Quote
Has absolutely 0 to do with the bots management of the server... The admin access for the bot was for some of the moderation functionality it has (Things like blocking people posting discord links in the discord).
Posts by wild1145
-
-
↩ Miasmus Given the bot is now hosted on the same physical server as TF's VPS's are, as would any panel, right now there are no resiliency benefits. But yes, there is the same risk if an individual had panel access that shouldn't (Which is a more likely risk due to the lack of ability to properly sync the panel to the forums)
-
Quote
↩ videogamesm12 no alternative was provided for a while.
I think in reality the bot was unavailable for around 2 days... Which causes minimal issues.
Quote↩ videogamesm12 It's time we put this issue to rest once and for all by implementing a panel.
The community has put me in a position where we don't have that time, and the panel cannot be a higher priority because it's been de-scoped from all current future work. There is no current desire / plan to get a panel installed.
-
A panel in reality opens us up to greater security issues than the bot. While the bot has not been perfect to date, nothing is. The bot automates the management of in game admins in a way we aren't able to achieve without writing our own panel.
As I've already said, a panel would require considerable amounts of effort from the development team and other individuals which we aren't able to spare due to the HUGE backlash we keep getting for a lack of new shiny in game functionality.
There is currently no scope to add a panel for these reasons. To add a panel would require us to de-prioritise all development work happening on the server, and would open us up to additional risk and security issues which I don't believe people have actually thought through.
We did look at options for adding a "Basic panel" as a custom plugin to the new forums which would have been the preference, that way we aren't managing admins identities in another place, but the new forums along with any new things have since been de-scoped due to the community backlash.
-
-
Quote
↩ Alco_Rs11 Ryan I don't think people are calling for a global toggle of the feature in which nobody can use it. We're calling for a feature that allows an individual player, similar to how tptoggle works to disable the effects of the clownfish on themselves, not disable the item so nobody can use it. The suggestion will allow anyone to purchase the item and use it as it is now, but some people can disable the effects of the item on themselves if they so please.
The issue is that individual toggle will just be something everyone will turn on, and the feature becomes useless. It also would still require us to refund the clownfish to everyone and have them re-buy it, because I suspect 99% of folks won't want an item that has no affect on people because like tptoggle, everyone turns off TP...
-
Bump again because I've not seen a good answer to my last question, and want to give folks half a chance here.
-
Historically (for reasons) the Guilds name was it's UUID in the database, that has since changed so this should be very possible to do.
FS-413 raised to add this.
-
Approved under FS-412
-
While most people are vouching for the feature, it puts me in a difficult position.
The entire point of these shop items is for people to spend their coins on, and by disabling the functionality of those items, the items effectively become worthless (like the tp toggle discussion).
If we enable the toggle, we would also likely need to refund anyone who bought the clownfish and remove it from their purchased items, letting them chose if they want to purchase an item which will effectively be useless within days or save their coins for other things.
I'll leave this open with that thought for a bit longer, and would appreciate peoples thoughts.
-
I've raised FS-411 to look at options to create this feature.
-
Given nothing has changed, and the consensus is mixed, and that we've cut other projects which would require less developer effort, and bring more unique players into the server or make the server experience in my view better and that would therefore be at a higher priority I am once again rejecting this request.
-
Approved under FS-410
-
Approved and added to the scope of FS-9 as per @"StevenNL2000"#2 's earlier reply.
-
-
Given nobody seems to object, approved under FS-409
-
Any further input?
-
Any further input?
-
Due to lack of input and no clear agreement, this is declined.
-
Given nobody jumped on my additional suggestion, and I've already raised the ticket to do what the original request was, closing.