MyBB Community Forums

To chime in, my gut with this would be that we would defer this to a plugin.

As with most things, we have to (want to) balance functionality with simplicity and avoid bloat. Even taking the time it would take to add every feature under the sun into core out of the question, somewhere have to draw the line on what will and won't be a general benefit to a broad range of forums and be used frequently. I think this is one we'd file under not having enough of a use case.

Like Euan touched on, you can pretty much set up an appeals system now. Banned members may not be able to post by default, but you can still allow them to if you wish. You could, for example, hide all other forums when banned, show one called 'Ban Appeals', allow them to create threads and reply, and only see their own threads. This uses the existing permissions system and threads system, you can discuss the appeal as you wish, and then take action on it, without any additional code.

(2016-11-18, 03:06 AM)Zaqre Wrote: [ -> ]The #1 reason why i hate using the "Appeal" category of a forum is because you have to first read the post, decide, then mark the thread and delete it (since only one person can see it (and staff), there is absolutely no point in keeping it on the forum.

With the system, you can do it in fewer steps: read the notice in the Mod CP, Accept | Decline:

Accept: Warning/Ban is lifted and the report is deleted (all automatically) but the records (Mod Logs) show the details.
Decline: Warning/Ban is not lifted and the report is deleted (all automatically) but the records (Mod Logs) show the details.

To me that's essentially the same number of steps:

1. See header notification of new appeal, click through
   
2. Read appeal message
   
3. Decide what to do, click Accept/Decline
   

or:

1. See new thread in appeals forum, click through
   
2. Read appeal message
   
3. Tell them no, or go to Mod CP and lift ban
   

Essentially, the process is the same. If the main argument between the two was the number of clicks between clicking a notification or a thread, or an Accept/Decline link as opposed to going to the Mod CP bans list to lift, i.e. if the real difference is literally just saving a couple of clicks, then I don't think that'd be worth arguing over as it's not like you're going to be doing this a lot, and it's hopefully a process you'd want to dedicate at least a few minutes to anyway if you were taking the appeal seriously.

Also, consider the rouge moderator argument. Moderator bans user. User appeals. Same moderator sees the appeal and hits Decline. If you allow the user to create a thread, you could make it not be deletable by even moderators (unless admin/super mod rights can't be overridden, I haven't checked), but then you have that log that they appealed. Sure, it would be in the Moderator Log that they banned the user and declined the appeal, yes, but how often do people check up on the mod logs? Especially as the only way of catching someone out on rogue behaviour?

Going back to my original point, we have to consider what real value something will add, how much value, and if that value is worth it. Like I say this is just my gut reaction and not an official yes/no but what we'd have to consider is whether an expansion of something like the warning and banning system is what we'd want to prioritise, instead of improving what we're all actually here for, which is discussion and building a community. I think we'd all want features that benefit the 99% of users of our communities and make the forum a better place for our users to spend their time, rather than something that shaves a little bit of time off a process for the 1% that you may only ever need once or twice.

Great, comprehensive reply. The suggestion for setting this up without plugins is a great one too.

"Also, consider the rouge moderator argument. Moderator bans user. User appeals. Same moderator sees the appeal and hits Decline. "

I think (I hope) i stated in my original post, that Moderators could ban, but only Admins (Super Mods. +) could Accept/Decline a lift.

It's not the number of clicks, but the amount of work (time) that will be put into it. But if you'd like to go by clicks, it would be more like:

-----Please note, this is only the steps for a ban, not including what someone mentioned about warning appeals)------

1. See header notification of new appeal, click through, Read appeal message (No clicking involved)
2 .Decide what to do (No clicking involved), click Accept/Decline
2.1 Type message if no (if there is one needed or if it is even a feature - No clicking, just typing)
3. Click to submit (because you wouldn't type a message to lift a ban - and only applies to Declining, if you accept, it lifts it automatically - no extra steps)

or:

1. Notice new thread in appeals forum (No clicking involved) , click to see appeal, Read appeal message (No clicking involved)
2. Decide (No clicking involved), (if no) tell them no
2.1. Type message and click send.
3. Click to go to Mod CP
4. Click "Banning", Search for their username (No clicking)
4.1. Click Lift Ban.

Yes, the click count is almost the same, but with the system (or something similar) You can read all appeals in the Mod CP, and not even leave the appeal your reading to lift/decline the ban.

So it would be:

*Notification appears - Click*
*Clicks on ban appeal*
Accept | Decline.

If accept - Automatically lifted once "accept" has been clicked.
If decline - Box opens (Optional to fill out [mainly because people don't like giving reasons "Makes the mod explain themselves"]) - Click Send.

But I feel that we are getting way too technical, I will gladly settle for a "Sorry, but because of XYZ, we will not add this suggestion."

Either way, it is a suggestion

---

I highly appreciate your detailed answer, and I understand that it is a minor feature, but I never once said it had to be a priority, for all I care if it does get considered, it can be the very last thing considered / implemented.