dustyhansen

It looks like Vanish was updated again today to 1.8.9, which version did you use?

Did you not see my messages under the code?

Vanish has been updated on umod to address a number of issues. Can you please update your version linked here?

So my first poll ended and the bot didn't do anything. The poll is still open and there was no post indicating a winner. I checked the console for the bot and saw the following: 11-07 01:30:28 DiscordAPIError[50013]: Missing Permissions 11-07 01:30:28 at handleErrors (/home/container/node_modules/@discordjs/rest/dist/index.js:727:13) 11-07 01:30:28 at process.processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:95:5) 11-07 01:30:28 at async SequentialHandler.runRequest (/home/container/node_modules/@discordjs/rest/dist/index.js:1128:23) 11-07 01:30:28 at async SequentialHandler.queueRequest (/home/container/node_modules/@discordjs/rest/dist/index.js:959:14) 11-07 01:30:28 at async _REST.request (/home/container/node_modules/@discordjs/rest/dist/index.js:1272:22) 11-07 01:30:28 at async ReactionManager.removeAll (/home/container/node_modules/discord.js/src/managers/ReactionManager.js:63:5) 11-07 01:30:28 at async ReactionCollector.<anonymous> (/home/container/commands/poll.js:323:25) { 11-07 01:30:28 requestBody: { files: undefined, json: undefined }, 11-07 01:30:28 rawError: { message: 'Missing Permissions', code: 50013 }, 11-07 01:30:28 code: 50013, 11-07 01:30:28 status: 403, 11-07 01:30:28 method: 'DELETE', 11-07 01:30:28 url: 'https://discord.com/api/v10/channels/780210834323275807/messages/1303531910047338586/reactions' 11-07 01:30:28 } What permission is it missing exactly? Your documentation doesn't specify what permissions the bot needs, so I had to guess. Also, is there any way to recover from this or is this first poll toast now?

LOL, sorry I didn't see that you edited the post to include links after I had already read it. And I did see one of your TWO comments as I replied to it. So, yes, you are correct, I missed the one comment you made agreeing with someone else's feedback that you are counting as your own. But, whatever, you have written many comments supporting the process that you have submitted many negative reviews through and had them all approved without issue. I'll just agree to that since it is easier than continuing this conversation.

It is feedback, or at least it started that way, until you decided to publicly argue with me for about it. I have only contradicted 2 people that are defending your process that haven't written more than 1 negative review and haven't been subject to your censorship. And yes, again, he has written 23 reviews and only one was edited, so how is he qualified to talk about your censoring of negative reviews when he hasn't been censored? You want me to stop? Then I want an apology for the way I have been treated for providing feedback in a thread asking for feedback. Allow me to remind you of your first response to me: Remember where you replied to my feedback by telling me I was wrong, even though I accurately explained exactly what happens. You have to open support requests and then you get put in a 3-way DM with the creator and a moderator where you have to defend your review. And then later you go on to accuse me of abusing creators using reviews, calling me insane, and a number of other things. How about acknowledging the 150 support tickets I have opened or the 130 discussion posts I have made? Trying to help the community and contributing to the enhancement and bug resolution of the plugins on this site. Where do I rank on your customer list with all my contributions and spend? Or does none of that matter because I wrote four 3-star reviews on plugins that I had feedback on so I must be an abusive customer, even though I did open tickets in all of the reviews I wrote.

What links did you provide? You only have one review that was edited! I go by what I see on the site and I don't see all these reviews that were edited from 1 star to positive that you are talking about. I am aggressive because you are defending their process and you haven't been subject to it. And because you claim to have written tons of negative reviews, which you haven't and because you claimed to have defended the process multiple times, which you didn't. So I am just calling it like I see it.

I don't think that the role ping works when it is in the embed. The role is shown correctly, but I don't think it actually pings the users with that role.

Again, you wrote 1 negative review. I have 1 negative review that was published as well. I didn't say it was a problem that you updated it. I am saying that you are not in a position to speak on this topic.

Someone with 22 5 star reviews is not going to be affected by your deceptive process as you approve those without issue. My fixation is on negative reviews because those are the ones you are censoring and refusing to publish. Again, you posted a thread asking for feedback and are shitting all over the feedback you get, so not sure why that is. I don't care if it doesn't change anything and of course it is favored by creators, they don't get negative reviews without first getting to adjust their product to prevent the review from getting posted. The "entire community" voted? Sure. Where is this poll that is strictly asking if your current practice of moderating reviews is favored by customers? Any poll that includes creators is automatically worthless since the policy favors them heavily. I don't care if I am in the minority either. Again, you asked for the feedback and I (and others) are giving it. Grow up, listen to the feedback, and decide what to do with it (which is obviously nothing). For you to publicly argue and shame your customers is atrocious.

