Date   

moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

 

Glenn,

1. ... if a message is from member in group, send back new email with
nice message, else drop on the floor.
If the message is from a non-subscriber it should be given an error at connection time (not accepted then dropped) using the existing error code/text for non-subscriber messages -- unless the group is set to allow non-subscriber posts.

If the group is set to allow them, then a message to a locked topic from a non-subscriber should be handled the same as one from a member.

I realize that 1. risks backscatter, but until there is evidence of
such, there is no way to evaluate that risk and it just may be a case
of being too timorous.
This belongs in a different topic, but I've come to believe that Groups.io ought to be doing DMARC-like authentication on inbound group postings and email commands before accepting them. That would (I think) eliminate the risk of backscatter were Groups.io to accept the message and separately send back a "nice" error message.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/24836368#18077

2. Have an option that messages that go to locked threads go to a
moderation queue and the humans can determine what is backscatter
and what gets a nice message.
This seems to me to be the same as moderating the topic, rather than locking it.

Shal


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

Sarah k Alawami
 

I'm in favor of option 2 personally. I'd rather hold the messages then either reject them all, or maybe let one or 2 through, or not depending on the case.

Sarah Alawami, owner of TFFP. . For more info go to our website.
For stuff we sell, mac training materials and  tutorials go here.
and for hosting options go here
to subscribe to the feed click here

The listen page is found here

Our telegram channel is also a good place for an announce only in regard to podcasts, contests, etc.

Finally, to become a patron and help support the podcast go here

On 22 Apr 2019, at 16:09, Glenn Glazer wrote:

So, I am also in the camp of making the message more human friendly. I understand HTTP status codes and so on, but only a tiny fraction of my group members do and they find the bounce message frightening, as Mark noted. 

I have two alternatives to suggest:

  1. As a slight modification to the alternative Mark describes, if a message is from member in group, send back new email with nice message, else drop on the floor. 
  2. Have an option that messages that go to locked threads go to a moderation queue and the humans can determine what is backscatter and what gets a nice message.

I realize that 1. risks backscatter, but until there is evidence of such, there is no way to evaluate that risk and it just may be a case of being too timorous.

A bonus to 2. is that each group could design its own lock message as a preference.

Best,

Glenn


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

So, I am also in the camp of making the message more human friendly. I understand HTTP status codes and so on, but only a tiny fraction of my group members do and they find the bounce message frightening, as Mark noted. 

I have two alternatives to suggest:

  1. As a slight modification to the alternative Mark describes, if a message is from member in group, send back new email with nice message, else drop on the floor. 
  2. Have an option that messages that go to locked threads go to a moderation queue and the humans can determine what is backscatter and what gets a nice message.

I realize that 1. risks backscatter, but until there is evidence of such, there is no way to evaluate that risk and it just may be a case of being too timorous.

A bonus to 2. is that each group could design its own lock message as a preference.

Best,

Glenn


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Jeremy H
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 04:57 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 04:34 PM, Jeremy H wrote:
A further point to mention - as it is relevant, and needs to be catered for - is that it possible (and reasonable) for a moderator to have no specific privileges (but just be a moderator), which gives them access to various features, which can be set to '(all) moderators only'.
I think you would need to clarify exactly what you mean by a moderator to have no specific privileges. Now it would be possible (I suppose) to appoint a subscriber as a moderator but not give them any of the permissions in the picklist, unless of course the system spots that and stops you doing it! As it happens anyone thus appointed would still have permissions to upload / edit material to the Files & Photos sections (etc) if those sections were set to Owners & Moderators only.
Yes, that is what I mean - a moderator with none of the picklist permissions granted - the system permits this - who hence have the ability to do those things restricted to  'Owners and Moderators' only, in Group settings. And because of what those things mainly are (Uploading/Editing Files/Folders, etc.) that role might be better described as 'Trusted User', rather than 'Owner's Assistant', which is what I would expect the term Moderator to mean, and which requires those privileges granted by the picklist options. But - for reasons lost in the mists of time - both roles are combined as 'moderator' - I suspect it was a quick and dirty solution to a requirement, that in a sense, has now come back to bite us - but changing it is a different issue.

