The activity log is web-based, and there is no direct link to it, so you'd have to either bookmark it or navigate to it each time. But I suspect my moderators approve via e-mail, mostly. I currently

This is how it is where I work, in the virtual world of Second Life. People can be free members or they can be Premium at various levels. One level of Premium allows entry into areas that are

The reason for moderation is stated in the activity log. There may be a case for putting the reason in the email sent to Mod also but the detail is recorded if yo look for it. Regards Andy

or her! Andy

Mark, I think this is all too complicated and would create more work for you and the group owners. I would look to simplify your pricing structure. Basic groups pay $1/week, $52 annually Premium

Hello I've noticed that there is no way to see whether a message is held for moderation due to it being from a new member or due to it being from a member who is currently moderated. For messages

Allow me to clarify my original suggestion: There would be two payment routes: 1. Group owners can pay money to increase the number of "free members" that their group can have. 2. Users (i.e. people

I am in support of the proposal of GIO offering the option of a paid level of service to GIO account holders. GIO account holders who want to pay GIO a nominal sum should have a mechanism to do so.

I may be going off on a tangent, but thought I should toss this in. How about offering an annual membership to anyone that wants it, regardless of which groups they may be in or join. Even different

And by the way, if implemented, Samuel’s proposal (and in fact, any proposal in which members, rather than group owners, have to pay) woukd affect the entire system, not just groups created after

I have to agree with Dave. Way too complicated. I recommended groups.io to someone a few days ago. I unfortunately and reluctantly have to say that with things getting so complicated, I will have to

I have not read Marks' proposal in detail but from what I have it seems incredibly complicated. Although existing groups are grandfathered I can well imagine the case where an owner starts a new

(I assume they also pertain to when a premium group reaches its free-member cap.) I think the waiting list should simply be a useful way for the group owner to see and keep track who had tried to join

It is unclear from Mark's original announcement (which I will call the "status quo") whether premium groups can set a cap on memberships (so as to prevent moderators from adding 500 new members even

My immediately idea for a solution was: an e.g. 30-day (or 90-day) risk-free no-questions cancellation period. However, then I remembered that with Groups.io, new member applications are silently

Hi Mark, Truth be told, I'm not a fan of that Jan-2021 group membership cap plan, that's why I didn't participate in that topic then, I'm more in the additional pricing tiers vs

An inflexible idea is about as sellable as an inflexible proposal. Much of the structure of a house or other building is flexible and relatively weak until complete. That weakness is accepted

In programming, flexibility is the sibling of complexity, opposed to practicality (of implementation). Best, Glenn -- PG&E Delenda Est

Oh, one more thing: What happens if someone pays expecting to get into a particular group, then can't get in for whatever reason (not approved), and gets mad? JohnF

I like the concept of paid users conserving the number of free (or group-paid) slots for other users who can afford it. However, here are some other things that need to be thought about: Easy: Any