Ulysses
Ulysses Stuff => General Chat & Help and Support => Topic started by: Decicus on November 07, 2013, 07:45:18 AM
-
Just to start off, I've searched on the forums and I found some posts, but I didn't find anything that could help revolving around my question.
Let's say I made a command, I have it logged and it runs silently. Only superadmins can see that someone did the command. Now let's say I want to keep it the way that everyone can see some commands in the chat with echo mode set to 1 (You know, anonymous output), but I still want normal admins to see who did that command (and only that command) without giving them access to see what normally would be silent commands. (Let's hope my explanation isn't really confusing)
My main question is simple: Is this possible without manually adding something to check if IsAdmin is true and then print a message using ChatPrint or similar?
-
98% sure answer is 'no' to ULX allowing/having access by default.
Yes, custom code would be required.
We wrote the 'see' access to either see or not see the silent commands, not any in the middle.
Folks like you just have to push the limits..darn you creative ULX users.
:P
-
That's what I thought, it's not a big deal, I just had to make sure.
Thanks, JamminR!
-
It's hard to make something infinitely configurable. :)
I like your idea, though! I'm just not sure how to make configuration of something like that intuitive.
-
It wasn't necessarily meant as a suggestion, more that I just needed to know if it was possible to do the whole "only print to admins without giving them see-silent access" some other way that was built into ULX. It would be cool if it was, but it's probably not even worth the effort.
And hey, Megiddo. Just so you know, English isn't my first language. So I'd like to know if you could say this sentence in a different way so I can understand it?
I'm just not sure how to make configuration of something like that intuitive.
-
You speak very well for not speaking English as your primary language, Decicus. I know you've mentioned it several times, but your writing makes it easy to forget. :)
I just meant that if we were to implement your request in ULX, I can't think of any way to do it well. We like to make ULX easy to use, but this would be a difficult feature to get the users to understand.
-
Fair enough, and yeah, I completely understand what you mean.