(Taken from the thread about display names in banning/removing, now that I would classify it as a bug:) It seems intuitive that removing and then banning a member should have the same results as just

I think that a moderator “with privileges” should be able to promote ( or perhaps also demote) other members and mods. Just not be able to demote an owner and probably not be able to make

I support Bruce's overall suggestion, but I would use Duane's refined wording from GMF #29234 : "I think either the original owner should be shown (preferred) or it should say unassigned." That

I have the exact same issue. -- 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

Only a fairly minor one; AIUI the main problem is that moderators with set moderator permissions can promote themselves to owners and demote the real owners. That is clearly wrong. At the same time I

I have a moderator with all privileges. I don't want to make her an owner. But if I'm hit with a bus, I want her to be able to make new moderators with all privileges, and so on.

The bottom line seems to be that if you are going to ban a member, you better know it at the time you remove them. That's because if you remove first and later ban, you get the display name mismatch

Would it be possible to have a separate Moderator permission for “Set Role (including the ability to promote a moderator to owner)”? This way the ability would be retained, but be more

Caught another one: when you try to direct add a banned member, the error message says "banned subscriber" -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is

It also would not help the weirdness of the log entries ("removed X," and later "banned Y") where X and Y are the same person. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the

Good idea and that would be an improvement for this particular situation, but I think the display order now, where the display name is first, is better for most other situations. I think the solution

I would prefer that when someone leaves the Group that the PHOTOS section, and FILES, and posts etc., not be disturbed. The original author should be maintained. Someone might leave the group

Amending this: either that, or, more likely, the display name changes back to their overall/account/default display name *in the group's member record*. That also seems wrong. -- J Messages are

There is an option for this already, but there is no email command to set your subscription to, first message only. People would have to sign into the website, go to your groups page, go to

Yes we found this solution after I posted this request. I couldn't delete my request because it was in moderation. Sorry for the noise.

Would it be easy enough to prioritize the email address so that there's a relationship on all lists? Basically swap the way it's now displayed so address is first. Or would that be even more

Mark, Another thing I'm noticing: when I go into the member's history (the link above) and from there into her member page, the Display Name is showing up again as her user name (i.e., to what it was

Mark, That's what I suspected, as I wrote here: "Possibly, once a member is removed, the Display Name is no longer accessible? That somehow doesn't seem right. It seems like it should be available in

J, All log lines are using the display name. Here's what happened in your case: When that person subscribed to your group, either you or they changed the Display Name associated with them for your

This makes sense. Any objections? Thanks, Mark