Mahara

  1. Bug #1024872
  2. Comment #9

Comment 9 for bug 1024872

Revision history for this message
Kristina Hoeppner (kris-hoeppner) wrote : Re: Objectionable content button for forums and groups

For the record: Ruslan's comments that he made on the wrong bug.

OK, will copy commit message here for the record, as it basically explain everything about the feature:

The feature allows to report objectionable content in the forum posts and topics. When post is reported, the notification is sent to site admins, group admins and forum moderators. Any of above can take action and either mark the post as not objectionable or delete it. In both cases the notification about action will be sent to users who were originally notified about objectionable content, so that they will be aware on other person action and outcomes. Site admin normally can't access the content of the forum he/she is not a member of, however in the case of objectionable content, site admin will be able to have temporary rights similar to group admins, making possible to delete or edit any post in the given forum. Once the issues is resolved (forum no longer contains objectionable content), admin will not longer be able to access forum in the group he/she is not a member.

Ready for revision:
https://reviews.mahara.org/3022
https://reviews.mahara.org/3023

Ruslan Kabalin (rkabalin) wrote on 2014-02-20:

Good question which I asked myself why I have not introduced the new system group role, such as "inspector", that would not be possible to assign people via membership page, but will be assigned to admins if there is an objection content. I started working that way initially, but then realised that though roles are in the table, there are many-many occurrences in the code when they are literally compared to its string values rather than some capabilities that are supposed to be defined in the grouptype_roles table, so between adding more mess or less, I have chosen adding less )) and added all forum access validation for site admins to user_can_access_forum. Ideally the "system" grouptype is needed with system roles that will be inherited by other grouptypes (standard and course), and all permissions validation needs to be done against capabilities defined at grouptype level. But that is different story that require a separate issue and substantial amount of work.