Sounds 100% good to me. -- 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

Here's my suggestion. If a moderator is actively unlocking a topic that follows the auto-lock rules (via the web), pop up a message indicating that the topic was locked per the rules, and does the

Another problem is that there appears to be no activity-log entry for a topic that becomes locked or moderated automatically due to group time-out. The log shows "xyx unlocked topic," and then the

I somehow missed this in the thread. It's inconvenient/unworkable (I'll avoid the loaded term "bug") if you want to be able to manually unlock a topic and have it stay unlocked. In other words,

Typo - “ cannot be unlocked” -- 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

No, I think it can legitimately be called an unlocking bug. De minimus, the system should either forbid the attempted unlocking (“this topic has timed out and cannot needs unlocked”) or provide a

I wouldn't call it a bug there either. You know as well as I do that if there were no way to unlock a topic, someone would ask for it because they'd accidentally locked the wrong topic. Or needed to

If you want to mince words and say it’s not a bug in the feature because the feature works as described (of course it does), then blame the other side. Call it a bug with being able to manually

Right. The alternative, whatever you want to call it ( “never lock topic” is not bad but I’m not crazy about it - maybe “exclude from locking time-out”) could be on the More menu. I don’t

It sounds like what you want is another option - Never Lock Topic - on the More menu. Maybe use the lock-open icon to differentiate from the Unlock Topic option that uses the unlock icon. I believe

Correction - an auto-locked topic stays locked forever. -- 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

Exactly. Turning off the setting is currently the *only* way to selectively unlock timed-out topics, even just one of them, that you want to reopen later, sometimes even much later. For me, this makes

J -- Go back into settings, turn it back off, and your unlocked topics will remain unlocked. I believe this behavior is preferable to having multiple topics mysteriously fail to lock when you change

I use this feature to lock topics and it does indeed work, and works again if you unlock a topic as J says. I'm not sure I would call re-locking a topic a bug though. Andy

Haha they will be locked overnight, alright. And if you decide, "oops you didn't want one or two of them locked," good luck unlocking them! They will be locked again the following night. And the

Unfortunately, as I've mentioned at least once in the past, the auto-lock feature is problematic. It should be *less*, not more "retroactive." It does not allow a moderator to manually unlock any

Bob -- Are you talking about the setting "Automatically Lock Topics Older Than XXX Days?" If so, that setting is not applied in real time. Affected topics will be locked later, when the corresponding

Right, but what "option"? The request is that Messages view be subject to sticky order, period. For my group and some others, that would ruin Messages view and render it practically useless (or render

== == Such a problem as you suggest just above, Catlady, would not be the case were the the 'sticky' option in Message view only be permitted for use by the moderators and owner(s) of a group. And

In the Members page search box, [ Smith OR Jones ] will find all the Smith or Jones members. But in the Direct Add page search box for a subgroup , when both Smith and Jones are not in the subgroup,