Forums/Site Discussion

Suggestions Megathread

28 déc 2020 à 0 h 59
#301
Rejoint: avr 2019
Messages: 3,326
Mentions "j'aime": 1,667
Can you make a search bar for AGM?

Can you also make some way for the us to find out prorated deadline cap space. Tampa for example, to find out how based on the salary cap multiplication blah blah stuff, we could estimate TDL cap space?
3 jan à 0 h 45
#302
Rejoint: avr 2019
Messages: 3,326
Mentions "j'aime": 1,667
Can you make it so that forum posts stay as unfinished templates like in AGM?
HabsFan77 et EsoYeezus69 a aimé ceci.
8 jan à 17 h 06
#303
Rejoint: jun 2019
Messages: 4,486
Mentions "j'aime": 1,924
when creating a custom player for a team would it be possible to get the logo with the player instead of just a name and salary figure?
11 jan à 11 h 12
#304
Rejoint: avr 2018
Messages: 5,351
Mentions "j'aime": 1,534
Modifié 11 jan à 11 h 21
This site needs to make 3 versions of this tool:

1. AGM - "Real" AGMs were people actually try to GM
2. ACC - "Arm Chair Coach" for the annoying lineups with no trades/signings and therefor NOTHING to do with GMs
3. AGM-BH - AGM Bouncy House for when people are doing off the wall, 0% chance type play. Troll AGMs can live here too.
GenXHockey, A_Habs_fan, ConnorMcHellebucyk and 3 others a aimé ceci.
11 jan à 14 h 20
#305
Formerly Jamiepo
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 18,922
Mentions "j'aime": 9,727
Quoting: Yojimbo
This site needs to make 3 versions of this tool:

1. AGM - "Real" AGMs were people actually try to GM
2. ACC - "Arm Chair Coach" for the annoying lineups with no trades/signings and therefor NOTHING to do with GMs
3. AGM-BH - AGM Bouncy House for when people are doing off the wall, 0% chance type play. Troll AGMs can live here too.


I am 100% behind this idea.
11 jan à 15 h 06
#306
AGM Nostradamus
Rejoint: oct 2017
Messages: 4,441
Mentions "j'aime": 2,512
Quoting: Yojimbo
This site needs to make 3 versions of this tool:

1. AGM - "Real" AGMs were people actually try to GM
2. ACC - "Arm Chair Coach" for the annoying lineups with no trades/signings and therefor NOTHING to do with GMs
3. AGM-BH - AGM Bouncy House for when people are doing off the wall, 0% chance type play. Troll AGMs can live here too.


Quoting: Jamiepo
I am 100% behind this idea.


ACC and a Fantasy Hockey section could exist as they're quite self-explanatory, but how do you define or enforce the difference between an AGM and a bouncy house section? Opinions as to what a good deal or a good framework for a deal range wildly and are far too subjective without some mathematical value assigned to players, prospects, and picks. The league itself doesn't even abide by that. How should a new user who's only ever really experimented with AGMs in an NHL-20 setting understand that their trades aren't realistic before posting? Most new users already abstain from previewing the work of other users and a post limit (ex. you need 25 posts to submit an AGM) only really serves to limit site growth. There's a pretty big draw to this site if you can just drop an AGM right after signing up.

What realistically happens is we end up with the same setup we have now, but with the current moderators being asked to move tens to hundreds of more threads than normal. What happens if users don't get the point and continue to post those more wild AGMs in this new "Serious AGM Threads Only" section? Do you expect us to just warn and infract more users? I've noticed a lot of members here aren't apt to report these kinds of threads and are more inclined to just piss and moan about them and how the moderators don't do their jobs.

