Create a member group with fewer rights

[kurapika]

I would like to summarize all 'problem users' in a group. So everyone who registered at some point, but never activate the account, do not react to anything, do not write anything, etc.

First I thought that all those inactive users automatically remain under 'No primary member group' and later, automatically, comes into one of the groups that is based on the number of contributions.
This is not the case, everyone remains in the 'no primary member group', even if they write contributions.
Ok, is just like that.

So I put on a group myself: ' problem user '.
This group has the type: 'Protected (only administrators can manage and assign)' and authorizations should simply be inherited by the guests. (Since I have not yet found how one could give a group of special permissions)
Visible boards: none.

I have now assigned a test user to the group ' problem user '.
But that gives even more problems:

• This test user sees the group assigned to him in his forum profile! So he knows that he is a problem user . (Normal members don't see these group names - why are they?)
• Members of the group problem users may see everything and post everywhere , even where not even 'normal' members have access! (I also deactivated all visible boards for this group)
• He can even see the boards and post in it, which belong exclusively to the global moderator !! Who cannot even see 'normal' members!

So I do something wrong here.

In other words: How could you do this that you accept certain users in a group who only sees very specific content and is not allowed to do anything special?
Ultimately, this should make maintenance easier that members of this group can then be removed in one go or something ...


Ich möchte alle "Problemnutzer" in einer Gruppe zusammenfassen. Also alle, die sich irgendwann mal registrierten, aber das Konto nie aktivieren, auf nichts reagieren, nichts schreiben, usw.

Zuerst dachte ich, dass alle jene inaktiven Nutzer automatisch unter "keine primäre Mitgliedsgruppe" bleiben und später, automatisch in eine der Gruppen kommen, welche auf die Anzahl der Beiträge basiert.
Das ist nicht der Fall, alle bleiben in der "keine primäre Mitgliedsgruppe", auch wenn sie Beiträge schreiben.
Ok, ist eben so.

Also legte ich selbst ein Gruppe an: "ProblemNutzer".
Diese Gruppe hat den Typ: "Geschützt (Nur Administratoren können verwalten und zuweisen)" und Berechtigungen sollen einfach von den Gästen geerbt werden. (da ich noch nicht gefunden habe, wie man einer selbst erstellten Gruppe spezielle Berechtigungen geben könnte)
Sichtbare Boards: Keine.

In die Gruppe "ProblemNutzer" habe ich nun einen Testnutzer zugewiesen.
Doch das ergibt noch mehr Probleme:

• Dieser Testnutzer sieht die ihm zugewiesene Gruppe in seinem Forenprofil! Er weiß also, dass er ein ProblemNutzer ist. (Normale Mitglieder sehen diese Gruppennamen ja nicht - warum ausgerechnet jene?)
• Mitglieder der Gruppe ProblemNutzer dürfen ALLES sehen und ÜBERALL posten, selbst dort, wo nicht einmal "normale" Mitglieder Zugriff haben! (Für diese Gruppe habe ich auch alle sichtbaren Boards deaktiviert)
• Der darf sogar die Boards sehen und darin posten, welche ausschließlich dem globalen Moderator gehören!! Die nicht einmal "normale" Mitglieder sehen können!

Also irgendwas mache ich hier falsch.

Anders gefragt: Wie könnte man dies machen, dass man bestimmte Nutzer in eine Gruppe aufnimmt, welche nur ganz bestimmte Inhalte sieht und nichts besonderes tun darf?
Letztlich soll das die Wartung erleichtern, das man Mitglieder dieser Gruppe dann in einem Rutsch entfernen kann oder so ...

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

Please, take a look at https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/SMF2.1:Permissions

Every user always belongs to at least 2 groups, the regular members group and a post count group. Every group a user belongs to may grant a permission, and as long as another group they belong to does not explicitly deny that permission, the user has that permission.

To use post count groups for gradually granting permissions, make sure regular members group does not already grant the same permissions by default.

[Illori]

we also have https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Category:Permissions

[kurapika]

Please, take a look at https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/SMF2.1:Permissions

  Das ist sehr viel zum lernen ...

[Kindred]

The SMF permissions system is entirely logical, but can seem complicated.

The important thing to remember is that SMF permissions are INCLUSIVE.
a member has EVERY permission granted by EVERY group that they belong to.