While I would expect the number of Owner's Assistants for any group to be small, I can foresee groups that - because of the sort of group they are - will want a substantial number (dozens?) of 'Trusted Members' (or 'responsible officers') able to do things that ordinary members cannot.

FWIW I simply cannot see what your suggestion would achieve. The objective of my suggestion detailed in the initial post on this topic is for moderators to know exactly what permissions they do and do not have; as Catlady clearly stated in her post Without that, it's a guessing game. If a puzzled moderator comes to the GMF (or here, for that matter) for guidance about some difficulty it becomes impossible to give any sort of meaningful answer if the person concerned has no clear view of the permissions they have and no straightforward means of finding out either.
I agree - and was not suggesting anything other than a means of how moderators could see what privileges they have, taken account of concerns raised by others. Not having any specific privileges is a current possibility... 

Something that has occurred to me more recently is that there a two extra privileges that might usefully be established: 'Show moderator privileges' (which would let them see their and, if they have access to the member list, others' privileges) and 'Show group settings' - which together may let them see why things do or do not happen.

Jeremy


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 03:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think it's safer to have them unchecked.
About which, for the record, we're in absolute agreement (or very near, there might be a couple of the "innocuous" ones I might pre-check - and I'd make that an owner setup function for the group).

It is far better, when there is any question about the desirability of granting something, to create a situation where the individual doing the granting has to read and consider before each click of the checkbox.   Not that all will necessarily either read or consider, but you create a situation that forces that as much as one possibly can.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 12:35 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
at the instant you promote "Subsciber X" to the status of Moderator the drop down box with the picklist appears, so in one way it makes no difference if  the owner has to either assign or remove permissions.
I see what you're saying, but I think it's safer to have them unchecked. It used to be otherwise (they were all checked and had to be explicitly unchecked).
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 12:34 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
I do NOT want all permissions assigned as the default. That would force me, or a co-owner, to immediately go in and take away the ones I don't want a particular mod to have.
Serious question:   Is that even what happens now?
I meant to add, "As what happens now" to my post but assumed everyone was aware that currently, no permissions are assigned by default. Only notifications are automatically checked. Each permission must be explicitly granted after someone is made a mod. (It used to be otherwise in the past. I'm not sure when this changed but it was a good change IMO.)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 06:52 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I'm fine with them seeing which permissions they have and don't have, but I do NOT want all permissions assigned as the default. That would force me, or a co-owner, to immediately go in and take away the ones I don't want a particular mod to have.
I don't think that is true; at the instant you promote "Subsciber X" to the status of Moderator the drop down box with the picklist appears, so in one way it makes no difference if  the owner has to either assign or remove permissions. Furthermore the status of moderator does not become active until the Save tab is clicked, so the concept of being "forced" to do anything in any sort of rush doesn't arise.

Having said that I would agree that assigning permissions is preferable to removing them; the default should be "none" not "all".

Chris


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 01:52 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
but I do NOT want all permissions assigned as the default. That would force me, or a co-owner, to immediately go in and take away the ones I don't want a particular mod to have.
Serious question:   Is that even what happens now?

My perception, based on this topic and other related ones, is that the group owner creates/selects "the default slate of Moderator permissions" that are what get assigned to any Moderator upon their elevation to that role.  Is this or is this not the case?   I would hope it is, so that any group owner assigns, affirmatively, what they consider to be their "baseline cluster of permissions" and then anything that would be added would also need to be done intentionally, immediately after the elevation to Moderator (or as part and parcel of the process, but I think of it as "check those checkboxes right after the role is assigned").

