How do I go about creating a user group?

[Nemesis]

What the title says.

[kuranes]

Technically only an administrator can do this, but you can form the constituency of a hypothetical group and ask about getting this status. We are discussing mini-forums now.

[distraction tactics]

Technically only an administrator can do this, but you can form the constituency of a hypothetical group and ask about getting this status. We are discussing mini-forums now.

Would purpose would these serve aside from what already exists?

[mgb]

Nemesis, when we've hashed something out, we'll take it public. Don't prematurely ejaculate these ideas onto the forum.

[Dr. Haight]

This thread was moved here from the main forum.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis, when we've hashed something out, we'll take it public. Don't prematurely ejaculate these ideas onto the forum.
I thought it was something I'd be able to do by myself, and that I was just missing the link to how to do so, which raises the question. If user groups have to be created by the administration as well, then what the hell is the point of private subforums? Voluntary waste of bandwith?

[file cabinet]

the process of creating private subforums and managing their permissions would require code to be written to automate it.

[melancholeric]

I thought it was something I'd be able to do by myself, and that I was just missing the link to how to do so, which raises the question. If user groups have to be created by the administration as well, then what the hell is the point of private subforums? Voluntary waste of bandwith?
What do you mean?

What we were discussing was that you could have a subforum for yourself and your buddies. The admins would probbably have to create it though, but you could decide who can see it. And possibly moderate it too.

Is there not a point to that?

And maybe, at some point in the distant future, we might be able to create the groups ourselves, without bothering the admins at all: that depends on the coding aspects that I'm not overly familiar with.

[mgb]

I thought it was something I'd be able to do by myself, and that I was just missing the link to how to do so, which raises the question. If user groups have to be created by the administration as well, then what the hell is the point of private subforums? Voluntary waste of bandwith?

No, admins have to create the user group and would also have to create a forum for each group that wants one. We kind of talked about that on the other thread, which is why it was more than surprising to see you taking an idea that is still very much up in the air over to the main forum and making what seemed like demands that really couldn't be met, especially given your private messaging options.

The point of the private subforum would be to get away from the forum-at-large a bit and have a private group. It happens quite a bit already through a variety of ways.

Think of it this way, you know that NF forum you started? Imagine if you could have it on here so you could all be free to be NFs without making the whole forum for NFs or losing what INTPCentral is.

It would be a lot easier for you to attract new members to your group since it's on the site and it would be moderated by you mainly and the admins and mods (kind of by default). I know that seems like too much moderation, but I don't think anyone would get involved unless things got messy.

I wouldn't really call it a waste of bandwith from that perspective.

[Claverhouse]

Can't imagine bothering to interfere in a private forum unless the virtual owner requested some intervention.

Apart from the usual caveats of course. On another forum one profoundly honoured member decided to share his definitive list of highly recommended porn sites.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nemesis]

No, admins have to create the user group and would also have to create a forum for each group that wants one. We kind of talked about that on the other thread, which is why it was more than surprising to see you taking an idea that is still very much up in the air over to the main forum and making what seemed like demands that really couldn't be met, especially given your private messaging options.
That wasn't my intention so stop saying that it was!

I was trying to quickly create a user group to see how they actually work. I'm surprised we haven't done that yet.

The point of the private subforum would be to get away from the forum-at-large a bit and have a private group. It happens quite a bit already through a variety of ways.

Think of it this way, you know that NF forum you started? Imagine if you could have it on here so you could all be free to be NFs without making the whole forum for NFs or losing what INTPCentral is.
That'd be cool, so long as I could call it the NAANF.

It would be a lot easier for you to attract new members to your group since it's on the site and it would be moderated by you mainly and the admins and mods (kind of by default). I know that seems like too much moderation, but I don't think anyone would get involved unless things got messy.

I wouldn't really call it a waste of bandwith from that perspective.
Neither would I, from that perspective, but I thought (according to the other thread) Div said that these private subforums are essentially just like usergroups.

Did I mention private subforums anywhere in the post, when it was still in the main forum? No.

[mgb]

Neither would I, from that perspective, but I thought (according to the other thread) Div said that these private subforums are essentially just like usergroups.