Given that, as Lex has said, every member is part of two groups... this explains your problem.
1- any member who does NOT have a primary group assigned will belong to the "general members" group. (that's the unassigned one that you mention above)
2- any member who DOES have a primary group assigned generally has that group assignment visible to the user and other users as well.
3- EVERY member is also assigned to a post count group.   If you have given permissions to the users via post-count groups, then even your "problem users" will still HAVE permissions (because, as noted, permissions are inclusive)
4- there is an exception to the inclusive nature of permissions -- and that is to user the DENY option for a permission instead of allow/disallow.
5- using "based on" won't do what you need -- you need to assign specific permissions to the group AND to change the permissions that you are using for the post-count groups

Understanding this logic and assignment is important, since your permissions assignments literally define what users can and can not do.

So, it CAN be configured the way that you want...


However -- the biggest question here is WHY?   WHY do you want to put those users into a restricted group? WHAT are you trying to accomplish by doing this?
(I ask because I suspect that what you are trying to do is not actually going to solve any problem)

[kurapika]

WHY do you want to put those users into a restricted group?

I mentioned that in the start post (last line): Ultimately, this should make maintenance easier that members of this group can then be removed in one go or something ...

1- any member who does NOT have a primary group assigned will belong to the "general members" group.

Ok, understand

3- EVERY member is also assigned to a post count group.

So certainly also those who have not yet written posts.
So these are automatically in the contribution-based group "Newbies" - correctly?

If you have given permissions to the users via post-count groups,

I don't know how it works. So no, I don't.

using "based on" won't do what you need -- you need to assign specific permissions to the group

Understand. I actually did that by creating a group "InAktiv" (i.e. where the problem users want to collect).
The group "InAktiv" does not inherit permissions from others, but is placed on ' no - use special authorizations '.
I have withdrawn almost all rights from this group "InAktiv" (i.e. their members). I gave it just 5 rights in my own accounts.
But those members of the group "InAktiv" are allowed to see and EVERYTHING ... 

So, it CAN be configured the way that you want...

hmmm. This group "Newbies" (whose rights I cannot/may not discontinue) gives the member more rights than I want.
You may have to create a article-based group, which covers all those who have 0 posts. And put the group "Newbies" only when someone wrote at least a contribution.

Or?

But since I can't find the rights of contribution-based groups to change, experimenting with another contribution group doesn't make sense ...

[Illori]

have you read all the pages related to permissions on the wiki? they do go over what you want to do.

[kurapika]

I have worked through all this several times, but nevertheless the questions I ask here remain.

For example, I still found no way to edit the rights of the predefined, contribution-based groups. That would be the basis for further experiments.
If there is a precise link to help?

[Illori]

admin -> members -> permissions -> settings enable permissions for post count based groups, but keep in mind if you do enable this, it makes permissions a bit more complicated.

you may want to setup a test install and use it to play with the permissions without affecting your live forum.

[Kindred]

WHY do you want to put those users into a restricted group?

I mentioned that in the start post (last line): Ultimately, this should make maintenance easier that members of this group can then be removed in one go or something ...

... but, again, WHY are you trying to limit their access?

If you just want to remove users who have never made a post and logged in a year ago.... then you can do that - either manually or there is a mod to do it automatically... putting them into a group does not actually make it easier to remove them.

If you think that they are spammers -- then just remove them now and implement the correct anti-spam methods to avoid future spammer registration.

Basically, event though it can be done, you have defined a use case that really makes no sense.

[kurapika]

admin -> members -> permissions -> settings enable permissions for post count based groups, but keep in mind if you do enable this

That actually seems to be what I wanted. But yes, the matter becomes even more complicated.
And yet these attempts did not bring the desired result ...

[kurapika]

Basically, event though it can be done, you have defined a use case that really makes no sense.

Probably yes ...

Think, it's really easier to remove inactive members inactive by maintenance > Mitglieder - Inaktive Mitglieder entfernen


But how could I limit spammer registrations before?

[Kindred]

https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Spam_-_my_forum_is_flooded_with_spam,_what_can_I_do

[Butiks]

https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Spam_-_my_forum_is_flooded_with_spam,_what_can_I_do

These old instructions are already don't work.
Captcha is solved in milliseconds by spambots.
Questions and answers during registration are also now solved quickly by spambots via AI. But for now, posting the answer on a separate forum link helps solve questions and answers сonvenient for users but inaccessible for spambots..

