I see what you're saying, but I think it's safer to have them unchecked. It used to be otherwise (they were all checked and had to be explicitly unchecked). -- J Messages are the sole opinion of

I meant to add, "As what happens now" to my post but assumed everyone was aware that currently, no permissions are assigned by default. Only notifications are automatically checked. Each permission

I don't think that is true; at the instant you promote "Subsciber X" to the status of Moderator the drop down box with the picklist appears, so in one way it makes no difference if the owner has to

Serious question: Is that even what happens now? My perception, based on this topic and other related ones, is that the group owner creates/selects "the default slate of Moderator permissions" that

I'm fine with them seeing which permissions they have and don't have, but I do NOT want all permissions assigned as the default. That would force me, or a co-owner, to immediately go in and take away

Hello, From my perspective as a group owner, I don't see the issue with moderators being able to see which permissions they have and don't have, and I don't have an issue with having to restrict

This is the crux of the discussion, and I see nothing in Bruce's former suggestion that conflicts with mine. By default, unless a group owner chooses to mask, moderators should know what they can and

I agree with you, but can we not as mods see all check boxes but have them grayed out instead? This to me would I think be easier than having a limited number of permissions and wonder why we don't

I think Bruce has got these right: I do not agree with Brian's proposal: | I stand by my original assertion that all moderator powers, granted or not, should be visible to an individual moderator by

If it takes long enough, we might also have to start worrying about Article 11 and Article 13. And an even newer wonderful idea has just come up as well. "Likes" may need to be handled based on user

Hi Mark, This situation is still weird. I originally posted here that the "date joined" in the banned list erroneously showed the date the member was banned. Somehow that got interpreted as a

I always envision "control words" as being stripped out. What appears in public is only the remainder of the original message body. -- Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763

I like the idea of the "lock" word being in the body of the message, makes things much easier However would the public see the word "lock: or would that be stripped but the message be left in. This

And, a big +1 to that. Not that it will surprise anyone that's been around here for a while, least of all you, but my finally "getting" that latter case internalized took a while. There are requests

Can I ask you to remember that next time you think of asking for some capability that does not currently exist? Chris

Hello All, I was shocked to find that the membership can "like by e-mail" via replying with either "+1" or "like" and equally shocked to learn that there is no way to lock a topic via

I love the meta here, as a comment on my "feature suggestion" for a group guideline. :) Seriously, though, of course there is difficulty in formulating such a guideline because of the fine lines. I

I understand and support that guideline, and try to follow it. That being said, there is a fine line between "debating usefulness" and discussing just what features in a proposed feature suggestion

I generally support the proposal, but would like to share three thoughts on the matter. 1) It seems appropriate that a Moderator should be able to open his own user record and see his own Moderator

Yes! Maybe there should be a Group Guidelines page in beta, with that in it. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we