If my presumption is correct, then there is no conflict between what Nimer is saying and what you want, J, as I'd interpret "all permissions" as "all permissions I've set up to be granted by default," which in all probability is not ALL permissions for most owners (but it may be for some).
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:46 AM, Nimer Jaber wrote:
I don't see the issue with moderators being able to see which permissions they have and don't have, and I don't have an issue with having to restrict permissions rather than assign them.
I'm fine with them seeing which permissions they have and don't have, but I do NOT want all permissions assigned as the default. That would force me, or a co-owner, to immediately go in and take away the ones I don't want a particular mod to have.

IMO there should not be any time interval, no matter how short, during which new (or any) mods have permissions they are not supposed to have. All permissions should all be affirmatively assigned
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Nimer Jaber
 

Hello,

From my perspective as a group owner, I don't see the issue with moderators being able to see which permissions they have and don't have, and I don't have an issue with having to restrict permissions rather than assign them. I have had a number of instances where I have had a change of moderator on my list, and at times it gets rather confusing because I have to dig in settings to find that a moderator doesn't have the ability to change something they believe they should have, but they don't even know whether the setting exists. It is better that they see all settings, even ones that haven't been delegated to them. This way, they can let the owner of the list know that there is a permission they need, this is what it is and where it is, and the owner can choose whether or not to delegate that. Also, if I invite someone to be a moderator on the list, I am demonstrating a level of trust in them. They ought to be able to have permissions to do as they wish in terms of day-to-day running of the list, and if I don't trust them with that, and I feel the need to severely restrict their permissions, then maybe I should consider whether they ought to be a moderator on my group.

Thanks.

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:33 AM Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:53 AM, Sarah k Alawami wrote:
but can we not as mods see all check boxes but have them grayed out instead?
This is the crux of the discussion, and I see nothing in Bruce's former suggestion that conflicts with mine.

By default, unless a group owner chooses to mask, moderators should know what they can and cannot do, period.  If a group owner wants to hide ungranted privileges, they should have the option to do so, and have to make a conscious choice to exercise that option.

To me, even that option would have to be at the Moderator profile level, if one wanted to have certain moderators see only the permissions they've been granted versus others who might see both granted and ungranted privileges.   One could argue that it be set at the group level, but if that's the case then customizing on an individual basis for those who you want to be able to see more than whatever the defaults granted are becomes more difficult.

I am discussing what any given moderator can see about the permissions they have.   We already have a permission, mentioned by Bruce, that does control whether they can see what other Moderators have:  Set Moderator Privileges.   If that's off, you can't see what others have got, if it's on, you have, essentially, owner level access.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel



--
Best,

Nimer Jaber

The message above is intended for the recipient to whom it was
addressed. If you believe that you are not the intended recipient,
please notify me via reply email and destroy all copies of this
correspondence. Action taken as a result of this email or its contents
by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) may result in civil or
criminal charges. I have checked this email and all corresponding
attachments for security threats. However, security of your machine is
up to you. Thanks.

Registered Linux User 529141.
http://counter.li.org/

To find out about a free and versatile screen reader for windows XP
and above, please click here:
http://www.nvda-project.org

You can follow @nimerjaber on Twitter for the latest technology news.

To contact me, you can reply to this email or you may call me at (970) (393-4481) and I will do my best to respond to you promptly. Thank
you, and have a great day!


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:53 AM, Sarah k Alawami wrote:
but can we not as mods see all check boxes but have them grayed out instead?
This is the crux of the discussion, and I see nothing in Bruce's former suggestion that conflicts with mine.

By default, unless a group owner chooses to mask, moderators should know what they can and cannot do, period.  If a group owner wants to hide ungranted privileges, they should have the option to do so, and have to make a conscious choice to exercise that option.

To me, even that option would have to be at the Moderator profile level, if one wanted to have certain moderators see only the permissions they've been granted versus others who might see both granted and ungranted privileges.   One could argue that it be set at the group level, but if that's the case then customizing on an individual basis for those who you want to be able to see more than whatever the defaults granted are becomes more difficult.

I am discussing what any given moderator can see about the permissions they have.   We already have a permission, mentioned by Bruce, that does control whether they can see what other Moderators have:  Set Moderator Privileges.   If that's off, you can't see what others have got, if it's on, you have, essentially, owner level access.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Sarah k Alawami
 

I agree with you, but can we not as mods see all check boxes but have them grayed out instead? This to me would I think be easier than having a limited number of permissions and wonder why we don't have x y or z.