You have written 22 5-star reviews and 1 4-star review. Only one of your reviews was edited from negative to positive, so you are lying. That is not true, but we have since proven that with the conversation in this thread. But even if that were true, it is still wrong. A review that mentions something broken is still a valid review. Whether you have spent 7 weeks (as you did) trying to get the plugin fixed is irrelevant. BTW, this is your only comment "supporting" the review process on this site, so your MULTIPLE defenses of the review process is also a lie.

dm sent

I was instructed to create a support ticket for product suggestions that I included in my review that won't get posted. The biggest complaint we received from players when using this plugin is that it is too hard to tell who is PVP and who is PVE. You basically have to go around shooting everyone and their base to figure it out. The marker that displays when you aim at a PVE player has just the slightest delay to it and is not 100% consistent. It sometimes doesn't show if you are too far away or if you aim repeatedly. So if there were anything that could be done to improve this, it would help. Some other ideas we came up with that would help this issue: Better Chat integration to add tags to players names color the name above their head to red for PVP and green for PVE show the PVP bases on the map add a command to show online players and their mode While none of these are perfect, they might help to make it easier for players to tell what mode other players are or if the base is raidable, etc. Curious if you have other ideas that you have not implemented.

I enabled teleport back upon exiting and nothing happened, so I am not sure what this setting is supposed to do, but I still fell through the base. It sounds like it is supposed to teleport me back to the top of the base where I was?

Well I am sure your 1 negative review and 4 support requests really back that up.

I don't think you are understanding the issue that I am raising, so let me try to explain it again. To be clear, I am not talking about deauthing at all. I am talking about the raidprotection.ignore permission. When a user has this permission, it removes them from the list of owners, online, and authed. Is that expected behavior? Or should it leave them on the owners and auth list and just ignore their online status? Also, when I assign a user this permission, the plugin doesn't see that they have the permission until I restart the plugin. So, every time someone gets assigned raidprotection.ignore or it gets removed from them, you have to reload the plugin for it to see the change. This makes the permission basically useless, because it can't be assigned/removed in real-time. For example, if an admin switches in and out of admin mode, the plugin doesn't see that they changed. Or if a player switches in and out of PVE mode, the plugin doesn't see that they changed. The only way around this currently is to manually reload the plugin every 5 minutes or something so it can see if anyone got the ignore permission or had it removed.

Yes

It is a dedicated server from a provider. I have another plugin that sends Discord webhooks just fine. It is the Update Checker plugin that checks for updates to plugins and posts every hour if there are any found. So I don't think it is an issue with the server.

Ok so the video isn't going to show you how to replicate it. It is going to show us pushing a button and the base changing. If we cannot reproduce the issue ourselves, I doubt you can reproduce it easily. Nobody ever said the the entire base converts to twig at once. Mine converted piece by piece to twig. I don't share my plugins for competitive reasons, but I do not have any that affect the building except for XBuildingSkinMenu which I was using at the time.

Yea, you are right. My entire point is invalid and he is right because my review states I lost pop. Regardless of the fact that the zombies may be overpowered for a default config. You are right the whole review is garbage and boy if there were only a way for a developer to reply to a review, wouldn't that be nice? Oh wait... Then the config shouldn't be worded like this dude: "Node spawns": { "Stone Nodes": { "Can spawn from stone nodes": true, "Spawn chance (1-100%)": 10.0

I literally mean negative or critical. Such as the zombies not looking like zombies or being overpowered. These are not "support issues" as they are not bugs or broken issues with the plugin. You say here that we cannot complain about the plugin in a review or make a suggestion in a review unless we have reported it to the developer first? That is ridiculous. You are literally saying you only approve positive reviews about a plugin. I am in the right. I am the customer and nobody else is coming to your defense here saying that your review process is fair and unbiased. You are providing me with information on how YOU have decided reviews should be moderated on this site and I am telling you it is wrong and am doing so in a forum where you asked for feedback to improve your site.

I didn't build the base, someone else did. But I will test it again and report the results.