How to remove partitions from MK

Admins, specifically rustydrifter10, Anderlon, and whoever else holds an administrative role, I have a request. Bat once mentioned that only admins have the authority to remove partial bans from the male section. I haven't had access to that specific PDF for a year now. I have already served my sentence; after all, even inmates are entitled to rehabilitation. One could argue that committing an offense makes a person a threat to society, necessitating punishment. Conversely, one might view an offender as someone suffering from an illness, which would imply they aren't held responsible for their actions—even though every crime carries a prescribed penalty. To get straight to the point, Anderlon hasn't replied to my private messages regarding the removal of my partial ban. My debt has been paid. rustydrifter10, would you be willing to lift the restriction for me? I simply enjoy viewing beautiful women and fit men.

A partial ban isn't some temporary sentence you just serve out and move on from—it’s more like a permanent fixture. They rarely ever lift them, and even then, it only happens if the big-shot admins decide they feel like it. And we all know how many of those guys there are.

I would love for someone to explain the reasoning here. Seriously, what is the justification for banning her from the men's section? Why target Darla? She’s a great girl; we’ve had our fair share of back-and-forth, sure, but that shouldn't be an issue. How does it make any sense to bar a woman from accessing the men's lounge? What kind of logic is that, really?

Well, the moderators have already made it clear that such actions are strictly reserved for the Admin

That isn't a permanent fix, as the moderators informed me that the admins have the authority to revoke partial access whenever they see fit.

Technically, the Admins handle the actual removal of partials, but the final call on whether to pull them rests with the moderators—and honestly, that should always be a unanimous decision. Besides, there isn't some set deadline for when a partial needs to be "dealt with."

We aren't in total agreement here.

Hey.
One tenor, three baritones, and a bass. 👍

..I’m siding with Jean on this compromise 🕺
..For starters, let's just give Maria Cox64 partial access to MK—specifically to this thread—and tell her to stop acting like she’s above it all 👍
..It would be proportional to how she’s been behaving (all that downloading), so let the rest of the group download too ☕
..At the end of the day, it’s more humane to forgive her or at least give her one more shot 🙂

Permissions are set at the subforum level. It’s just not possible to be granted specific permissions while simultaneously having access to individual threads within that subforum.

Look, if we could actually get some movement on this through Congress, maybe we could finally polish up the rules here on the forum and make them actually work for us.🕺

neoncrane64 said:..and hey, if we could somehow lobby Congress to tweak the rules just a little bit so the forum runs smoother 🕺

Look, this forum has its own set of laws

Honestly, I’m actually vibing with what neoncrane64 suggested—it's about time someone dropped some actual common sense on this forum. 🙂

Arthur Sanders74 said:I’m actually on board with neoncrane64's suggestion—it’s refreshing to see some actual logic being applied here for once. 🙂

I agree. 👍
It feels like a fair approach.

We could even scrap the whole partial ban idea—just have her promise to stay off other boards until she's cleared.
Posting elsewhere usually leads to people asking for the ban to be lifted, or some other similar headache...

neoncrane64 said:...and hey, if we could just pass some legislation through Congress to tweak the forum rules a bit 🕺

Look, it’s not actually about changing the forum rules here—it’s a hard software limitation. Let me try to break this down in the simplest way possible. When you assign a specific section to a user, you're essentially unchecking a checkbox that normally grants them permission to read and post in that area. It’s just like how things work in Windows; if you want to enable a feature, you check the box in the settings menu. Check it, and it works. Uncheck it, and it doesn't. There isn't some secret way to remove that checkbox while still letting the user access the content; if that box isn't checked, that entire part of the forum basically ceases to exist for them.

Eric Newman75 said:It isn't about forum rules; it's a software limitation. To put it bluntly... (explained).

Are you certain that in your attempt at simplification, you haven't ignored some of the critical properties of this 'software limitation'?

For instance, my ESET antivirus prevents me from disabling it if I have checked the Self-Defense option. That box can only be unchecked in Microsoft
Safe Mode... ...and if someone doesn't know how to do that, they're stuck. They won't be unchecking anything.

I assume the forum @Admin isn't fully aware of such vital details. Furthermore, I am deeply convinced such protections exist—if only to maintain global peace, let alone our own local stability.

But consider this:

Should it happen that such a thing does not exist, then the solution to this 'problem' would be just a hair's breadth away from average human intelligence:

- colleague @Maria Cox64 could unlock the subforum (maybe set it to read-only if she prefers... though I doubt it);

- in the event that someone chirps on a thread they weren't cleared to post in...
...then it's a simple "Thanks and goodbye. No need to close the door behind you—we'll do it; and we'll do it literally forever!"

To repair any potential damage caused by her actions to that subforum in the meantime, it will obviously take years of sacrifice from the hardworking citizens of this forum...
Then again, offering another chance to a human being is such a phenomenon in these parts that witnessing it 'in the flesh' is something one shouldn't begrudge the cost of...

coppersailor28 said:Are you sure you aren't glossing over some of the crucial aspects of 'software limitations' just to make things sound simpler than they actually are?

Fair enough. But honestly, that’s just how all forum software works, whether it's high-end enterprise stuff or open source. You've got read permissions, write permissions, moderator rights, admin access—you name it. Everything is built so you can toggle any single action on or off, from just viewing a thread to customizing a signature or an avatar. Restricting what someone can do is really just a matter of two or three clicks.

Eric Newman75 said:... Restricting anyone is just two or three mouse clicks.

By that logic, removing restrictions should also take no more than two or three clicks.

Honestly, based on your "I'll explain this in extremely simplified terms" approach, I half expected that unchecking a box would require shutting down every highway within a hundred miles of the forum. 🤷

Whatever; at least now that recent thread complaining about how "painfully slow the forum is" makes perfect sense to me.

Let's tackle this tomorrow (meaning today, once I've actually slept) :-)

Damn.

..Alright, so if we're looking at this as a software issue, then honestly, the only real fix is some kind of probation, assuming anyone actually has the willpower to follow through 🤔

neoncrane64 said:..alright, so if we're looking at a software issue here—a technical glitch rather than anything malicious—then maybe some kind of community service or probation would suffice, provided the individual actually wants to make amends. 🤔

Well, yeah—that sounds like a solid way to handle it to me too.
Fingers crossed. 😁