Topics

moderated Moderator Permissions


Chris Jones
 

Mark; 12 months ago you wrote: I feel like I'm missing some additional permissions (permission to send an email to a member, for example), but dealing with this stuff is a bit of a headache because the permissions system is pretty complicated already.

(My italics)

The current overall arrangement can also cause headaches for moderators with "problems" and by extension anyone trying to help them via GMF.

If an Owner so chooses they can give specific moderators specific permissions, which is (I suppose) fair enough. However, unless one specific permission is granted from the pick list of 14 possibilities then the moderator concerned is unable to see the list of what he or she can and cannot do. The specific permission in question is Set Moderator Privileges; with that checked the person can see the list of what they can and cannot do; if it is not checked then there is no way of accessing the detail of the permissions they do and do not have.

Is there any possibility of your changing the system so that moderators without that permission can see a read only list of their own permissions, with the ability to change it limited to those with that particular permission?

If that were to be done when queries on GMF arise they can be asked to go and check if they do or do not have any given permission, because the answer may well depend on that detail. Without access to their own "list" it finishes up relying on guesswork by others, which is rather satisfactory and can result in a lot of frustrated effort. 

Chris


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

You can bet there will be some group owners who will object to this, and strenuously.   The answer to that would be to make the "display unavailable permissions stippled" option something they can turn on/off, with the default being the display on.

Personally, I believe in transparency and a moderator should be fully aware of the range of permissions and which ones they do and do not have.  If you can't trust your moderators with that information . . .
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


Bob Bellizzi
 

I disagree.  In management, we often have people yearning to get the next level of responsibility who just don't have the level of achievement and span of control to handle it.
By dangling the entire list of Moderator responsibilities in front of some people you could create problems.
Peter's second principle is that people get promoted to their level of incompetency.
I can humbly state I had it happen to me twice before I learned to take a different path forward.


--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:55 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
By dangling the entire list of Moderator responsibilities in front of some people you could create problems.
And if you can't dispatch of "bad fits" just as you hire 'em on, you (the generic you) are not a good manager (owner, in this case).  It's a part of the job.

It is up to managers not to perpetuate the Peter Principle, and the good ones make darned sure that they don't.  But, as I said, there will be those who object, so if the "dangling" of said responsibilities is not desired, then it should be able to be turned off.   Off should not be the default.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
You can bet there will be some group owners who will object to this, and strenuously.
Given that the above may well be true can I suggest / request that further discussion reverts to the GMF topic where it all began? The relevant thread starts here.

Better that than clogging up beta.

Chris


Jeremy H
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:58 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
You can bet there will be some group owners who will object to this, and strenuously.
Given that the above may well be true can I suggest / request that further discussion reverts to the GMF topic where it all began? The relevant thread starts here.

Better that than clogging up beta.

Chris
IMHO, no: the GMF discussion (on how and why) on this particular issue reached a conclusion: that a change is desirable - discussion of that change, to reach a consensus, is a matter for Beta.

Getting back to the requested change, I am in favour: moderators should be able to see whether they have a privilege (or not). I can understand why this may be considered undesirable, and so objected to: there are two possible was of avoiding this - either make it an optional feature,  that can switched on/off as a group setting; or that only those moderator privileges which are set are listed (but not those which aren't) - and I would suggest that the choice between then should be down to ease of implementation as much as anything. 

A further point to mention - as it is relevant, and needs to be catered for - is that it possible (and reasonable) for a moderator to have no specific privileges (but just be a moderator), which gives them access to various features, which can be set to '(all) moderators only'.

Jeremy


 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 08:34 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
moderators should be able to see whether they have a privilege (or not).
This seems obvious to me. Without that, it's a guessing game. An oracle. They have to try it to see if they're allowed to do it, which seems ridiculous.
 
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 04:34 PM, Jeremy H wrote:
A further point to mention - as it is relevant, and needs to be catered for - is that it possible (and reasonable) for a moderator to have no specific privileges (but just be a moderator), which gives them access to various features, which can be set to '(all) moderators only'.
I think you would need to clarify exactly what you mean by a moderator to have no specific privileges. Now it would be possible (I suppose) to appoint a subscriber as a moderator but not give them any of the permissions in the picklist, unless of course the system spots that and stops you doing it! As it happens anyone thus appointed would still have permissions to upload / edit material to the Files & Photos sections (etc) if those sections were set to Owners & Moderators only.

FWIW I simply cannot see what your suggestion would achieve. The objective of my suggestion detailed in the initial post on this topic is for moderators to know exactly what permissions they do and do not have; as Catlady clearly stated in her post Without that, it's a guessing game. If a puzzled moderator comes to the GMF (or here, for that matter) for guidance about some difficulty it becomes impossible to give any sort of meaningful answer if the person concerned has no clear view of the permissions they have and no straightforward means of finding out either.

Chris


Barbara Byers
 

Agreed.

Barb

 


On 2019-04-19 11:36 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 08:34 AM, Jeremy H wrote:

moderators should be able to see whether they have a privilege (or not).
This seems obvious to me. Without that, it's a guessing game. An oracle. They have to try it to see if they're allowed to do it, which seems ridiculous.
 
--
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


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
A further point to mention - as it is relevant, and needs to be catered for - is that it possible (and reasonable) for a moderator to have no specific privileges (but just be a moderator), which gives them access to various features, which can be set to '(all) moderators only'.
My only concern about that is the nightmare it makes for implementation, and given that most groups have very few moderators in sheer number, it is not at all difficult for an owner to select (or deselect) from the default slate they're presented with when naming someone moderator.

