me a Permission Mask for Profile and Profile Fields and a really fully translatable ACP
  8. I have noticed that certain areas of the ACP are not fully translatable are. With the published by IPB 3, I expected that ACP is fully translatable, which is not so. Certain areas of the ACP can not be translated into another language. IPS has announced full translation with ipb 3. This objective was not implemented. Under Full translation, I understand something else. It is the only thing really disappointed me to IPB 3. I hope for a change in a future release.
  9. I am missing a bypass for Admin Validating for certain User Groups. Example when a member register as normal Member, then can this the admin validating bypass, while a Member from a other member-Group must wait for Validating. The different member groups can the member example choose in the register form.
  10. i am missing a permission mask for different user groups for Profil and profil fields
  11. [quote name='Matt' date='23 April 2010 - 09:23 PM'] We really did feel that it was best to use the new APIs rather than have to invasively update IP.Board whenever the old API was pulled. It also means you can make better use of the new widgets Facebook are developing. They have a good hand and feel when rapid response is required. Quality before speed is right!
  12. Yes, exactly! It is useful, when you have many Status-Updates comments from many different Members. If Members can uncontrolled anytime delete, then will information which together belonging destroyed. Members have then perhaps someday no longer wanted to read or leave comments. That would be a pity.
  13. @Morrigan, sorry for my bad Englisch....I try again: Example: I give you total example 10 Comments of your Status-Updates. Example after 1 or more Days or Weeks, i can anytime my comments delete. That is not good. I want a function, example: Allow Members, their given Status-Updates comments can delete --- Yes/no (No ---> Only Profil-Owner can Status-Updates Comments delete.) Can you understand me, what I mean? Profil-Owner of Status-Updates can anytime delete, but Member, wich has me given comments, only when if Profil-Owner this allows. See example the Profile-comments. Here can you only as Profil-Owner delete. The same i wishes me for the Status-Updates Comments.
  14. What bothers me is that the given status-comments from the members may be deleted at any time of them. Only the Profil-Owner should can delete this comments, just as Profil Comments regulated is. Many Informations going otherwise be lost and Relation Informations will destroyed.
  15. I agree with them, the previous use was a lot better.
  • Create New...