If anyone wants to see more quality and less of the obnoxious, troll material in the AGM section, realistically the only things that need to happen are as such:
1. Report the bad stuff
2. Improve on the constructive criticism you give to the not-so-bad-stuff

I don't know how many people I've had to tell this to, but the moderators here do not filter through every post made on the site. We only come across trolls and such when they get reported. I have 9 hours of schoolwork per day to manage during my week. Some days, I have enough going on at home or in life that I only have time to check the reports list instead of posting or making an AGM or two. We cannot be a 24-hour surveillance system; the closest we get to that is when users give us a hand by reporting posts and threads so we can address them accordingly.

Conversely, if you want newer users to start abiding by the rules or making an effort to post quality, a lot of "senior" members need to start doing the same. I believe we've been far too lenient on the "[Team] declines" posts that offer no feedback at all or the general discussion threads that end up in the AGM section. If the expectation is for us to start enforcing expectations for a decent AGM, it should work both ways and we should start cracking down more on the poor replies that don't look to improve the situation as a whole or the users that decline to put threads in the correct forum.

Nobody here started out perfect, but had we started in an environment where we would be forced to "sit at the kids table" until a specific level of quality in an AGM post was met, many of us wouldn't have stuck around. Instead, we took the feedback given to us and learned how to make a more realistic trade or signing. Everything was incremental. Other users had patience for you, extend that courtesy for the new users we have today. I would expect there to be some sort of relationship between the growth this site has had, the number of bad AGMs, and the number of quality users that have grown out of some of the more silly stuff. This place kinda needs those unrealistic AGMs and the users willing to listen, learn, and improve on their ideas in order to grow. CapFriendly itself has clearly become more popular, and with that, the userbase has grown and you're seeing more of those posts. Either report them or work with them.
A_Habs_fan, GenXHockey, Islesforthecup and 1 other person a aimé ceci.
11 jan à 15 h 44
#307
Rejoint: avr 2018
Messages: 5,351
Mentions "j'aime": 1,534
Quoting: BeterChiarelli
ACC and a Fantasy Hockey section could exist as they're quite self-explanatory, but how do you define or enforce the difference between an AGM and a bouncy house section? Opinions as to what a good deal or a good framework for a deal range wildly and are far too subjective without some mathematical value assigned to players, prospects, and picks. The league itself doesn't even abide by that. How should a new user who's only ever really experimented with AGMs in an NHL-20 setting understand that their trades aren't realistic before posting? Most new users already abstain from previewing the work of other users and a post limit (ex. you need 25 posts to submit an AGM) only really serves to limit site growth. There's a pretty big draw to this site if you can just drop an AGM right after signing up.

What realistically happens is we end up with the same setup we have now, but with the current moderators being asked to move tens to hundreds of more threads than normal. What happens if users don't get the point and continue to post those more wild AGMs in this new "Serious AGM Threads Only" section? Do you expect us to just warn and infract more users? I've noticed a lot of members here aren't apt to report these kinds of threads and are more inclined to just piss and moan about them and how the moderators don't do their jobs.

If anyone wants to see more quality and less of the obnoxious, troll material in the AGM section, realistically the only things that need to happen are as such:
1. Report the bad stuff
2. Improve on the constructive criticism you give to the not-so-bad-stuff

I don't know how many people I've had to tell this to, but the moderators here do not filter through every post made on the site. We only come across trolls and such when they get reported. I have 9 hours of schoolwork per day to manage during my week. Some days, I have enough going on at home or in life that I only have time to check the reports list instead of posting or making an AGM or two. We cannot be a 24-hour surveillance system; the closest we get to that is when users give us a hand by reporting posts and threads so we can address them accordingly.

Conversely, if you want newer users to start abiding by the rules or making an effort to post quality, a lot of "senior" members need to start doing the same. I believe we've been far too lenient on the "[Team] declines" posts that offer no feedback at all or the general discussion threads that end up in the AGM section. If the expectation is for us to start enforcing expectations for a decent AGM, it should work both ways and we should start cracking down more on the poor replies that don't look to improve the situation as a whole or the users that decline to put threads in the correct forum.