[Kindred]

Not if they are GOOD questions.

Seriously,  even with ai, 30 GOOD questions,  asking 2 prevents most spammers -- my sites are going on 4 years without any major spammer influx.

Alternatively, a few people have written mods to use visual related questions.

[kurapika]

https://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Spam_-_my_forum_is_flooded_with_spam,_what_can_I_do

These old instructions are already don't work.
Captcha is solved in milliseconds by spambots.
Questions and answers during registration are also now solved quickly by spambots via AI. But for now, posting the answer on a separate forum link helps solve questions and answers сonvenient for users but inaccessible for spambots..

It is the same. Unfortunately.
I have already set up and removed Captcha & Co. on our websites. All this annoys ordinary visitors, users, members - but spammer does not stop it.
I don't start at the forum.

But what else helps?

30 GOOD questions

  Have you ever thought of the real visitors, users, etc., how this annoys?

[Butiks]

Not if they are GOOD questions.

Seriously,  even with ai, 30 GOOD questions,  asking 2 prevents most spammers -- my sites are going on 4 years without any major spammer influx.

Alternatively, a few people have written mods to use visual related questions.

Dear Kindred, you are wrong here!
Your recommendations are outdated since AI came to the masses. Perhaps you have not had any practice in fact and the answer is based on old messages from other users, I do not intend to argue with you. I just want you not to mislead users and visitors of the forum having an important status - recommending impractical advice (I mean the proposal to add complex questions claiming that this will help).

I will clarify:
The question-answer in the registration form does not work from spambots now in the form we are used to using.

Previously, I had to remove the question-answer because it was inconvenient for users. Spambots solved this in a couple of seconds.

I used extremely original and COMPLEX questions on a narrow topic.
The forum is a game, so whoever comes to register must know the requested points about the game. For example, one of the questions was like this:

Code Select Expand

"Write the name of the first map where elves appear, write only vowels"There were 3 such different questions during registration. Each question was duplicated into 5 versions, in each version similar letters from the Russian alphabet were uniquely replaced with English (a-а, o-о, c-с, p-р, etc) in a chaotic order. (It is worth noting that such questions did not give any results in Google search, etc.)

This did not stop spambots, even questions changed in meaning.

Next method is currently working, in the question simply "enter the answer that is in the link https://..."

[Kindred]

Dear Kindred, you are wrong here!
Your recommendations are outdated since AI came to the masses. Perhaps you have not had any practice in fact and the answer is based on old messages from other users, I do not intend to argue with you. I just want you not to mislead users and visitors of the forum having an important status - recommending impractical advice (I mean the proposal to add complex questions claiming that this will help).

Sorry, but you are the one that is wrong - and I am not misleading users or giving bad advice.

Yes, AI is good at interpreting some things...  but it is not infallible nor can it (yet) understand things like directed inference or image analysis.

I did not say "complex" questions.  I said "GOOD" questions.

As I said, my sites are going on 4 years without any major spammer influx.

But what else helps?

30 GOOD questions

  Have you ever thought of the real visitors, users, etc., how this annoys?

The "annoyance" of real users is minimal -- as long as you don't allow guests to post -- you ONLY have to ask the questions ONCE - during registration

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

I think that annoyance point is a misunderstanding - Kindred isn't suggesting 30 questions at once, it's usually more 1 or 2 at a time, out of a set of 30 or even more, so that the questions keep changing without manual intervention.

[kurapika]

Please do not argue!

Think, you can shorten the whole thing like this: There is hardly any means against bots, certainly not since AI.

But:
I'm first about real people who only register to unload their garbage.
You probably can't stop them, because I never know who is really behind the names, e-mail addresses. You can only dispose of again as soon as it becomes clear that it is just spammers.


OT:
On normal websites, for example, I have contact forms, which also have a "message" field. Free text. The spammers (whether bots or real idiots) use it for their "advertising".
So they said to me: "Remove these fields and replace them with selection fields, checkboxes, etc."
Okay. But now we know even less who is behind it. Because without free text you can no longer recognize anyone behind it ...

[Kindred]

... and yet,  as I have said several times -- my method has prevented spammer bots from registering on my sites for 4+ years.

I think that annoyance point is a misunderstanding - Kindred isn't suggesting 30 questions at once, it's usually more 1 or 2 at a time, out of a set of 30 or even more, so that the questions keep changing without manual intervention.

Yes,  this