# Manually blocked users should not be allowed TL3

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/manually-blocked-users-should-not-be-allowed-tl3/47797
**Category:** Feature
**Tags:** trust-levels
**Created:** [July 26, 2016, 4:34am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/manually-blocked-users-should-not-be-allowed-tl3/47797 "2016-07-26T04:34:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jomaxro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/jomaxro/32/126216_2.png) [@jomaxro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/jomaxro)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 4:34am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/manually-blocked-users-should-not-be-allowed-tl3/47797/1 "2016-07-26T04:34:19Z")

</div>

According to [What do user trust levels do?](https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-do-user-trust-levels-do/4924/6), users who have been suspended within the set time period cannot be TL3 (and will lose TL3 if suspended). However, blocking is not mentioned in the #faq, nor in the code (see below). I would like to propose that blocks by staff should have the same effect. If a staff member needed to prevent public posting by a user, they are not TL3 material at that time.

> <https://github.com/discourse/discourse/blob/a4cd0684813ea36a3c0198ac1b89212abe8d796e/app/models/trust_level3_requirements.rb#L29>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Mittineague](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/mittineague/32/114259_2.png) [@Mittineague](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Mittineague)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/manually-blocked-users-should-not-be-allowed-tl3/47797/2 "2016-07-26T04:55:33Z")

</div>

AFAIK members are manually Blocked by Moderators at that members Admin-User page.

On the same page is an option to Lock the Trust Level.

The line immediately before the highlighted one is  
`return false if trust_level_locked`

That is, if the Trust Level is Locked, that member does not meet Trust Level 3 requirements.

What are you proposing that is different?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jomaxro](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/jomaxro/32/126216_2.png) [@jomaxro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/jomaxro)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/manually-blocked-users-should-not-be-allowed-tl3/47797/3 "2016-07-26T04:58:59Z")

</div>

> [@Mittineague](#):
>
> What are you proposing that is different?

Unless I am missing something, suspending a user (or blocking them) does **not** automatically block their trust level. Further, if a user was suspended (or blocked), within the last 100 days, they are/should be prevented from reaching TL3, without staff needing to manually lock their trust level.

Is this not what currently happens for suspensions?