I moderate elsewhere, where the moderation team covers the equivalent of about 50-60 groups, and I think we have around 10 people who are moderators.  The moderator role would not, in my experience over the years, ever involve numbers of people at any one time that a group owner or owners should not be able to easily manage directly.

I stand by my original assertion that all moderator powers, granted or not, should be visible to an individual moderator by default.  If the group owner wants "non-granted" powers to be invisible, that could easily be made an option, and an option that should be OFF unless they choose to turn it ON when creating a moderator.  Naming someone as moderator, where rational conversation about granting additional powers cannot be reliably had, indicates a very questionable choice of moderator to begin with.  We know we're not group owners, but we need to know what we can do and, preferably what we can't.   I have asked for additional permissions to be granted in the past (based on what I know the full slate to be from membership in a testing group) and could make a rational case for the request.  I have yet to be turned down.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


Bob Bellizzi
 

If you really wish to inform your moderators of all moderator rights/privileges, you could always copy/past a set to them instead of insisting Mark make changes to the system to just to suit a couple of people.

There are a lot of more pressing issues that can only be solved at the system level by Mark or anyone who might work with him.
-

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


Sarah k Alawami
 

I have to gree here. I'm an owner of several groups and I'm the only mod but if I appoint one while I'm on vacation etc just in case somethingn happens to meI want them to be able to see what hey an do right off the bat with out them guessing and me not being able to help because I neber respond to any emails when I'm on vacation. It's my time to decompress.

Sarah Alawami, owner of TFFP. . For more info go to our website.
For stuff we sell, mac training materials and  tutorials go here.
and for hosting options go here
to subscribe to the feed click here

The listen page is found here

Our telegram channel is also a good place for an announce only in regard to podcasts, contests, etc.

Finally, to become a patron and help support the podcast go here

On 19 Apr 2019, at 8:36, J_Catlady wrote:

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 08:34 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
moderators should be able to see whether they have a privilege (or not).
This seems obvious to me. Without that, it's a guessing game. An oracle. They have to try it to see if they're allowed to do it, which seems ridiculous.
 
--
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


 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:40 AM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
instead of insisting Mark make changes to the system to just to suit a couple of people.
Well, (a) nobody is "insisting" on anything. We make our cases here and Mark is capable of making his own decisions as to priority And (b) you have no evidence for your claim that the request is just to suit "a couple of people." This has been a bit of a PITA for me and my mods over time, although nothing I'd necessarily have brought up here. Who knows how many don't like it? No vote has been taken, and even if one were taken on beta, it's not necessarily a representative sample of all users.

But as long as it has come up, I'm adding my voice to express my opini-n that the current situation, where mods can't see what they can and can't do, is at best not ideal and at worst a PITA.
 
--
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


Duane
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:40 AM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
you could always copy/past a set to them instead of insisting Mark make changes to the system to just to suit a couple of people.
Copying a screen print could be a temporary work around.  No one knows how many people need/want this function.  It might be a simple addition and Mark has already said that suggestions are welcome and that usefulness should not be debated, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/20525

Duane


 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:53 AM, Duane wrote:
Mark has already said that suggestions are welcome and that usefulness should not be debated,
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 can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bruce Bowman
 

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 Privileges. This seems to be the proposal on the table.

2) It also seems appropriate that a Moderator should be UNable to open another Moderator's user record and see that person's privileges, without himself having been given that privilege (through the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" privilege). [I hope that made sense, despite the seeming redundancy.]

3) As implied by Jeremy, there are several Moderator privileges that are established via group settings (i.e.: by simply being a Moderator), not settings in the member record.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems that even if the proposal is implemented, we will still find ourselves somewhat short of "one-stop shopping"; viz a single place where a Moderator can go to determine everything they are able to do. Nonetheless, it strikes me as a step in the right direction.

Regards,
Bruce


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 01:06 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:53 AM, Duane wrote:
Mark has already said that suggestions are welcome and that usefulness should not be debated,
Yes! Maybe there should be a Group Guidelines page in beta, with that in it.
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 might be problematic that the original suggester might not have considered.

I am sort of "the root cause" of this topic, and I thought I'd covered all bases in the first two messages, but I see the value in additions to and respectful objections to aspects of a proposal that are not "debating usefulness," per se, but what should and should not be included in a potential feature set.   I am not all seeing, and so long as the objection is not of the, "Why in the *%*$& would you want that?!," nature and is respectful and considered, that should not be thought of as "debating usefulness."

P.S.:  Watch this space.  I'm about to launch another feature request, with explanation of reason for wanting, that I'm sure will raise some issues to consider that I may not have considered, as much as I tried to cover as many bases as possible.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:47 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
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 might be problematic
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 think one such line is whether or not a proposed feature would affect everyone or whether, OTOH, it would be an optional feature or setting that users would not even necessarily have to see. In the latter case, debate should be limited (or precluded entirely). Etc. 
 
--
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


Chris Jones
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 05:40 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
There are a lot of more pressing issues that can only be solved at the system level by Mark or anyone who might work with him.
Can I ask you to remember that next time you think of asking for some capability that does not currently exist?

Chris


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 01:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Seriously, though, of course there is difficulty in formulating such a guideline because of the fine lines. I think one such line is whether or not a proposed feature would affect everyone or whether, OTOH, it would be an optional feature or setting that users would not even necessarily have to see. In the latter case, debate should be limited (or precluded entirely). Etc. 
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 for features that have zero impact on those who do not use them, and those really shouldn't be up for debate by the beta membership.  Mark can choose to implement 'em or not.

If there could be "collateral damage" it's entirely appropriate to bring those concerns up in a civil manner.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel