As a Roblox developer, it is currently too hard to express my opinion about things in #platform-feedback:website-features, a lot of ideas suggested in that channel I would, and many others would like to support.
I am not in favor of members having access to posting in platform feedback, but I think members being able to reply to platform feedback posts would be good as there are several posts I think members could be involved in replying to posts. The downside I would see in this is redundant posts (which could be posted by some members), by saying things like “wow this is a great idea”, but then again this could be clarified in the pinned message, or maybe having a limit about how many days you’ve been on the DevForum or how many likes you’ve achieved?
Do you agree or disagree? Vote in the poll below, and if you have feedback, I would be happy to hear it.
What’s the point? We don’t need members replying to these topics. These are feature requests. If anything, they shouldn’t be allowed to reply to bug reports either.
I feel like a lot of posts on the #platform-feedback:website-features channel could be expanded on by users of the Developer Forum. Members should be able to express what they think of a website feature that could be added to Roblox, and once again I do not think members should be allowed to post topics on the #platform-feedback:website-features channel, but replying would be a lot better as there is less of a chance of spam/redundant posts.
Also considering the issue with promoting users to regular, I feel like this isn’t really fair to members as they have no real way to gain the regular role, so they are forced to not be able to post in #platform-feedback:website-features.
The pinned messages are usually ignored, so the idea you said won’t work. You have identified the main issue yourself, so why should the category replies be opened up?
This means that you are supporting such replies, while identifying they’re off-topic at the same time?
This could only be implemented with trust levels. However, this, of course, would require an automated process. Not only that, but all the 4 trust levels are currently used, which means new ones cannot be created.
Because since Members (to my knowledge) aren’t able to be promoted to regular at the moment, it’s currently impossible for Members to rank up – which means #platform-feedback:website-features isn’t able to commented on by members.
I’m saying that these types of replies would occur, which wouldn’t be a good thing, I also considered those replies as a “con” in the post. Though I think the good will outweigh the bad.
This is a slap in the face for members. Since the removal of Post Approval, I think allowing them to reply to these topics wouldn’t be such a bad idea. After all, members DO use the website normally and they should be allowed to say what they think about it, as it affects their experiences as well.
Though on the other hand, I do see some things that could go wrong, which is why I am neutral about this idea.
Just DM DevEngagementTeam with a reply, this is how old post approval used to work as well. You would create a topic in #bulletin-board and DM post approval with the topic you want to reply to, then they would merge the topic with your reply and bam. (eventually this process was improved but that’s not the point)
Everyone in DevEngagementTeam is a moderator, so they have these tools by default. I can’t support opening another category that is previously locked, a few examples of why many may not support it is #resources although it has significantly improved, still could use some work tho, #development-discussion which sadly hasn’t and probably never will.
Allowing members to list their own opinions on topics, more feedback on a topic to improve a post if deemed necessary, more discussion is given on a post, etc
Website Features replies have been used in the past just to say: “yes, we need that!!!”. Most TL1 users didn’t actually contribute to the thread, so the replies had to be locked.
Such feedback should be given privately, that’d be a call out.