Topics

moderated More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

(Copied over from the Canny board)

The granularity of mod permissions is currently very crude. Pls add settings for the group owner to control

  1. Whether or not a mod is privy to receiving owner messages. Currently, the mod themselves sets it as an email delivery setting, and it is assumed that all mods are privy to these messages. Instead, access permission would be granted by the owner or not, and only if access permission has been granted would the mod would be able to set their email delivery preference to actually receive or not receive them.

  2. Whether or a not a mod has access to Member "Notes" pages. For some mods, a group owner may want these to be private in the sense of limited to certain mods only. They may, for example, contain personal info about the member that should not be widely distributed if there are several mods. Etc.

  3. In general, review all the possible things moderators currently have access to and permission for by default, and consider making them individual mod settings.

 

Adding to this: The activity logs (group and member) should also start to have granularity, which should match the moderator viewing granularity that is now in effect or that comes into effect. Currently, every mod sees 100% of the group and member activity logs. Every mod can see when members are rejected and accepted, even if they have no access to the member list or pending member notices. Every mod can see (via the group activity log) the text of every message-rejection notice that any other mod sends out to members. 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

 

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:31 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
and member activity logs
typo, they only see that if they have access to the member list - but the rest holds
 
--
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

ro-esp
 

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:55 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

The granularity of mod permissions is currently very crude.
I'm not sure what "granularity" means here

Pls add settings for the group owner to control

3. In general, review all the possible things moderators currently have access
to and permission for by default, and consider making them individual mod
settings.
You want moderators to decide what they view and what not?

What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?


groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
I'm not sure what "granularity" means here
You could read the original suggestion for an understanding of this. There is already some granularity (called "permissions") in what mods can and can't do. The suggestion is for more, and for better matching between current mod permissions and what they can now view.
 
--
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

Bob Bellizzi
 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?
There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are currently tied together with the individual abilities that would, at the same time, allow a level of ability not necessary.

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.

Further granularity would allow us to isolate specific abilities and information flow to maximize what differently tasked moderators are able to do and what information the receive to best do their tasks.


--

Bob Bellizzi

Charles Roberts
 

What he said.....and NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.

On Feb 9, 2020 4:22 PM, Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?
There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are currently tied together with the individual abilities that would, at the same time, allow a level of ability not necessary.

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.

Further granularity would allow us to isolate specific abilities and information flow to maximize what differently tasked moderators are able to do and what information the receive to best do their tasks.


--

Bob Bellizzi


 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:22 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.
I'm responding to this since the suggestion originally posted on canny was mine: That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to view/access certain things or not, with Member Notes being a prime example. I generally don't want all moderators to see the Notes, which may contain personal or confidential information. Etc. I'm not talking about filtering message content from moderators, which is what you seem to be alluding to here? Just specific groups.io pages, etc. And you also seem to be simply distinguishing here between moderators and non-moderators, rather than what abilities and permissions certain moderators can have as opposed to others. So I really don't understand this comment.
 
--
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 Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:36 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.
I think there's a separate thread for that. 
 
--
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