When I wrote the owner, I referred to the owner in question. It makes sense that a moderator can't remove the last owner if as a rule there must always be at least one owner. Q: If a moderator has

I think that's a whole different situation since a mod can't remove the last owner. BTW, I notice that you and some others refer to the owner when it's possible to have more than one. If there's

In some cases, it might be desired. If the owner's account has become compromised, or if the owner's intentions became devious, it might be better for moderators to step in and remove the owner. If

I created a test group this morning specifically to check into this. A mod with all permissions CAN NOT remove the LAST owner. This would allow the remaining owner to take care of the problem -

Changes to the site this week: November 4, 2021: CHANGE: When going to a chat, we no longer scroll to the latest message. We return you to the last message you read, and pop up an unread

I’ve already suggested that as a mod permission. -- 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.

Ah... interesting. In your case the solution might be an additional per moderator permission: Allow to post to Locked Topic. Wouldn't help Bruce though. Chris

True but Bruce said they’re just unaware, not malicious. (One of the mods in MY block group, OTOH, is actually malicious…but I’m stuck with her and can just use Moderated, and she’s not a

Would that not mean that they could disable the disable function as and when the mood suited them? Once that they had found it, that is... The additional function would seem to be immediately

Agreed. A disable option works for your case. For my case, I can stick with setting the topic to moderated. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity

Well, I feel obligated to violate my own rule not to post to this thread again. The proposal above doesn't really solve my problem. Two of the worst offenders are co-Owners, not Moderators. One of

Since this just came up in docs, I want to add here a point I made there but did not sufficiently emphasize here: If a hashtag marked "Locked" is applied to a topic on topic creation, only the replies

Thanks for finding and reporting this, Duane! I concur with your concerns and believe this is a serious issue. I trust that Mark will look at it soon and apply his wisdom. Dano ___________________

While doing some testing for a topic on GMF, I came across a glitch that seems to be very important. A moderator can't demote an owner, nor promote someone to owner. However, in this test case, a

As I mentioned, this was heavily debated and fought fir years ago, and Mark decided to allow it, I still think that was the right decision, and even Mark takes advantage of the increased convenience.

My own conclusion is that allowing mods to post to locked topics has now created the need or desire for further changes to work around the issues created by the original change. If a locked topic was

My conclusion from this experience is that my preference would be to make "Post to locked topics" a mod permission. It solves Bruce's problem without the need for (1) a fix to the

I'm sure that an acknowledgment/receipt to the member for sponsorship or a donation would be appreciated. In the meantime, any member, once signed in to the site, can go to

No. I didn't misunderstand your intent. I received a message after I made a sponsorship. What I didn't pick up on initially was that the message was sent to me as an Owner/Mod of my group not as the

Ironically, I had to deal with a situation somewhat skin to Bruce's in one of my groups tonight. This particular group has four mods (including me, the owner) and a couple of them are difficult egos.