disable pm user

[dominioboys]

how can I block the sending of pm to a user to all users?

[skb]

That should be optional in Membergroup / Permissions.

[dominioboys]

but for single member?

[Arantor]

If you don't want an individual to have the power, you can use the warning system if enabled, or create a group, deny the PM permission in that group then assign that group to that user.

[dominioboys]

without creating create a group? deny it only to the individual user

[Illori]

do you mean you don't want all member of the forum to be able to send a PM to user x?

or do you mean you don't want member x to be able to send a PM to any user?

even if you mute a user they can still send PM's, the warning system only applies to posts.

[dominioboys]

second question this:
do you mean you don't want member x to be able to send a PM to any user?

[Arantor]

The only way you can do it without changing code is to do as I advised. This way you can use the group for someone else later.

Note that the group can be set as a secondary group so users don't have it listed, and the group can be hidden so it doesn't show up on the front page if you have that set up.

[dominioboys]

any solution?

[Illori]

we have provided you the solution already in this topic.

[dominioboys]

solution is change group

[Kindred]

Yes.

SMF does not do permissions on a per-user basis. Permissions are per group.

The exception, as pointed out, is to use the warning system.

[shadav]

so this way you can create different groups with different permissions

so you have someone that is abusing the pm's
make a group named no pm, make the group hidden (so it doesn't show up on their group list)
set permissions to not allow pms
add any members in here that aren't behaving

make another group no avatar
set permissions to not allow avatars, or not allowed to change avatar
add any members that keep putting inappropriate avatars in this group

make another group no signature
set permissions to not allow signatures

and so and so on....
you can assign members to as many groups as you like

the above are just examples to give you some ideas

this way you can give or revoke permissions to different features for members
while the permissions are not user based but are permission based... you set up the different groups and then add the members to them as needed
hope that helps

*btw you may need a few mods to help also to allow/deny some permissions, as I have mine set that guests can see attachments but can't download, new members can use signatures but not use links in signatures as well as new members can't use links in posts, and so forth and so on, it's really quite helpful when you are trying to deter spammers (not all but some)*

[dominioboys]

I just wanted to deny pm to a user without moving it to a group

[Illori]

I just wanted to deny pm to a user without moving it to a group

as you have been told several times in this topic you cannot do that.

[dominioboys]

ok thanks

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

I just wanted to deny pm to a user without moving it to a group

as you have been told several times in this topic you cannot do that.

Well, using deny permissions and secondary groups - you wouldn't be moving them to another group, you would be adding them to another.

[Kindred]

.....

1- you do not need mods for allow, disallow, deny. those are standard SMF features.
2- your described settings will not actually have the result that you indicate.  Please read the FAQ/manual on permissions, and especially the difference between disallow and deny.

[Illori]

actually you do need a mod to extend the permissions in the profile area which was discussed.

also that post does not clearly state if you need to allow/disallow or deny permissions, I think it was a bit general to say "not allow".

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

What the OP is asking for is possible with 2.0 out of the box, except for the fact it involves membergroups.

[Arantor]

What the OP is asking for is possible with 2.0 out of the box, except for the fact it involves membergroups.

He wants to do it without membergroups as though this is sensible, but having per user rules is rarely sensible and much harder to manage but if you only have like 20 users, it seems like a good idea.

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

I know. I admin a few access control systems for a living, I know

[Arantor]

I know. I admin a few access control systems for a living, I know

*You* know. But that isn't what I meant

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

Gotcha.