Nobody here started out perfect, but had we started in an environment where we would be forced to "sit at the kids table" until a specific level of quality in an AGM post was met, many of us wouldn't have stuck around. Instead, we took the feedback given to us and learned how to make a more realistic trade or signing. Everything was incremental. Other users had patience for you, extend that courtesy for the new users we have today. I would expect there to be some sort of relationship between the growth this site has had, the number of bad AGMs, and the number of quality users that have grown out of some of the more silly stuff. This place kinda needs those unrealistic AGMs and the users willing to listen, learn, and improve on their ideas in order to grow. CapFriendly itself has clearly become more popular, and with that, the userbase has grown and you're seeing more of those posts. Either report them or work with them.


If you are going to allow non-constructive AGMs then I am fine with non-constructive replies to them. Instead of giving the replies warnings/points you should just remove the AGM that started it. Treat the cause not the symptom. It is a chicken or the egg kind of thing, but how can you demand constructive only replies when allowing goofy AGMs?

Maybe make it so that a mod reviews the AGM before it is actually posted. Otherwise you will keep getting replies of just "No" or even "This is stupid" Reviewing AGMs before they post would fix a lot, and the mods can decide what goes in a legit AGM section and what is folly and should go into a junk AGM section.

Having AGMs reviewed before they post will also cut back on troll AGMs from the get go as the trolls will know they won't get posted at all. They will not get the satisfaction of the attention. Those will vanish quickly. It will also help the new people as they will figure out that bad PlayStation AGMs are not getting put into the serious AGM section, but in the funZone.

Another bonus of review before post is that it might push people to the messageboard section. A lot of stuff gets created as AGMs that is just messageboard fodder. Many AGMs are not AGMs not even ACCs. Review before posting will push that to where it actually belongs as well.

I don't know how many AGMs you usually get a day, 150 or so? Reviewing that many would be daunting at first, but the troll AGMs, messageboard fodder, etc would fall off quickly and slash that. Also having the ACC section would cut into what needs to be review as well. Within a week it would probably mostly take care of itself. and the number that would need to be reviewed would be very manageable.

Ounce of prevention...
11 jan à 15 h 50
#308
AGM Nostradamus
Rejoint: oct 2017
Messages: 4,441
Mentions "j'aime": 2,512
Quoting: Yojimbo
If you are going to allow non-constructive AGMs then I am fine with non-constructive replies to them. Instead of giving the replies warnings/points you should just remove the AGM that started it. Treat the cause not the symptom. It is a chicken or the egg kind of thing, but how can you demand constructive only replies when allowing goofy AGMs?

Maybe make it so that a mod reviews the AGM before it is actually posted. Otherwise you will keep getting replies of just "No" or even "This is stupid" Reviewing AGMs before they post would fix a lot, and the mods can decide what goes in a legit AGM section and what is folly and should go into a junk AGM section.

Having AGMs reviewed before they post will also cut back on troll AGMs from the get go as the trolls will know they won't get posted at all. They will not get the satisfaction of the attention. Those will vanish quickly. It will also help the new people as they will figure out that bad PlayStation AGMs are not getting put into the serious AGM section, but in the funZone.

Another bonus of review before post is that it might push people to the messageboard section. A lot of stuff gets created as AGMs that is just messageboard fodder. Many AGMs are not AGMs not even ACCs. Review before posting will push that to where it actually belongs as well.

I don't know how many AGMs you usually get a day, 150 or so? Reviewing that many would be daunting at first, but the troll AGMs, messageboard fodder, etc would fall off quickly and slash that. Also having the ACC section would cut into what needs to be review as well. Within a week it would probably mostly take care of itself. and the number that would need to be reviewed would be very manageable.

Ounce of prevention...


You realize there's like 12 of us right? Some days, like in the offseason might see 100 a day, days like free agency or trade deadline and it's in the thousands.

There's a collection of users that already think the moderators are unfair, and now you want us approving all AGMS? I'm not interested in even more flack from users that already think they're above having to provide constructive criticism.