Sarah Alawami, owner of TFFP. . For more info go to our website.
For stuff we sell, mac training materials and  tutorials go here.
and for hosting options go here
to subscribe to the feed click here

The listen page is found here

Our telegram channel is also a good place for an announce only in regard to podcasts, contests, etc.

Finally, to become a patron and help support the podcast go here

On 21 Apr 2019, at 7:19, Michael Pavan wrote:

I think Bruce has got these right:

1) It seems appropriate that a Moderator should be able to open his own user record and see his own Moderator Privileges. This seems to be the proposal on the table.

2) It also seems appropriate that a Moderator should be UNable to open another Moderator's user record and see that person's privileges, without himself having been given that privilege (through the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" privilege). [I hope that made sense, despite the seeming redundancy.]

3) As implied by Jeremy, there are several Moderator privileges that are established via group settings (i.e.: by simply being a Moderator), not settings in the member record.

I do not agree with Brian's proposal:
| I stand by my original assertion that all moderator powers, granted or not, should be visible to an individual moderator by default. If the group owner wants "non-granted" powers to be invisible, that could easily be made an option, and an option that should be OFF unless they choose to turn it ON when creating a moderator.

I believe to be consistent with the same rational that other than privileges which by default come with being a Moderator, that additional privileges must be added (rather than removed).
An additional privilege would be "Show un-granted privileges too"

Elsewhere, probably Wiki and/or the upcoming Groups.io manual, there will be a complete list (and explanations) of all possible privileges.

Michael


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Michael Pavan
 

I think Bruce has got these right:

1) It seems appropriate that a Moderator should be able to open his own user record and see his own Moderator Privileges. This seems to be the proposal on the table.

2) It also seems appropriate that a Moderator should be UNable to open another Moderator's user record and see that person's privileges, without himself having been given that privilege (through the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" privilege). [I hope that made sense, despite the seeming redundancy.]

3) As implied by Jeremy, there are several Moderator privileges that are established via group settings (i.e.: by simply being a Moderator), not settings in the member record.


I do not agree with Brian's proposal:
| I stand by my original assertion that all moderator powers, granted or not, should be visible to an individual moderator by default. If the group owner wants "non-granted" powers to be invisible, that could easily be made an option, and an option that should be OFF unless they choose to turn it ON when creating a moderator.


I believe to be consistent with the same rational that other than privileges which by default come with being a Moderator, that additional privileges must be added (rather than removed).
An additional privilege would be "Show un-granted privileges too"

Elsewhere, probably Wiki and/or the upcoming Groups.io manual, there will be a complete list (and explanations) of all possible privileges.

Michael


moderated Re: "Likes" revisited

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 02:56 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

I perpetually hold out the hope that the long awaited notification
overhaul will mitigate that problem.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/2708

Shal
If it takes long enough, we might also have to start worrying about Article 11 and Article 13. And an even newer wonderful idea has just come up as well. "Likes" may need to be handled based on user age and country.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47933521
 
--
Gerald


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 08:27 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
CHANGE: When banning someone, we record the moment the person is banned. Previously, if the person was a member, we kept the date the person applied/joined and used that.
Hi Mark,

This situation is still weird. I originally posted here that the "date joined" in the banned list erroneously showed the date the member was banned. Somehow that got interpreted as a *request* for it to show the date the member was banned (which, from what I'd seen previously, it had already done) and is listed in the change log here. However,  whatever the case before the change, the member's "joined date" in their Membership page as accessed from the banned list now actually shows the banned date. For example, I have a member who joined 3/8/17, was banned this morning, and whose "joined" field in their member page, as accessed from the banned list, shows as 11:07 this morning. (The date in her "past member" activity log still correctly shows 3/8/17.)

