lol you clearly haven't read it.


Please only people that have a clue.

--------------- Added [DATE]1426398588[/DATE] at [TIME]1426398588[/TIME] ---------------

Lynne can you give me your honest opinion about this you answered my first post and the rest of the fanboys jumped in after DB.

What is you opinion on this on how the additional usergroups work for this modification.

Thanks.

I think you misspelled that, it should be, "Please only people that will agree with me, not people that have different opinions".

Well done...

Going back to the 1st post please.

You ask ones to read your first post but you don't seem to listen to what others are saying like my posts I have already got this to work but you don't seem to be interested in this so if you can't be bothered to go over the settings and take the time then I see no point in replying any more here

Just because it is not working like you want it to, does not mean it's wrong. This type of functionality is built into vBulletin, is_member_of and is working as intended by the vBulletin developers.

As far as I can tell it has been around at least for 11 years, http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum...94#post1310794

So before you go around telling people how things are supposed to work, or that they don't have a clue what they are talking about, I suggest you do your research.

You have two developers here, that have a total combined modification release of 315 +/- so I would think they know what they are talking about versus someone who has no modifications released. ;)

My opinion is that it's reasonable the way it is, and it probably works the way people would expect. And as Fillip pointed out, if you think about the option as "Yes, I want to exclude this group" then the inheritance works like you say it should.

However, you have a point. If the "sense" of the option were reversed so that you were choosing which groups were allowed links, then it would be useful for forums that wanted to sell that feature in a paid subscription. (Edit: yeah, it can still be done using primary groups, but I think the reason secondary groups exist is because it's easier to manage "add on" permissions). I had never thought about that myself, and I'm going to consider that in the future (well, if I ever develop another mod that is :) ). But that doesn't make it wrong, and it looks to me like you were given a reasonable reply.

You guys need to stop bickering. Don't post anything else that isn't related to the question.

I apologies about that but you edited your post before I got chance to see it. "Last edited by ForceHSS : Today at 02:35." Going back to your post now shows me they way you have set this up and I thank you for the input but I do not want to change the members user title which is what would happen if I did it that way.

Even with other modifications I have bought from DB the additional usergroup does work as it should for e.g

shoutbox

These examples are as followed.

When a TK veteran buys " forum supporter" they are given these extra permissions and it works as it should. It keeps the title and the primary usergroup the same but adds these extra features that are ticked in the image.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/9.jpg

Thanks/like mod DBs.

Same as above, this allows forum supporters inline with TK veterans to unclick likes etc and works as it should with the additional user groups.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/10.jpg

Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that when other modifications from the same site are made they would work the same as others. If I am incorrect then I apologies but that is what I expected.

Those mods you mentioned work a bit different when checking permissions. They use something like:

While the mod in the first post uses something like this:

Two totally different ways of checking, and both are legit, it just depends on how the coder who wrote the mod decided to do it.

Yes but WHY do they work different? they should work the same and take into account the additional usergroup by choosing YES out of the Yes No confliction to work as ALL other modifications do. This is my point or you should state in the selling page on your site that it does not work with additional users or change the modification so that Admins can add these features as an extra.

Im no expert by far but I know how mods work and this is the first mod I have used that does not take this into account with the additional usergroup.

Downloads II is the same.

on my site

Zero posters cannot download.
Zero posters + forum supporter can. It looks at the addtional usergroup and chooses yes out of the yes no conflict.

As far as I can tell, and I will say that I don't know this mod at all, but it looks like the permission checks are being done correctly for this modification. The Primary Usergroup has a Yes for not allowed. It's kinda like the default usergroup permission of "Follow Forum Moderation Rules" in which a Yes means no moderation and a No means there is moderation. That one always seemed 'backwards' to me, but it was done that way so the Yes overrides the No. I think you may be trying to use the mod a bit differently than the developer wrote it to be used. I've downloaded several mods that were close to what I wanted, but not exactly, and so I had to change them to work how I wanted them to work on my site. So, really, I think you could just change the permissions check line to how you want it on your site and things will be just fine for your site.