How about we just follow the rules and continue reporting the bad stuff instead?
11 jan à 15 h 58
#309
Rejoint: avr 2018
Messages: 5,351
Mentions "j'aime": 1,534
Quoting: BeterChiarelli
You realize there's like 12 of us right? Some days, like in the offseason might see 100 a day, days like free agency or trade deadline and it's in the thousands.

There's a collection of users that already think the moderators are unfair, and now you want us approving all AGMS? I'm not interested in even more flack from users that already think they're above having to provide constructive criticism.

How about we just follow the rules and continue reporting the bad stuff instead?


I said 150, so 100 is less than I though. However, like I said, after a week all of the just ones will stop because people will know that they are not getting posted. Also, the coach ones will stop with a ACC section. After a week you will probably get about 20-25 per day. Is that too much to review to have a "better" over website for you and a better experience for visitors?

Example... this was just posted trading Zucker for a 3rd https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/2174735 A week after imposing review this never gets attempted to be posted and therefore doesn't need to be review. Less mess, less junk, better experience.
11 jan à 16 h 15
#310
AGM Nostradamus
Rejoint: oct 2017
Messages: 4,441
Mentions "j'aime": 2,512
Quoting: Yojimbo
I said 150, so 100 is less than I though. However, like I said, after a week all of the just ones will stop because people will know that they are not getting posted. Also, the coach ones will stop with a ACC section. After a week you will probably get about 20-25 per day. Is that too much to review to have a "better" over website for you and a better experience for visitors?

Example... this was just posted trading Zucker for a 3rd https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/2174735 A week after imposing review this never gets attempted to be posted and therefore doesn't need to be review. Less mess, less junk, better experience.


Or hit the report button, let us know it's a troll roster, and we'll delete it. I wish I understood the mental hurdles you have to go through to pick this roster as an example without even doing the bare minimum I've already requested of you.

I think you're overestimating the amount of lineup rosters we tend to get. Last week or so hasn't been indicative as we've been ramping up for a new season and movement - especially today - has absolutely taken off and everyone wants their 10 cents in on what the final rosters will look like. There's no feasible way for the current moderator team to review every post, and to delay them by as long as a week could make them irrelevant by the time they pass through a review period.

Even if your idea sticks, there's a transitory period between now and then were you still need to work with us under the system we currently have in order to reach that point. Turns out, you're still going to need to use the report button if you want to see some of those AGMs removed.

Within the past week or so I can find quite a few examples in your own replies where you should consider starting with internal improvement before worrying about the posting habits of others. Pretty gutless to call out new users that don't have the same understandings a more tenured user would when you yourself can't even manage to keep your posts within the rules.

I don't necessarily think we need to add to this idea - beyond the implementation of Armchair Coach or Fantasty Hockey Roster sections - until the idea itself is greenlit or kyboshed from Banks.
11 jan à 18 h 18
#311
Formerly Jamiepo
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 18,922
Mentions "j'aime": 9,727
Quoting: BeterChiarelli
ACC and a Fantasy Hockey section could exist as they're quite self-explanatory, but how do you define or enforce the difference between an AGM and a bouncy house section? Opinions as to what a good deal or a good framework for a deal range wildly and are far too subjective without some mathematical value assigned to players, prospects, and picks. The league itself doesn't even abide by that. How should a new user who's only ever really experimented with AGMs in an NHL-20 setting understand that their trades aren't realistic before posting? Most new users already abstain from previewing the work of other users and a post limit (ex. you need 25 posts to submit an AGM) only really serves to limit site growth. There's a pretty big draw to this site if you can just drop an AGM right after signing up.

What realistically happens is we end up with the same setup we have now, but with the current moderators being asked to move tens to hundreds of more threads than normal. What happens if users don't get the point and continue to post those more wild AGMs in this new "Serious AGM Threads Only" section? Do you expect us to just warn and infract more users? I've noticed a lot of members here aren't apt to report these kinds of threads and are more inclined to just piss and moan about them and how the moderators don't do their jobs.

If anyone wants to see more quality and less of the obnoxious, troll material in the AGM section, realistically the only things that need to happen are as such:
1. Report the bad stuff
2. Improve on the constructive criticism you give to the not-so-bad-stuff

I don't know how many people I've had to tell this to, but the moderators here do not filter through every post made on the site. We only come across trolls and such when they get reported. I have 9 hours of schoolwork per day to manage during my week. Some days, I have enough going on at home or in life that I only have time to check the reports list instead of posting or making an AGM or two. We cannot be a 24-hour surveillance system; the closest we get to that is when users give us a hand by reporting posts and threads so we can address them accordingly.

Conversely, if you want newer users to start abiding by the rules or making an effort to post quality, a lot of "senior" members need to start doing the same. I believe we've been far too lenient on the "[Team] declines" posts that offer no feedback at all or the general discussion threads that end up in the AGM section. If the expectation is for us to start enforcing expectations for a decent AGM, it should work both ways and we should start cracking down more on the poor replies that don't look to improve the situation as a whole or the users that decline to put threads in the correct forum.

Nobody here started out perfect, but had we started in an environment where we would be forced to "sit at the kids table" until a specific level of quality in an AGM post was met, many of us wouldn't have stuck around. Instead, we took the feedback given to us and learned how to make a more realistic trade or signing. Everything was incremental. Other users had patience for you, extend that courtesy for the new users we have today. I would expect there to be some sort of relationship between the growth this site has had, the number of bad AGMs, and the number of quality users that have grown out of some of the more silly stuff. This place kinda needs those unrealistic AGMs and the users willing to listen, learn, and improve on their ideas in order to grow. CapFriendly itself has clearly become more popular, and with that, the userbase has grown and you're seeing more of those posts. Either report them or work with them.


I get it... in a perfect world. I do my best to be considerate to new users, or anyone who hasn’t put up many agm’s.

It would be nice to have 2 sections for agm’s realistic and fantasy/off the wall. But realistically the only ones that bother me are from the type of people who would never put them in the right section. I don’t expect mods to heard kittens.
BeterChiarelli a aimé ceci.
13 jan à 11 h 53
#312
Banni
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 4,561
Mentions "j'aime": 1,266
Hi @Banks I see you are the big boss man

Listen I just wanted to warn you that you may have some moderators abusing their power to give infractions to people that they disagree with or dont like for no apparent reason...

As most people on this website know, I am a nice guy who explains everything I say using reasoning and facts to back it up, I do ample research and don't cause problems with anyone because I know how annoying and rude that can be.
As you probably know, there are literally only 3 or 4 people I have disagreements with (Bcarlo25, Bf3811 or whatever he is, CD282 who sucks up to Drai and wont stop at anything, and maybe one more i dont even know) but they are mostly hated by everyone else here as well.

Today I got another infraction because I pointed out that Drai played with McDavid last year more than he didnt. Did say anything rude, wasnt degrading, but I was called a "troll" which, of course, I am not. Just a smart user trying to help people learn.

Listen, I would tag some of the nice guys on this website including @jesus @Catmanv @bhavikp27 @SevenLeg @ConnorMcHellebucyk @MMBzFan But truthfully I am not sure how many are left. I know a few of them have left the website for the same reason I did a while back. There isnt anything I can do other than let you know. I suppose I could suggest vetting your moderators, or banning the bad users I listed above, or even making me a moderator, but I know that the latter two options are unrealistic.

So please just hear my warning and help your website to not be taken over by the rude guys who just want to cause problems. Again, I know I am a good guy, the other good guys know I am a good guy, I just hope that you will as well and will help by moderating some of the problematic guys off of the website!

Love what you do, wish you the best
13 jan à 12 h 25
#313
Buljujarvi
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 4,166
Mentions "j'aime": 2,476
Quoting: BeterChiarelli
You realize there's like 12 of us right? Some days, like in the offseason might see 100 a day, days like free agency or trade deadline and it's in the thousands.

There's a collection of users that already think the moderators are unfair, and now you want us approving all AGMS? I'm not interested in even more flack from users that already think they're above having to provide constructive criticism.

How about we just follow the rules and continue reporting the bad stuff instead?


If you need more mods.... 😏
13 jan à 12 h 35
#314
best poster
Rejoint: jui 2019
Messages: 6,486
Mentions "j'aime": 6,159
Suggesting mock drafts older than 2003.
BeterChiarelli et EsoYeezus69 a aimé ceci.
13 jan à 13 h 53
#315
Follow CapFriendly
Rejoint: mar 2015
Messages: 1,000
Mentions "j'aime": 455
Quoting: Silkysmooth42
Hi @Banks I see you are the big boss man

Listen I just wanted to warn you that you may have some moderators abusing their power to give infractions to people that they disagree with or dont like for no apparent reason...

As most people on this website know, I am a nice guy who explains everything I say using reasoning and facts to back it up, I do ample research and don't cause problems with anyone because I know how annoying and rude that can be.
As you probably know, there are literally only 3 or 4 people I have disagreements with (Bcarlo25, Bf3811 or whatever he is, CD282 who sucks up to Drai and wont stop at anything, and maybe one more i dont even know) but they are mostly hated by everyone else here as well.

Today I got another infraction because I pointed out that Drai played with McDavid last year more than he didnt. Did say anything rude, wasnt degrading, but I was called a "troll" which, of course, I am not. Just a smart user trying to help people learn.

Listen, I would tag some of the nice guys on this website including @jesus @Catmanv @bhavikp27 @SevenLeg @ConnorMcHellebucyk @MMBzFan But truthfully I am not sure how many are left. I know a few of them have left the website for the same reason I did a while back. There isnt anything I can do other than let you know. I suppose I could suggest vetting your moderators, or banning the bad users I listed above, or even making me a moderator, but I know that the latter two options are unrealistic.

So please just hear my warning and help your website to not be taken over by the rude guys who just want to cause problems. Again, I know I am a good guy, the other good guys know I am a good guy, I just hope that you will as well and will help by moderating some of the problematic guys off of the website!

Love what you do, wish you the best


Hi Silkymooth, I reviewed your post and the moderator did not give you an infraction. You received a warning and the moderator provided reasoning behind the warning.

We see your concerns and will keep and keep and eye out.

Thanks!
Silkysmooth42 et BuFfaLOFaN a aimé ceci.
13 jan à 15 h 58
#316
Banni
Rejoint: mai 2017
Messages: 4,561
Mentions "j'aime": 1,266
Quoting: Jarvis
Hi Silkymooth, I reviewed your post and the moderator did not give you an infraction. You received a warning and the moderator provided reasoning behind the warning.

We see your concerns and will keep and keep and eye out.

Thanks!


I appreciate the responce @Jarvis (dope name and pic btw lmao) ... thats my b, in the past I have received a minor infraction or two for the same thing "being rude" or "trolling" and its ususally just those bad guys reporting me for disagreeing with them or proving them wrong lol.

Again, I appreciate it and I will do my best to not engage with these bad people smile
19 jan à 6 h 30
#317
Rejoint: nov 2020
Messages: 2,828
Mentions "j'aime": 845
Hey sorry for the tag @Banks but i was wondering about a few changes maybe you could look into when you get a chance. 1 an armchair head coach forum (for reasons widely discussed). 2 a way for the creator of an ACGM to be able to look at the teams theyre trading with to make sure theyre filling needs, cap works etc. 3 this is the biggest one for me being able to edit trades in an ACGM without having to revert the trade. It would make things a lot easier. Thanks for everything you do
19 jan à 8 h 49
#318
Rejoint: déc 2020
Messages: 4
Mentions "j'aime": 1
Any chance to have additional status tracked for the active player list?

