Settings and activity
19 results found
-
2,693 votes
Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
35 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
214 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
477 votes
We would like to offer an “off-duty mode” for Mods, but it isn’t one of our top priorities at the moment. Will revisit in 2021.
Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
844 votes
We would definitely like to give Mods a way to communicate with each other more easily, and are starting to explore implementation options.
Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
82 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
487 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
470 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ligerzero_Gaming
commented
100% for this, especially a comment period. So many changes have been rolled out with little to know input from the community at large that have detrimentally affected everyone. So many have been rolled out under the table that we've only found out because random creators have gone to do something they've always been able to and it's suddenly gone.
That's not okay.
We need lead time on changes. ESPECIALLY if it affects workflows or usage of the site, like the auto-hosting change did.
Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
525 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
2,063 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ligerzero_Gaming
commented
I'd be fine with 10 tags, but I believe the system probably needs to be increased to around 15 to allow folks to include their identity tags as well as things like "first playthrough" and "no backseating" still. It doesn't feel good to have to pick and choose
Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
75 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
498 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
211 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
912 votes
We apply IP bans in Chat based on users' Moderation actions in certain cases. We don't currently plan to publicize the logic we use because we think it would make it easier for bad actors to bypass the restriction.
Ligerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
665 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
3,258 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
-
4,044 votesLigerzero_Gaming
supported this idea
·
Currently, we're only allowed to have 30 possible Shared Ban Info connections. This is great, but upping the number wouldn't solve a critical problem: large communities being targeted.
Rather than simply upping the number of possible connections, it would be great if a user could make their Shared Ban Info "public", allowing other users to subscribe to it. It would be a one-way connection, counting against the subscriber's total connections but not against the sharer
This would allow a community leader to effectively maintain a "master list" that could be easily shared with numerous people and should already work within the basic framework of what's been built.