Why are banned users allowed to participate in all discussions by default?

u2wedge

I notice that when creating a category that by default, members who are banned are allowed to participate. Is banned even necessary as a choice? I mean, if I ban someone I shouldn't have to worry about permissions, they should be banned from everything until I choose otherwise.

bjrn

Banned isn't a special role in any way, it's a role just like the others, and the default for any new category is to allow everyone. If you don't like it, you can just click on the "select none" link and check only those you want to allow.

jimw

Yeh, that struck me as being funny, too.

Stash

Banned isn't a special role in any way, it's a role just like the others, and the default for any new category is to allow everyone.

While I see the logic in this, common sense tells us that it should be set up by default to at least prevent someone from posting, if not banning them from viewing discussions as well.

bjrn

By the way, you do realise that "participate" doesn't equal starting discussions or posting comments, right? It's just able to view a certain category.

WallPhone

bjrn is right, even if it meant more, the fact that banned users do not have "can sign in" permission trumps all others.

Stash

I'm confused by the "participate" thing (I'm ill and it's not anywhere on the Edit Roles & Permissions page...), so if you could explain the point a little more...

I think the point I and a few others here are trying to make here, is that when you are banned, you should be banned! Cannot see/do anything, or waste anything but the most meagre amount of b/w from the server. At least that's how I understand the word. I mean we could easily create a role ourselves called "Posting/Participation Restricted" that basically does everything the "Banned" role does by default - doesn't allow people to post ANYTHING but still allows them to read/search through the forum.

bjrn

Participation determines if someone can view a certain category. Say you have a category that only admins can participate in, that means only admins can see that that category exists and post in it.

By default the "Banned" role can't do anything, because they can't sign in, which means they have the same reading/writing permissions as anyone not signed in. So it doesn't really matter in which categories you allow them to participate, because they'll never really sign in.

Oh, and participation isn't under Roles & Permissions, it's under Categories.

Stash

Thanks bjrn, that's been very helpful. However...

By default, Banned is allowed to participate in categories! So once again, we're back at the place we don't really want to be. Yes yes, I know we can manually turn it off each time we create a category, but not everyone will know this, so I reckon we need to get something better in place for default.

Minisweeper

I still dont see what the problem is here...banned users (assuming you set it as such, and if not there's not much point banning them) CANT log in. Stat. With that barrier in place their permissions once logged in are irrelevant. You could give them every permission under the sun but if they cant actually authenticate themselves it's utterly useless.

Stash

Yes yes yes, I take back everything I said earlier (I reserve the right to change my mind again). I'm suffering from some god awful bug and it's making me trip out a little...

Minisweeper

*hands stash some vicks

u2wedge

so, let me try to wrap my small brain around this one... if I am banned from this forum, for example, my username/password will not work, correct? Or are you saying that there won't even be a sign in option? How is Vanilla making the determination that I am banned at that point? IP addy? It seems to me that a user would actually have to log-in in order for the forum to recognize that they are banned, otherwise they are just guests. Not trying to make this super complicated, but my point is that 'banned' should be unchecked by default, that is blocking all forum benefits/privileges by default. Maybe you can explain a situation where I would want a banned user to be able to 'participate' in the forum... seems like a contradiction to me.

Minisweeper

Your username and password wont work, correct. You would have the same access rights as an unauthenticated user - on this forum you'd still be able to browse but not be able to post (etc). On a private forum, you'd just sit looking at the login screen.

Stash

Which seems completely reasonable...

u2wedge

but shouldn't that box be left unchecked by default, and have the system admin opt the banned user in vs. having opt the banned user out? not trying to get semantic, but rather I think that a banned user should fall to the bottom of the important people list and be administered at the profile level vs. the category level. just my two cents, probably not worth much more than that. thanks for bouncing this around

bjrn

Well, in that case default would have to be unchecked for all roles. But I guess you could make an extension that would uncheck the participation checkbox for any roles that don't have sign-in rights.

Minisweeper

It's possible but it's really just unnecessary work...vanilla doesnt know the banned role is any more or less special than the super master administrative god role, to it theyre just lines of boolean values...