Possibly Power Play Points, Hits, Blocks, Faceoff Wins, etc. ?
20 jan à 9 h 51
#319
Rejoint: mar 2017
Messages: 9,753
Mentions "j'aime": 2,505
a sports betting section where users can track their plays on site (all hypothetical, of course)
22 jan à 19 h 19
#320
Buljujarvi
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 4,166
Mentions "j'aime": 2,476
Three way trades in ACGM? ik this has probably been suggested but it’d be fun.
GenXHockey a aimé ceci.
22 jan à 23 h 53
#321
Formerly Jamiepo
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 18,922
Mentions "j'aime": 9,727
Quoting: ConnorMcHellebucyk
Three way trades in ACGM? ik this has probably been suggested but it’d be fun.


I agree, would be nice to have. Seems like it may be difficult to do with the current set up for trades.
ConnorMcHellebucyk a aimé ceci.
25 jan à 19 h 24
#322
OnALongPathTo1-1
Rejoint: jui 2019
Messages: 6,764
Mentions "j'aime": 3,391
Hello,
I was wondering whether there would be a way to see the people that follow (watch) your thread I was thinking maybe a small button next to the watched button to view these. Also what are the requirements to become a moderator on this sight/where could I apply if I was looking to become one.
GenXHockey a aimé ceci.
24 fév à 10 h 01
#323
v5 CBJ GM
Rejoint: oct 2020
Messages: 6,419
Mentions "j'aime": 6,258
I suggest you make a thread for coach signing/ firings so that Armchair GM’s aren’t flooded with posts about it and it becomes 1 centralized discussion
BeterChiarelli et BuFfaLOFaN a aimé ceci.
28 fév à 20 h 40
#324
Rejoint: aoû 2017
Messages: 6,360
Mentions "j'aime": 3,827
Can you add a way to add someone to your ignore list directly from their profile? There are some brand new troll accounts who only spam AGM posts but do not post any comments so it is impossible to ignore them. This seems like a huge loophole for people to be able to spam AGMs/Mock Drafts/Trade Machine posts without giving anyone else the ability to ignore their posts.
BuFfaLOFaN a aimé ceci.
1 mar à 6 h 40
#325
Rejoint: aoû 2020
Messages: 6,248
Mentions "j'aime": 4,096
Quoting: moli92
Can you add a way to add someone to your ignore list directly from their profile? There are some brand new troll accounts who only spam AGM posts but do not post any comments so it is impossible to ignore them. This seems like a huge loophole for people to be able to spam AGMs/Mock Drafts/Trade Machine posts without giving anyone else the ability to ignore their posts.

Came here to comment this lol, there's this one guy with a generic calgary fan name that posts ACGMs once in a while and they're all troll posts, no way for me to ignore him. I would very much appreciate this feature.

Quoting: Alfie11
When searching for players in an AGM, is it possible to have players show up as results without having to type the accents in their name? For example, Vrana and Halak technically have accents in their last names (Vrána and Halák) and they don't show up as results without using the accents. This isn't an issue with the main search bar, but it does remove the names from the ACGM search (i.e. custom search/UFA search) if it isn't a perfect match.

This is also still a thing.

I'd also like to second some other ideas I've seen here:
- A coaching subforum where you can play with the lines, I think that would help some of the clutter in ACGMs if this was separate
- Being able to follow certain users so you're notified when they create a thread (not every post, that'd be crazy, but seeing new threads created would be good, I'm sure I've missed some threads I'd be interested in from fellow Sens/Flames fans who post regularly)
- Filter ACGMs by teams that have a trade to them, if I want to see Sens/Flames stuff it'd be nice to filter the ACGMs for other teams that involve trades to my teams
- Three-way trade feature for ACGMs, it's currently pretty weird to set up and if the user doesn't post an In/Out for each team in the description it can be hard to tell who ends up with what after the dust settles
A_Habs_fan, HabsFan77, Jarvis and 3 others a aimé ceci.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Supprimer une option
Soumettre le sondage