# No user PM access
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079
**Category:** Support
**Tags:** personal-messages
**Created:** [July 12, 2024, 12:44pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079 "2024-07-12T12:44:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@anon48433008](https://meta.discourse.org/u/anon48433008)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 12:44pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/1 "2024-07-12T12:44:03Z")
**Priority/Severity** :
I consider this high
**Platform** :
Windows Desktop
**Description** :
Two new test accounts have no way to get to or create PM’s
My admin account email navigation drop down
and summary page
Test account
second test account
Site has encrypted messages enabled, one test account the test user did not at first enable, subsequently disabled and re-enabled
Second test account a paper key was set first thing
Seems chat is missing as well.
The email message does arrive, but if the user did not create/save a paper key they can not read it or start a new PM on their own, they can reply to that message though
---
### Author:  [@Lhc\_fl](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Lhc_fl)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 1:10pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/2 "2024-07-12T13:10:25Z")
Hi @anon48433008
Did you check `personal message enabled groups` in your site settings?
By default, new users (trust\_level\_0) are not allowed to send private messages.
---
### Author:  [@Moin](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Moin)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 1:30pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/3 "2024-07-12T13:30:18Z")
I can confirm everything works as expected as soon as the user is tl1.
---
### Author:  [@Jagster](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Jagster)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 2:04pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/4 "2024-07-12T14:04:26Z")
I struggled with PM rights TL0 vs. TL1 when a staged user (because of email support) created account and couldn’t read PMs. I solved this bypassing TL0 and starting with TL1 right away — I don’t have spam issues or controversial topics so I could do it.
So AFAIK that isn’t a bug, but by design. And yet situation of OP can be such one somehow.
---
### Author:  [@anon48433008](https://meta.discourse.org/u/anon48433008)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 4:18pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/5 "2024-07-12T16:18:12Z")
> [@Lhc\_fl](#):
>
> Did you check
I did not and sure feel better knowing it was my own ignorance vs an issue so thank you all for helping solve this for me
> [@Moin](#):
>
> I can confirm
I appreciate you taking the time to do that 🤗
> [@Jagster](#):
>
> PM rights TL0 vs. TL1
I will need to think this over a bit, not sure how this is a good thing.
---
### Author:  [@Jagster](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Jagster)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 4:23pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/6 "2024-07-12T16:23:57Z")
> [@anon48433008](#):
>
> how this is a good thing
Well, it isn’t if 24 hour long time of limited rights is really needed. As I said I don’t have or had any issues because of that. Your situation may be different. But I don’t let users be better that TL2 either, because I don’t see any points for those quite minimalistic rights that TL3 gives, and my users never used those, and TL4 is practically same as a moderator.
But starting directly from TL1 would cure your headache, right?
---
### Author:  [@anon48433008](https://meta.discourse.org/u/anon48433008)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 4:35pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/7 "2024-07-12T16:35:19Z")
I added TL0 the right to PM for now, that’s what you meant correct?
With encrypted PM’s enabled I wouldn’t know if anyone is abusing unless reported anyhow, honestly I could see some people needing to perhaps warm-up with pm’s to other members before posting publicly.
---
### Author:  [@Moin](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Moin)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 4:38pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/8 "2024-07-12T16:38:59Z")
> [@anon48433008](#):
>
> I added TL0 the right to PM for now, that’s what you meant correct?
I think Jagster talked about adjusting the `default trust level` setting. But I think it is sufficient to adjust the specific setting.
---
### Author:  [@Jagster](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Jagster)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 5:04pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/9 "2024-07-12T17:04:44Z")
> [@anon48433008](#):
>
> TL0 the right to PM for now
But it isn’t working first 24 hours, or am I wrong?
---
### Author:  [@Moin](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Moin)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 5:09pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/10 "2024-07-12T17:09:13Z")
Why not?
The only settings I can think of that affect the user within the first 24 hours after posting are `max topics in first day` and `max replies in first day`, and those are bypassed at trust level 2, so tl1 would not change anything.
---
### Author:  [@Jagster](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Jagster)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 6:50pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/11 "2024-07-12T18:50:18Z")
Yeah, that’s true. I might remember totally wrong `first day` limitations.
