FriendsOfFlarum Byōbu, well integrated, advanced private discussions

Xenforo has a feature that allows PM starter to add participants to it. PM starter can even allow other participants to add participants to the PM.

If I confused you,

1. I am PM ing @luceos , I can add ( invite ) as many users as I wish to Private Discussion

2. @luceos can be granted the ability to add ( invite ) users to that PD, provided, I have allowed it during the first post.

3. Only mE AND @luceos will have the ability to add participants.

meetdilip that's a very good scenario and something we could implement in the future.

collins disappearing threads is certainly something that can cause tremendous confusion, not sure how to solve this though.

collins members should give access to members yes, not sure why it's not happening, it's most certainly a bug.

luceos That is a good point. I think private discussions should remain private, even to admins. If I'd enable seeing private discussions that would be very risky.

While I concur with the importance of privacy, there's a tricky issue of context with only showing flagged posts.
Spam can easily be understood in a single post but other more complex issues (like harassment) would not be well served.

luceos you can flag a private discussion the same way of a normal discussion with the side effect that only the flagged post is shown.

I would say that when you flag a discussion, you are asking for someone with higher privileges to examine and resolve the situation. To do that, that person must be able to understand the context of the whole discussion.

I'd say a flagged private discussion should be fully visible to admins. This shouldn't negatively affect the current setup for spam since you shouldn't respond to spam anyways..
After it's resolved (dismissing the flag or whatever), perhaps access could be removed again?

Kulga access is already lost as soon as the flag is cleared.

Maybe this should be an option at flag time (show whole discussion or single post)? Or a global option on the admin panel?

It might be useful to note that multiple posts can be flagged. You can of course not flag your own posts so part of the discussion will still be missing...

Hmm.. perhaps I didn't present the scope of the issue well enough.
This is a tricky issue, something that other systems (law enforcement for example) have developed long systems and uncountable rules involving chain-of-command, appealing before a higher authority, etc.

Private Messages by definition are intended to be between a selected group (a group in my post is >= 2 participates) and the relationship between those participates can define the construct of that sequence of messages.
That is, while there may be forum rules and a admin can suggest users adhere to that in a PM, there is no obligation to follow that if all members of that group are ok with a alternate set of rules and it is impossible for a admin to view them by default.

When you look at a flagged single (or multiple flagged posts in a PM), you are only looking at a sample of a interaction from one perspective.
One should not expect a admin (someone who is expected to take action on the flagged posts) to resolve the situation when they are naive to events surrounding the flagged post(s).

To illustrate, let's build a example relationship involving You (the reader), I and a admin.
In our hypothetical situation, you and I are communicating about a project. It is in our norm to use explicit language and issue threats to each other of a trivial nature.
This can be any normally inappropriate construct of communication, perhaps involving racism, sexism, whatever-ism. To be clear, while it is easy and probably correct to vindicate such interaction as inappropriate, the important part is - Since you and I are ok with this setup privately, this is in fact a appropriate communication between the participating parties.
During this communication, I become frustrated at some action you did and wish to exact a form of punishment. So I flag some posts of yours where it makes you look like the bad guy.

In this scenario, what should the admin see? Only flagged posts by the accused?
In my opinion, a naive admin would take action on these posts out-of-context. A well versed one (in my opinion again) would do nothing, since they do not have enough information to make a judgment call.

I should note @luceos, this is a good extension. I'm primarily only concerned with flagged posts and if I add it, only I will be able to resolve flagged posts on my forums since I would (as @jordanjay29 already mentioned as a method) have to manually access the database just to make what I consider reasonable decisions.

Kulga very well laid out, thanks for taking the time to spell it out ?

I prefer to design the extensions so that they are flexible enough to allow use by the mass, without limiting it in any way for the few. Your scenario could have come from someones experience and we would need a solution for that. At this point I'm not sure there's an easy fix, except allowing the setting to show the whole thread when flagged or the post alone. Do you see any other solution that might strengthen the value of this extension?

luceos except allowing the setting to show the whole thread when flagged or the post alone.

This is a fine solution, but rather then allowing the user to define it, it should be a global admin setting.
If the admin of a forum wants very limited access to PM's (and there is reason for that) - then setting it to expose only the flagged post is fine.

My issue is having this be user defined, since I see a conflict on interest (something I should of been more clear before).

luceos In addition we could add event posts when flags were read and handled to make the breach in privacy transparent.

There are times when this is dangerous, like when reporting harassment or a user who mishandles confrontation. A misunderstood flagging can also ruin relationships that might otherwise have been fine if the flag was handled silently (e.g. no action taken for a minor suspected rules breach, but had the "offending party" been aware they would have ended the conversation).

jordanjay29 A misunderstood flagging can also ruin relationships that might otherwise have been fine if the flag was handled silently

This isn't a easy thing to resolve. Do we try to protect the relationship between participations if action isn't needed, or do we be clear of what is happening every step of the way?

I would have to argue... for having event posts as result of flags during private threads.
It could endanger the trust of "privacy" when a 3rd party suddenly is involved. Even if no action is taken - you could see it as a reverse canary. If you do not see a event that states someone else has viewed it, then it is still private.
To mitigate trivial reporting, there should probably be a very clear notice that by reporting, a 3rd party moderator will be evaluating the thread in regards to the forum rules and of course, I'm sure in a private thread of >2 participants, it could merely say "A user has reported this thread and will be evaluated soon" without disclosing who.

meetdilip "private discussions" is a colloquial term in the forum world, it's well understood what it means, and in part the caveats that go with it.

I got that. I just suggested a method to get rid of claims that PM is private, personal and secret due to the word " Private " exists in it. Somebody can claim that due to before said reasons, staff has no right to peek in, no matter whatever rule it violated. The finger could get pointed towards the developer as well. Someone could even file a privacy breach suite for allowing to access something that is " private ".

meetdilip It's as private as private messages are on Facebook. You should expect Facebook knows what you are talking about in private on their site, there is no expectation of privacy from the site itself, only from your peers on the site.

I was just presenting a view point. Many main stream paid forum software is already using words that does not include " Private "

Eh... a rose is a rose is a rose. Call it what you want, but ultimately the person(s) who is running the server has access to everything, can do whatever they want and gets to make the rules as they see fit.
In regards to privacy on a normal client-server website, that is the ceiling of being "private".
(Exception of end-to-end encryption ?)

Now, many sites have a privacy statement of what they do with your information, rules they adhere to when accessing private content. Eg github. However, it's definitely not required of any website. So.. much of the "it could happen" is unlikely to resolve in the complaints favor meetdilip unless that site has explicity said they won't do xyz.
In regards to this extension, I'd argue it deserves a title of "private" if threads are not accessible unless flagged by a participating member.

BUT! I don't even know what Byobu means, all I know is it allows me to PM others. That's literally all that matters (see the first sentence ?)

Great extension!

Is anyone having any issues with permissions in beta 15? Only Admins are allowed to edit user participants once a private discussion is started... regardless of how I setup the permissions.