[DragonByte Tech]

As I am the developer responsible for the modification in question, I want to clarify how the modification works.

As you can see by the screenshot, the way usergroup permissions works in vBSuperPMs is a simple tickbox system; ticked means "this usergroup cannot use links" and unticked means "this usergroup can use links".

Here is the exact code that reads the tickboxes:

PHP Code:

is_member_of($vbulletin->userinfo, explode(',', $vbulletin->options['dbtech_vbsuper_pm_no_email_message'])) 


My argument is therefore that this modification does work with Additional Usergroups, as it doesn't matter whether it's the user's primary or member groups that is among the usergroups ticked - they will still be blocked from using links in PMs.

The customer believes that checking whether a user is a member of ANY group that's banned from posting links is in violation of vBulletin's "yes overrides no" design standard. The customer believes that usergroups that are NOT ticked should override usergroups that ARE ticked.
What's actually happening is that usergroups that ARE ticked override usergroups that are NOT ticked. This is identical to how the "normal" vBulletin usergroup permissions would work if the vBulletin Option(s) in the first post's screenshots were Yes (i.e. disallowed from posting links) and No (i.e. allowed to post links) toggles in the default vBulletin Usergroups interface.

I maintain that permissions can go either way, e.g. a tick/yes can be used to describe both "allow" and "disallow" as per the needs of the modification in question.

As a result of my stance, the customer believes that I am not employing vBulletin's "Additional Usergroups" functionality correctly, which I disagree with.


Fillip