Posts by wild1145

@videogamesm12#6301 The issue is it'd almost certainly break core protect more... As what's going to happen is we're going to undo the world edit actions, which CoreProtect has to log, then try to roll back their actions potentially before CoreProtect has had those changes logged to it...

That's weird... It's not doing it for me but wonder if that's something weird with being an admin. Are any other non-forum admins seeing the same behaviour?

As part of the work to make sure the forums are kept up to date as Flarum release new versions, we will be updating the Flarum software which the forums run on.

This is somewhat more complex than a normal forum upgrade due to the way extensions work, so we are planning for a slightly extended window which will be from 15:00 to 22:00 GMT (UK Time).

Further updates will be posted on here - https://status.atlas-media.co.uk/maintenances/rEsqHacRDYeF

Based on what's discussed here, I'm declining this suggestion.

So this is something I'm already considering, and potentially not removing admin recommendations but ultimately changing their purpose.

I agree having it as a bar to entry is frankly stupid and in reality just de values a recommendation but more work needs to be done to move to a more effective system overall.

@Reperak#6207 it does, but that doesn't mean we would want to do it...

@Ashaz#6203 the current stability issues seem to be more plug in related anyway so I'm not entirely sure if this will make much of a difference, obviously better performance is great but equally it likely won't solve our issues.

@Reperak#6202 but it is a valid point. If we change the server software we would want to change it across the network including the hub where it could actually be a fairly large issue.

So it's historically been clear my definitions don't always line up with the communities. Personally I'm keen to see what others think and go on from there. I've historically always seen tf as free op and nothing more which is why I've historically argued against not wiping worlds and such but would like to see what the community think and also what actually attracted folks to the server.

@redeastwood#6047 no recollection of banning them... Would have to check the punishment logs...

Don't think we ever said it had been fixed... Think a ticket was raised and that's about it.

@UnderTails#5935 every time you bump it means it gets looked at less... I tend to go from the bottom up on suggestions and look at one's which haven't been posted on for over a week...

@zeseryu#5766 imo there are almost two suggestions here.

1 is to have an on demand events server that can be used for official events hosted on the network.

2 is to expand the game modes we offer to allow players to go off and play mini games with friends if they should so choose.

I personally think both ideas have merit and might be worth someone writing up a suggestion for the second point given this thread seems to focus around the first idea?

@square#5765 I think the other hope is by having these events and more things for people to do we may attract more players to the network as a whole, who may then decide they want to try out the smp or free op server while they're online. That's certainly been some of my thinking up to now, the more choice people have the more likely we are to appeal I guess.

@zeseryu#5770 so my intent has been to add bespoke game modes we develop that are ultimately original ideas rather than to just re use game modes like survival games and spleef, though I've considered offering those as well as easier things to potentially add.

We have a new bespoke game mode in the early planning stages but won't likely be ready for some time yet just down to it being a fairly large project to do.

@neo#5777 We wouldn't look to link the chat between the freedom server and a server like the mini games server. At the moment the hubs are the only servers we're bridging the chat on.

It's not just because I don't like the idea of doing it but also because it would fundamentally change how we manage chat on the free op server to make it work.

I must say I was confused myself that this was blocked because its super useful just to clean up where people make stupid messes...

Unless someone can give me a reason that this shouldn't be unblocked (subject to proving its picked up and looked after by awe and coreprotect) I can't see a disadvantage here?

@DragonSlayer2189#5737 Even if it did what information does that give that could be used? It'll give a 6 digit TOTP Code which has a 30 second life span... I don't think it would be logged anyway but would need to check, but it's all down to what risk we're trying to mitigate here... I'm struggling to see the risk in an admin occasionally seeing a 6 digit TOTP code in the logs?

So for clarity, if I were to implement this sort of thing, it would be optional especially for players, and would be opt-in. It's possible we might want to make it a requirement for admins for good practice, but my suggestion here was more around an opt-in system.

These plugins also prevent such items from being picked up by command spy, and NetworkManagers command spy which we should end up moving people to have a list of excluded commands which we would make sure things like /login and /register are part of, but even if it did get picked up from cmdspy, a TOTP token value isn't something that is a major concern anyway on it's own, because anyone seeing it would see /login 123456 and those codes are generally valid for no more than 30 seconds anyway, It's a concern if you collated enough and back-engineered the TOTP Seed, but in reality that tends to be fairly rare and need a lot of skill and compute.

@Ashaz#5710 You should really suggest each plugin on a separate thread, then the individual plugin can be discussed. Once the discussion has ended I tend to then make a decision to approve / reject them. It shouldn't be hard to make a thread and go "I want to add plugin X because reasons 1, 2 and 3" and for the rest of the community to have an informed and sensible discussion about it.