Also, the member's history, notes, etc. in their record in the banned list is currently wiped out. To see the member's history, you must also "remove" them and find them in the "past members" list.

So this situation continues to be weird and somewhat beyond me. If you want, I can send you links to the member in the banned list vs. the past members list.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Lock/Unlock by e-mail #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I always envision "control words" as being stripped out.  What appears in public is only the remainder of the original message body.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Lock/Unlock by e-mail #suggestion

Sarah k Alawami
 

I like the idea of the "lock" word being in the body of the message, makes things much easier However would the public see the word "lock: or would that be stripped but the message be left in. This would be easier for me as I also manage via the email and almost never by the web except to lock topicswhich I've only had to do maybe thrice?

Take care

Sarah Alawami, owner of TFFP. . For more info go to our website.
For stuff we sell, mac training materials and  tutorials go here.
and for hosting options go here
to subscribe to the feed click here

The listen page is found here

Our telegram channel is also a good place for an announce only in regard to podcasts, contests, etc.

Finally, to become a patron and help support the podcast go here

On 19 Apr 2019, at 11:10, Brian Vogel wrote:

Hello All,

           I was shocked to find that the membership can "like by e-mail" via replying with either "+1" or "like" and equally shocked to learn that there is no way to lock a topic via e-mail.

           I am going to preface this with my reasoning for the request.  Those who know me here know that most of the groups in which I participate on Groups.io have as their focus blind and low-vision related technology.   I am the "odd man out" in all of those groups in that I am fully sighted as well as interacting with Groups.io almost exclusively via the web interface.   Virtually all of the other members in those groups, including many owners and moderators, use the e-mail interface almost exclusively.

           Those of us who have experience trying to access either the web interface or the mobile interface via a screen reader is not exactly straightforward.  There are accessibility issues with both.

            Even if the above were not the case, those of us who've had to deal with "immense and sudden conflagrations," to impose a cooling off period (or just terminate the topic) know that speed is often very much of the essence.

            I would like the ability to lock or unlock a topic via reply by e-mail.  This privilege would, of course, only be applicable to someone with the powers to do so by other mechanisms.

            I would, ideally, like dual functionality, where a lock message to the group can also be included.  I envision this as the first line of the reply, being "Lock" (case mixture not mattering) and nothing else, including no preceding spaces.  Just the word, "Lock."

            If a message to the membership is also desired as part of the lock, that would be included starting on the line immediately following, and could be of indefinite length.  This would be added as the last message to the topic before it being locked.

Of course, if one can lock by e-mail, one should be able to unlock by e-mail when circumstances dictate, and this would be done the same way, but with "unlock" being the first line of the reply, with an optional message coming after if the owner/moderator wishes to have one.

For those who interact with their groups primarily or exclusively by e-mail, having this option would make quick locking and unlocking of topics a much easier process than it is right now.  I do not see any probability at all of an owner or moderator posting a message with either "lock" or "unlock" as a standalone word on the first line by accident were such a mechanism to be put in place and, were they to do so, whatever was done can be undone just as easily.  There is no risk of a regular member locking a topic since, even if they were to send such a message, they do not have that privilege.

--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 01:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Seriously, though, of course there is difficulty in formulating such a guideline because of the fine lines. I think one such line is whether or not a proposed feature would affect everyone or whether, OTOH, it would be an optional feature or setting that users would not even necessarily have to see. In the latter case, debate should be limited (or precluded entirely). Etc. 
And, a big +1 to that.   Not that it will surprise anyone that's been around here for a while, least of all you, but my finally "getting" that latter case internalized took a while.

There are requests for features that have zero impact on those who do not use them, and those really shouldn't be up for debate by the beta membership.  Mark can choose to implement 'em or not.

If there could be "collateral damage" it's entirely appropriate to bring those concerns up in a civil manner.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Moderator Permissions

Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 05:40 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
There are a lot of more pressing issues that can only be solved at the system level by Mark or anyone who might work with him.
Can I ask you to remember that next time you think of asking for some capability that does not currently exist?

Chris

10121 - 10140 of 30980