Unset & No in Permissions

Get help with installation and running phpBB 3.0.x here. Please do not post bug reports, feature requests, or MOD-related questions here.
Anti-Spam Guide
Forum rules
END OF SUPPORT: 1 January 2017 (announcement)
Edinho
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:54 pm

Unset & No in Permissions

Post by Edinho »

Its taken me a while to figure out if you set 'No' to permissions in 'Registered Users' it will also disable any 'Administrators' or 'Moderator' from having that access to that part of the forum.

Is this intended? Seems a bit of an odd way to go around things in setting the permissions. It makes the 'No' function a bit redundant.

ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Post by ToonArmy »

Unset and No have been renamed to No and Never respectively, those names should make a little more sense.
Chris SmithGitHub

BondGamer
Registered User
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:49 pm
Contact:

Post by BondGamer »

ToonArmy wrote: Unset and No have been renamed to No and Never respectively, those names should make a little more sense.

That doesn't make sense to me at all. Either someone has permission or they don't, I don't see the difference between No and Never.
My phpBB3 Mods: - None active =[

Prince of phpbb
Registered User
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Prince of phpbb »

BondGamer wrote: That doesn't make sense to me at all. Either someone has permission or they don't, I don't see the difference between No and Never.
Well technically yes .. you are right .. either someone has a permission or they dont. But imagine a scenario, you've got a group called 'Good People' and you set permissions for that group as you want them. But then there is one fav person in that group that you want to assign an 'extra' option :D for example allow that group member to start polls or delete topics. In Olympus, you can leave the rest of the users in the group 'unset' in which case they 'inherit' the permissions from their group permission settings and set a permission for your fav user to 'yes' and thdat user can do wateva you allowed them to.

I havent seen the recently changed version of No and Never but i assume it might be similar :?

ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Post by ToonArmy »

Prince of phpbb wrote: I havent seen the recently changed version of No and Never but i assume it might be similar :?


Exactly the same, just name change.

Lets explain by example, assume we have the default Registered Users group plus a trouble makers group and a Trusted people group. We will focus on the permission to make sticky topics. Registered Users are set to no, trouble makers are set to never and trusted people set to yes.

All users are members of the Registered Users group in this example.

Lets take our first user Alice, she is a member of no other groups, she cannot post stickies.

2nd user is Bob, he is a trouble maker, he cannot post stickies.

3rd user called Chris, he is a trusted user, he can post stickies.

Final user Dave, he is a trusted user but he is also in the trouble makers group, because the trouble makers group permission is set to never it overrides the yes and Dave is unable to post stickies.

See how Yes conquers No but Yes is conquered by Never.
Chris SmithGitHub

BondGamer
Registered User
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:49 pm
Contact:

Post by BondGamer »

I still don't understand what you guys said. If I have a usergroup, I set the minumum permissions for that group. If I need a user to do something new and different, I create a usergroup for that purpose and add the users.

It sounds like they are trying to create some type of system where you can have a user in a usergroup that can't do something. Well, that is actually a flaw in the way the administrator created the usergroups.
My phpBB3 Mods: - None active =[

NeoThermic
Security Consultant
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:33 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by NeoThermic »

BondGamer wrote: I still don't understand what you guys said. If I have a usergroup, I set the minumum permissions for that group. If I need a user to do something new and different, I create a usergroup for that purpose and add the users.

It sounds like they are trying to create some type of system where you can have a user in a usergroup that can't do something. Well, that is actually a flaw in the way the administrator created the usergroups.


The whole point of 'never' is to deny the members of the group from ever using the item which is set to never, even if it is set to 'yes' in other groups. 'Never' should not really be used unless you wish to revoke their access from a set permission.

Windows has a similar concept, if you uncheck 'Allowed', then it is equivalent to 'No' in phpBB. If you check 'denied', it is equivalent to 'Never' in phpBB.

The advantage of this is simple. Say you wish everyone to be able to post without moderation in all forums bar one. Just select the forum, then the group which shouldn't be able to post without moderation, and then set 'Can post without approval' to 'Never', and you've revoked everyone's ability to post without moderation.

As noted though, it is rather powerfull, and shouldn't be used everywhere as it can lock out administrators as well.

