Closed Lewdcario closed 1 year ago
This could be resolved by having the directors use one type of emote and everyone else another. Tho if the list of pinged will be changing this may be a better solution
I don't Understand the purpose of this function. What is the benefit of the function
@bowenjw simple feature that was requested by one of the advisors to prohibit roles from upvoting reactions which can't be solved by permissions, while keeping the entire channel accessible. Currently the channel is on lockdown as a measure. We can't stop people from upvoting except for asking them not to do so.
Why does it matter who reacts to a message post?
Disregard my previous comment. I see the error in my understanding now
@bowenjw reactions are currently being used in social-media-proposals channel for the social media lead to get input from the directors on if the directors and related parties approve of a social media post or not as a safety measure. Before adding a lot more members to the channel we'd like to ensure that only specific roles are allowed to react to specific messages Here's an example of a proposed post:
So, if only a limited number of people should be able to react to the posts would it not make sense to just limit the channel to those members?
@bowenjw We want everyone to be able to see it but only certain people be able to add reactions, so people can see the kind of content we're putting out from that channel
Do we want to have the about add one of each reaction to the posts?
The goal is to limit who can react to messages in the #social-media-proposals channel
Once this is implemented, the channel can be opened back to the category defaults (everyone with at least one project role can see the channels). It’s temporarily hidden to restrict voting participants