Trust Level 4 should be allowed to access moderation tab

There should be a setting to allow Trust Level 4 (Leader) to view moderation tab as we are planning to use them on our community forum


Our Trial Moderators need to transition into leadership and the best way to do that is by letting them use a more simple dashboard/Trial Mod experience

Here is a quote from our forum

Trial Moderators should be TL4 (Leader) not Moderator as Trial Mods don’t have as much experience and can learn about discourse with a more simple interface. Moderators have a Admin interface and it may be confusing to new moderators

Then one of the admins said this:

The only thing is TL4 cant access /review

This would be really helpful and if you know how to do this, please let me know



Yeah, I agree (bc i’m the one in the quote lol), but it should probably be a setting. I can see it working perfect for sites with trial moderator programs (like mine), but others dont want this, so maybe a site setting tl4 can access review?


Yeah, this feature would help us lots!

Maybe TL4 Review Posts

1 Like

Have you considered using the category moderator role? They have access to a few extra things than TL4, but not everything a full moderator has.

There’s a grid breakdown of the differences in Trust Level Permissions Table (inc Moderator Roles)


Yeah, does that have review though?

It does indeed. :+1:

1 Like

I’m not too sure category mod would fit us, we may take a delve into it though

I like the idea.

I do like @JammyDodger idea with using cat mods but it would flood the about page. I know it can easily be hidden with CSS but lets say you want to have normal cat mods that are not trial mods you still want them to show up.


I 100% agree, though cat mods are helpful, we would like leaders to access it

It looks like the reception of this is pretty positive.

I may try and make this a PR, but I dont like messing around with Ruby bc I dont know it lol, that’s why the only 3 PRs I have made are mainly UX changes :slight_smile:

1 Like

If this is implemented I think that they can only review posts that other members have flagged. This is to prevent TL4 from being able to delete posts they flagged in case they have a beef with somebody.

@Pixlz I think the topic needs the #pr-welcome tag for a community member to make a PR for the change. Correct me if Im wrong.


You can make a pr about anything you want, it’s just tthe #pr-welcome tag means that staff says that it’s something they would like to egt to, but people can make it because it’s not that high priority.

If a topic on this was never made, somebody could have probably made a PR on it and nobody would have questioned it and it could have been merged

Emphasis on probably

1 Like

You want to create a new plugin to address your specific needs, as PRs can be rejected if the feature isn’t something considered generally useful.


If this is were to be made or @Pixlz makes a plugin for it I would prefer that instead of TLs it is on a per-group basis. Like the recent update to whispers.


Dont know about mking a plugin for a bit. I want to but have no idea how to do anything in Ruby and I cant make a plugin in only JS the last time I checked, and I also dont know the Discourse API yet


I would challenge the above, but only in the sense that everything which makes it’s way into core is a conscious decision. The team has a direction for the product and are actively working every day to deliver on that. #pr-welcome means that while a change may be desirable, it’s not something they can currently direct effort toward internally. In that sense anything else is already either slotted into the schedule, or not suitable for core.


That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t suggest new features and capabilities, but always be prepared to be told that something you believe to be desirable doesn’t align with the goals for the default version of Discourse as seen in the standard install.

This is true for most open source software. Even the best written PR can be rejected for a multitude of reasons.


Yeah, I should have worded it better. I mean you can open a PR, but you might get told no because it’s not that @/team is looking for to end up in the final version.