NeoThermic
NeoThermic.com... a well of information. Ask me for the bit bucket so you can drink its goodness. ||新熱です

User avatar
karlsemple
Former Team Member
Posts: 39802
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:54 am
Location: Hereford, UK
Contact:

Post by karlsemple »

lets dumb this down a little...


if you want to put a person in more then one usergroup.... "never" stops the permissions from one group overriding another, its that simple, it stops you accidentally giving a group or user a permission you do not want them to have by placing them in another group which has that permission.
Image

matthewf
Registered User
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:39 pm

Post by matthewf »

I need to play around with this, while I am just starting to grasp the permission system, this will still take a bit of time to master and when no or never be used, but I guess it does allow for refinement, more so then any other board I have seen, and certainly far better then phpbb2.

edit
oh man this is most confusing, ok here is what I was trying to do, I wanted it so that I couldn't delete a user's post from my test board, (not my post) I went in global mod / user and selected no (board is the beta not CVS) for delete, but I was still able to delete the users post, it was only when I went in group forum permissions and slected global mod, then selected all the forums, I notied that I selected yes for deleting posts, it was then when I selected unset then the option for deleting that user's post disapeared

thing is user / group forum permissions override global mod or single user permissions

if the wording has been changed to yes , no and never, then in the above example, the words don't make any sense, as in the case of deleting posts, no still means that he can, from another permission's set, and what is more confusing is the fact that one set of permissions do override another, this is just confusing

ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Post by ToonArmy »

If the Yes permissions was unable to override the new No permission then there would be zero point. I still personally prefer the Yes, Unset, No names.
Chris SmithGitHub

User avatar
karlsemple
Former Team Member
Posts: 39802
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:54 am
Location: Hereford, UK
Contact:

Post by karlsemple »

ToonArmy wrote: I still personally prefer the Yes, Unset, No names.



Ditto
Image

Edinho
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:54 pm

Post by Edinho »

I can see it's a useful option. It just isnt very noob friendly and gets a bit of getting used to. The renaming helps a little.

User avatar
naderman
Consultant
Consultant
Posts: 3735
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 10:06 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Name: Nils Adermann
Contact:

Post by naderman »

ToonArmy wrote: If the Yes permissions was unable to override the new No permission then there would be zero point. I still personally prefer the Yes, Unset, No names.

Well I'd say, Yes/Unset/No are the technical meanings, however we saw that people set a lot of permissions to No, while they should actually be left Unset. So people without much knowledge will hopefully not set them to Never when they are already set to No and thereby keeping the permissions working in a way they expect it to work. People who do know the technical background will understand that No means Unset, and will be able to use it regardless of the name, so I think usability-wise this was a change to the positive.
I appreciate gifts from my Amazon wishlist.
naderman.de twitter: @naderman

ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Post by ToonArmy »

naderman wrote: Well I'd say, Yes/Unset/No are the technical meanings, however we saw that people set a lot of permissions to No, while they should actually be left Unset. So people without much knowledge will hopefully not set them to Never when they are already set to No and thereby keeping the permissions working in a way they expect it to work. People who do know the technical background will understand that No means Unset, and will be able to use it regardless of the name, so I think usability-wise this was a change to the positive.


I know why you did it and totally agree with the motive behind it, as you say the change should only make the ACP easier to use for more people which is a good thing. :D
Chris SmithGitHub

matthewf
Registered User
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:39 pm

Post by matthewf »

ToonArmy wrote:
naderman wrote:Well I'd say, Yes/Unset/No are the technical meanings, however we saw that people set a lot of permissions to No, while they should actually be left Unset. So people without much knowledge will hopefully not set them to Never when they are already set to No and thereby keeping the permissions working in a way they expect it to work. People who do know the technical background will understand that No means Unset, and will be able to use it regardless of the name, so I think usability-wise this was a change to the positive.


I know why you did it and totally agree with the motive behind it, as you say the change should only make the ACP easier to use for more people which is a good thing. :D


sorry I don't like it, and I think this will add to confusing rather then decrease it, I ran another test, I setup a forum mod, using user forum permissions, I gave that test user full mod rights, then I set "can delete posts" to unset, the test user could still delete posts, (and I didn't use forum moderator) so it was only when I selected no, then the test user could no longer delete posts, with the wording change, no (unset) doesn't mean no in my example, as it still granted the user the abilite to delete posts

and another thing, why are they to conterdictory means of setting up global mods / forum mods, one way is through user /group forum permissions, and the other is through forum mod / global mod while the user / group forum permissions in my over example one can otherride the the other set, which also makes the name change even more confusing (if you happen to use both), wouldn't it just be better to have one or the other way of setting up forum and global mods, there is no point having two ways

Locked

Return to “[3.0.x] Support Forum”