---
### Author:  [@Architect](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Architect)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2024, 10:57pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/12 "2024-07-12T22:57:03Z")
The first trust tier doesn’t require new members make public posts, is just:
Get to trust level 1 by…
- Entering at least **5** topics
- Reading at least **30** posts
- Spend a total of **10** minutes reading posts
---
### Author:  [@Heliosurge](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Heliosurge)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 12:46am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/13 "2024-07-13T00:46:24Z")
If you’re self hosted this plugin is handy
> [@Allow-pm-to-staff](https://meta.discourse.org/t/allow-pm-to-staff/260946):
>
> information_sourceSummary Allow all users to PM Staffhammer_and_wrenchRepository Link [https://github.com/pfaffman/discourse-allow-pm-to-staff](https://github.com/pfaffman/discourse-allow-pm-to-staff)open_bookInstall Guide [How to install plugins in Discourse](https://meta.discourse.org/t/install-plugins-in-discourse/19157)Features Allow users to send a PM to staff even if they would not otherwise be able to send a PM. Configuration allow\_pm\_to\_staff\_enabled–Enables the plugin (default true) allow\_pm\_allowed\_pm\_groups–Set groups who can receive PMs from all users (default “staff”). S…
---
### Author:  [@anon48433008](https://meta.discourse.org/u/anon48433008)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 11:03am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/14 "2024-07-13T11:03:27Z")
Nice thank you, seems like it should be a standard feature, what if a new user is intending to report a vulnerability or data breach of some sort which would not otherwise be advisable to post publicly.
This should be added to the vote for new feature for that reason alone IMO
---
### Author:  [@Jagster](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Jagster)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 11:19am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/15 "2024-07-13T11:19:57Z")
Why? We have a plugin to allow PM to staff at every time. We have tools to build a category for that. So this feature is already there, but not out-of-the-box.
---
### Author:  [@Moin](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Moin)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 11:26am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/16 "2024-07-13T11:26:18Z")
I think for that case you could always use the contact information provided at /about. That works even for visitors without an account.
Or you can adjust the settings as you did. It’s also possible to send a welcome message from an account different than system or add a group to those automated messages, so new users can reply to the message without being able to create new messages.
---
### Author:  [@JammyDodger](https://meta.discourse.org/u/JammyDodger)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 11:35am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/17 "2024-07-13T11:35:47Z")
If you set the admin/mod/any group’s ’who can message this group?’ setting to ‘everyone’ then this lets anyone send that group a message, even those who are not in the PM allowed groups. That’s standard behaviour and needs no extra plugin. 👍
---
### Author:  [@anon48433008](https://meta.discourse.org/u/anon48433008)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 12:50pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/18 "2024-07-13T12:50:59Z")
Yes ok so I’m more confused
And working just off that for a minute let me recap
I’m not a Discourse noob yet when I set up two test accounts was flustered with the inability to send a PM
Now many of the users I’m used to are older, many are used to old forums and get overwhelmed and even turned off with Discourse, something like not being able to send a PM without a big red notice as to why is likely to set a poor tone, first impressions and all.
I was helped with this instance, all good, but then see this plug-in to allow all users to PM staff, cool, all users should be able to PM staff from the moment they sign up, or as I wrote they may get frustrated and set sail.
> [@Moin](#):
>
> contact information provided at /about
Why the extra step though? They set up an account why not be able to reach staff in the UI?
Back to the fact the TL0 seems to fix the issue, then I agree
> [@JammyDodger](#):
>
> needs no extra plugin
Yet its not
> [@JammyDodger](#):
>
> standard behaviour
As a new user with standard settings can not PM staff,
So…
IMO, change the initial core settings so that new users can in fact PM staff and remove the risk they simply leave out of frustration.
Its human nature IMO we don’t read the instructions, we sign up on a forum and expect it to work either intuitively, IMO asking staff for help is, or we expect it to run like other software.
People will grasp the trust level thing, but not if the reason is not clearly stated, in my discovery there was no button to PM, if there was a button and pop up that said you don’t have permission that would at least give the user some hope, but again, PM’ing staff, no brainer, should be standard.
---
### Author:  [@Architect](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Architect)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 2:52pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/19 "2024-07-13T14:52:32Z")
> [@anon48433008](#):
>
> PM’ing staff, no brainer, should be standard.
I would agree that could be an improvement if implemented to be default settings, the trust tier filters can be too much such that people are turned away from communicating through an unfamiliar system.
A lot of sites have a contact form where people can write in a note without needing to create an account, that seems like potentially the best way to improve ease of people being able to contact site staff. When setting up a site there is the “contact us” link which can either be an e-mail address or page address of a contact form.
Slightly more aggressive method is some sites have an automatic chat bubble that opens with bot saying “welcome, how can we help you?” Those can also be annoying but then much easier for new people to communicate through that without even needing to fill out a form or agree to terms and conditions to create an account.
---
### Author:  [@Heliosurge](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Heliosurge)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2024, 5:04pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079/20 "2024-07-13T17:04:54Z")
Agreed this should be in core. Users should always be able to pm staff. Even Reddit allows all to Modmail.
[Next page](https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-user-pm-access/316079.md?page=2)