I have to say I'm surprised at the judgmental nature of the responses to J's question. When did we stop trying to help each other and instead became unappointed judges of what people do?? Why is it

Self-explanatory. Currently, "Banned" appears as one of the options in the Members dropdown even if the moderator has no permission to view it. When clicked on, it takes the mod to the Pending list.

Clarifying: that was not addressed to Bruce. It was simply a reference. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can

Yes, Duane, I'd just come to that conclusion. I have access to the members list but can't change member's statuses. However, in those cases it would be preferable to not display the "banned" element

You don't have sufficient privileges then. Works fine for owners and many moderators on free groups. Duane

A side issue and possible bug: another group I'm a moderator in includes "Banned" in the members lists dropdown, but you can't click on it. It seems that the banned members list is not available to

I thought it was obvious from my OP that I do. I have access to the Past Members list. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours,

I'll give you one: the use of name-calling on this group. -- 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

Bruce, please read my original post in this thread. The information that the two lists keep is disparate. Past sometimes fails to show the Notes. The prior criticism seems to rest on (1) using a

J -- Please let me offer a criticism that might be more appropriate. If I understand correctly, you are using the ban function for a purpose that it was not intended for -- followed by wondering why

You and I evidently use groups in different ways. And that is our, and everyone’s, perorative. That was clear when you strongly protested the availability of information on pending members that many

Yes, wrong word. But you are implying that if they don’t respond, I have no right to look into their past history and notes to try to determine why. Doing that is patently not an abuse of the system

I never said you are punishing them, and I've no idea why you've used that word. I am commenting on the fact that you are using a groups.io function for a purpose entirely different to its intended

With your logic, the entire existence and use by moderators of the past members page (available only to premium groups) must qualify as abusive nosying around as well. I’m sorry you feel that way.

Wow. This has nothing to do with punishing them for not responding. In the interest of my group, I simply want to see a record of their interaction, and any notes I or another mod might have made in

I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message, that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in other ways is

I just went in and unbanned 51 members who, as far as I could remember, had done no wrong. But it was hard to remember at this point which ones in the list had been banned for cause rather than banned

I just discovered, through a snafu in another group besides my own where I happen to be a moderator, that when someone has been banned, and they try to log in, they get a "you have been banned"

I wish messages sent to the group without subject lines did get rejected, but they don't. If they contain hashtags, the hashtags are duplicated as a pointless subject line. Drives me mad. Helen

I also prefer the original. Cacky