I tried to answer that -- whoever has the first remaining (non-deleted) post. If that post is unapproved, then the topic is unapproved, too. (But what happens to users' post counts?)nickvergessen wrote:Yes, that does happen. Topic starter is always the first approved post. The question now is, who should be the topic starter, when the approved posts are gone?Pony99CA wrote:If you do it the other way, what happens when the unapproved post gets approved? Does that author suddenly become the topic starter? If not, then the topic starter would appear to be somebody other than the person who wrote the first post, which will confuse users.
If you don't want topics to go unapproved like that, you could make the rule that the topic starter is the author of the first approved, visible post. (Of course, if there is no first approved, visible post -- just unapproved and soft deleted posts -- you'll probably have to make it the author of the first post, period.)
Either way, you're going to have a problem if the soft deleted post at the beginning of a topic is restored, because that will change the topic starter, but I guess it's the analog of the topic starter changing if a post is deleted (or soft deleted).
The current 3.1 implementation? Because I don't know of a way to make that happen in 3.0 (short of changing the post approval status in the database, which does illustrate that behavior).nickvergessen wrote:Btw current implementation is no help there, as it has a bug. you will have an approved topic that does not contain any posts for normal users. (which should than not show up...)
Personally, I would separate this into two features -- "soft delete" for end users and and "unapproval" for moderators. Unapproving a post would requre the same permission as approving a post (so no new permissions would be needed). Soft delete for users would require the edit post permission (because they aren't hard deleting the post, just "changing" it) and the user would also be able to see, edit, restore and hard delete his own soft deleted posts (moderators would also be able to see, edit and hard delete them, plus unapprove or restore them).
This doesn't resolve the concerns over topic starter and post counts, but it does provide a nice separation of the moderator and user capabilities. As they're very similar, you can call them both "soft delete", but use different (not new) permissions for them and allow users to see, edit, restore and hard delete posts that they soft deleted themselves.