It's a combination of both I believe. First you create a usergroup, then give them a forum to use that only they can see.

[Claverhouse]

I was trying to quickly create a user group to see how they actually work. I'm surprised we haven't done that yet.

You are actually within a user-group here. Le Comite de salut public is the user-group, the sub-forum wherein they post is coincidentally called the same. Which is unusual.


It's a combination of both I believe. First you create a usergroup, then give them a forum to use that only they can see.

Exactly: then you check their permissions. Several times.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nemesis]

It's a combination of both I believe. First you create a usergroup, then give them a forum to use that only they can see.
Interesting.

Well there's no time like the present. Let's test this sucker out!

Let's create an NF user group and a little forum. I'd invite Eileen and Carebear, because I know they can be trusted while this is still in the testing phase.

[Nemesis]

You are actually within a user-group here. Le Comite de salut public is the user-group, the sub-forum wherein they post is coincidentally called the same. Which is unusual.
Then why is it not listed under Group Membership in my user profile?

[kuranes]

I was trying to quickly create a user group to see how they actually work. I'm surprised we haven't done that yet.

.[/EDIT]

We're not going to form a user group just to see if it can be done. We already know it can be done. We may form a new one based on a need for one. So . . .people can think about what kinds of mini-forums that they think would be viable. Not just whether they would like to have one as a status symbol, or indulge a passing whim. Would more than one or two other members come there regularly, after the novelty wore off ? If not, then we probably shouldn't create a mini-forum for it, since there's a hassle involved setting it up.

What kinds of powers would a mini-forum leader have ? What are the technical limitations involved with that ? These are additional questions.

[mgb]

We're not going to form a user group just to see if it can be done. We already know it can be done. We may form a new one based on a need for one. So . . .people can think about what kinds of mini-forums that they think would be viable. Not just whether they would like to have one as a status symbol, or indulge a passing whim. Would more than one or two other members come there regularly, after the novelty wore off ? If not, then we probably shouldn't create a mini-forum for it, since there's a hassle involved setting it up.

What kinds of powers would a mini-forum leader have ? What are the technical limitations involved with that ? These are additional questions.

I think a member should have to organize the group before it starts. Have like 5-10 people willing to join and be active.

It doesn't have to be a special interest group per se, people could easily just make one up if they wanted.

We could have a 30-day trial period for each one or something. With X number of posts per user with a total of Y, or something like that. So, if you have 10 members and 2 people do all the posting, it's not really working...

As for powers...I wonder if they couldn't have mod powers like ApeTheDog did with the RPG? Just the power to delete posts and threads, maybe move things around. If they do it too much, they'll lose all their members pretty rapidly.

I guess it could have some potential. I suppose if one or two of them grew to be larger enough they could end up having an expanded forum section rather than just being a subforum of another section. We'd probably have to decide that ahead of time.

[kuranes]

I think a member should have to organize the group before it starts. Have like 5-10 people willing to join and be active.

It doesn't have to be a special interest group per se, people could easily just make one up if they wanted.

We could have a 30-day trial period for each one or something. With X number of posts per user with a total of Y, or something like that. So, if you have 10 members and 2 people do all the posting, it's not really working...

As for powers...I wonder if they couldn't have mod powers like ApeTheDog did with the RPG? Just the power to delete posts and threads, maybe move things around. If they do it too much, they'll lose all their members pretty rapidly.

I guess it could have some potential. I suppose if one or two of them grew to be larger enough they could end up having an expanded forum section rather than just being a subforum of another section. We'd probably have to decide that ahead of time.

Agreed.

This seems to be a good approach. Remember, Nemesis, that we are still discussing this as a hypotheticality, and other people have to sign off on it.

[Claverhouse]

Then why is it not listed under Group Membership in my user profile?

Cos it's an internal group formed to allow some people access to certain`places, or to keep them there.

There's nothing under Group Membership because we don't have any Public Groups, which are something entirely separate.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

We're not going to form a user group just to see if it can be done. We already know it can be done.

:rofl:


Claverhouse :ph34r: