Far Shiverpeaks

Official A'net responce:

I broke stuff. Temporarily turned off all of the APIs while I sort out some crashing backend server. Planning on turning it back on today Monday with some endpoints disabled (/v2/colors and the corresponding /v1 endpoint, at least). Sorry about the mess.

Ah that does make it difficult unless one of the admins knows SQL.

Not entirely relevant but is this only an issue for people who registered their API TS only?
If that's the case maybe we can give the website priority in the sense that the system would be willing to write the API to a new account as long as it's a website account and the old was a TS account only.

With the thought that website accounts are easily recoverable. It can only be done once so I don't think it compromises security.
Though this all is just a random thought which might be technically challenging.

I believe he needs to know what your old account was in order to do that.
Either the old FSP website account or your gw2 account should work.

Thanks <3

No concern just naming the likelihood of your account being a second account or someone who just isn't involved on the forum but has an opinion on stuff he can't actually see.
As shown here:
Quote from: Alwies
Well nearly all of the QQ on the forum always comes from the same handful of people, so if you ignore those everything looks fine.
Quote from: Zol
It actually more looks like it is same handful of people who always pretends as if nothing is wrong with the server...


I'm really intrigued about the illusionary dictatorship you mentioned, did I start it? What's it about? Who's the dictator? Why is it illusionary?

It actually more looks like it is same handful of people who always pretends as if nothing is wrong with the server...

I don't need to pretend, looking at the recent threads about issues the same few names keep popping up.
It's all there on the forum.

Which you might have known if your account wasn't created 2 days ago with 15 minutes total time spend on the forum.
Or perhaps if you actually had FSP member access allowing you to see the the majority of the forums, which you don't.

Sooo admins can edit my post with new content, without my consent, and when I edit this myself again I'm getting a warning?

It's not a case of an admin removing bad language or threats or whatever. It's about an admin adding a poll to MY post which I did NOT want whatever the outcome. Admin did not have any right to add a poll to my post and giving me a warning for editing it. How am I here at fault?

How about admins don't involve themselves with the content of my post unless it breakes the rules? Which it obviously didn't. Eventually the entire poll was even cancelled by Nora voiding the entire poll at all.. yet my warning remains.

I'm not familiar with all the details.
However what's clear is that they're 2 entirely different situations with the only similarity that an edit was used. But as I already explained that alone has nothing to do with why a warning was received. The content and intentions of the edit are what's the issue.
Again whether the content was bad enough, I really don't know. All I know in that regard is that the admins seem confident is was.
But saying that both cases should be treated the same because both involved an edit is flawed.


I personally don't think the admins editing your post was the perfect response. However the admins didn't impersonate you, they put their own names on adding the poll immediately.
Except disagreeing with how the admins responded to your thread, I don't really see an actual issue. In the case of disagreeing you can give feedback to the admins but they have no reason to change there ways just because 1 person disagrees with them.

Also the task of admins is to manage the forums, if they feel a poll adds to an discussion they definitely have the right as managers of the forum to add one even if they didn't create the thread, as long as they make clear that they added it and not you.
If you disagree I recommend getting some good arguments and support to convince the admins to change policy.
But this doesn't seem like a good reason to change anything from my perspective.