Thank you Andy for your message. However, as our database(s) do not contain non-members (in fact only confirmed members can post to the Group or access any of the extant facilities), I don't see this

As far as I can see, the Actions buttons on other screens (such as the one on RSVP events when viewing the responders) have one thing in common and that is that they operate against group members.

Hello Mark, Is it possible to add an 'Actions' box for Owners and Moderators to the bottom (or top!) of a Database, similar to that in the Members List. But to only have one action? In our Group,

Mark, I just posted about this but you can just delete my message. One of my group members seems to have run headlong into the bug before you took the system down for maintenance to fix it (he got

Hi All, The site was down for the past hour or so. The main database process froze up, which has never happened before. To complicate things, I am away without my computer. The site is back up and I

I run a group with ~1,000 members. Occasionally somebody starts to make a pest of himself by posting the same or similar messages again and again. I put such people in moderation. I explain to them

Changes to the site this week: January 14, 2022: APP BUGFIX: External links, like in databases and the Files section work again. This is currently in testing, and has not yet been generally released.

In that case, you wouldn't be able to turn the feature on even if it was added. Once the members found out that it wasn't a mandatory setting for the site, they'd come back on you for imposing the

Chris- I don't want to prolong this, but I should note that, as in Barbel's case, we have a contingent (not just the two offenders) who oppose any limits on anyone. And as I've indicated, I just

Sadly that may well be true. Jim F: in a post earlier today you wrote It seems harsher on the posters, who would not even know that their posts aren't getting through. Why do you seem to consider

Barbel- Thanks. Yes, that is what I think is happening. But while I would be willing to upset those two members (and have), I'm not the 'owner' (in a broad sense) of the group (which existed long

IMHO, this has nothing to do with "hard questions." It's about having guidelines, deciding to enforce them, and sticking to it to change behavior. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, then your

Jim, It is a very difficult situation you find yourself in. From experience I can tell you that you might just have to risk upsetting those 2 members or risk losing the group. Thinking of many years

Andy- << I come back to my original thought that you have plenty of existing tools to control the situation but you are choosing not to use them. >> Muting topics wouldn't help both because people DO

Even if muting could be reasonably accomplished (and I have my doubts), that would put the burden of the few (the bad actors) on the many (their recipients). Why not set the bad actors to "can't

Tommy- Exactly. Best regards. -Jim

Bruce- Individual muting would work. It seems harsher on the posters, who would not even know that their posts aren't getting through. And you would need an easy way to unmute them (an 'unmute all'

I agree, seventy plus messages from two members is too much. Right now, the only way to mute them that I know of would be to moderate them and choose 'not allowed to post.' The only other solution

And then could elect to 'unfollow' when it gets to be a problem for them. Duane

If too many messages from one or two people is driving other subscribers away, delaying their posts and delivering them in a bolus doesn't seem like a solution. The annoying people are still posting