The current problem: When giving a user in my own guild administrative right's (Edit Members/Edit Ranks) they then have the ability to give themselves and anyone below them ANY power.

The Fix: They should not be able to give themselves or anyone lower then them the powers THEY do not have (Example: i dont give the power to remove people, so it should be greyed out completely for them)


make sense?

This post was edited by Vegito on Jul 18 2012 05:51pm

ran into that problem with past admins giving themselves too much rights. voted yes. still a confusing concept in a way.

You are talking about "Edit Ranks" right?

It would make more sense that only certain rights can be obtained from the Guild leader giving it to you such as Edit Ranks.

This post was edited by Djsem on Jul 18 2012 05:42pm

Holding my vote for now. Some guild owners have co-owners and co-founders that they wish to have near-equal rights as themselves, so that is likely the reason for having it be like that. Also, it is my belief that if a member is gaining access to these administrative rights, that this member is trusted by the guild owner to have these abilities.

Correct

but if they wanted them to have the same rights they could easily just give them all the rights

it would be nice to be able to give someone ALL the rights except the one allowing them to remove members without giving them the ability to make it so they can remove members themselves. (giving them the premission)

as well keep in mind.

when voting yes. It's not only a vote for you, so if you don't need it. think again because others could use this suggestion to benefit themselves, even if you can't. so either way a yes vote won't hurt :).

unless there is a negetive impact for some people, their should never need to be a no vote.

This post was edited by Vegito on Jul 18 2012 06:11pm

Admin positions are granted on a basis of trust.

Any other criteria are irrelevant

I do understand your reasoning for suggesting the amendment. However, admin positions should be appointed because the owner of the guild trusts that user to have those rights so that they can contribute from a more in-depth administrative level. If a user is an admin, it is because they are trusted with the rights that the position entails. And thus I see no reason with giving guild admins the potential to have equal rights as the owner.

Negative impacts and extraneous existence are both valid reasons for a no vote. I feel like this amendment isn't needed, due to how admins are generally appointed their positions, therefore I voted no (previously held my vote, but after some thought I decided to vote).

This. Really, if you feel someone will abuse it, then you shouldn't be putting them there.

Then whats the point of having an option to remove members?

take that option out then and just make it so as soon as you can edit ranks/members you can remove them.

it called different levels of administation.

you dont give your members++ the ability to BAN people from jsp for a reason.

This post was edited by Vegito on Jul 18 2012 08:31pm

Bump