What do you think about group founders having more power?

Founder group management - PROP 959

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a list of things that I think a founder should have the option to control:

1) Only Founder can invite Officers.

2) Founder can give officers permissions to invite members, manage land, invite other officers, kick members from group.

3) Founder can give officers custom titles.

4) Founder can kick officers from group

5) Members, or Officers, can start vote or not.

from: /13/73/84200/1.html#post859863

Sounds good by me! *stamp*

I'll just add that it would be nice to pick what kind of group you'd like: democratic (like the current system) or dictatorial (like you recommend, which I'd prefer for land groups and such). How about my options for dwell payouts too (or are those going away too)?

Regards,

-Flip

There are "Group Tools" discussions starting today, Cyanide. Those are some great ideas.

If you want to participate, send an email to Jeska at: [email]jeska@lindenlab.com[/email], and ask about being added to the future of Groups in Second Life discussions.

Reminds me of IRC.

IRCOPs would be the Lindens.
You have the channel owner OP.
The SOP (super ops) that were like your 2nd in commands (full privs except can't overide owner).
The AOP (auto ops) wich were like general forum moderators (can do everying SOPs could except can't overide SOP or Channel Owner).
The useless HOP (half ops) wich only had thet power to change the topic and kick people (think single forum mods).
Then you had the normal users.

This system worked great. If there was a problem with a user one of the ops (SOP, AOP, or HOP) would kick/ban the user if things were out of hand. If there was a problem with a HOP or AOP the SOPs would convien and decide on what to do with teh HOP. Same deal if there was a problem with a AOPs and SOPs would have to deal with the owner themselves. I say we do something like this because some people SHOULDN'T share the same level of power as the Owner. I've seen alot of griefing caused by Group Admins who abused their power and we were forced to wait a few days to reicieve enough votes to kick them out. Sometimes when you got an older group with lists of people who no longer even play SL it makes it much harder to remove an abusive admin without the help of a Linden.

Sounds good to me as well. One part I hate about starting a group is that I can't kick officers without a vote. If they become inactive, or I want to revamp the group, I can't without a long, drawn-out process, if even then. And when I contribute land to a group I have founded, it sucks that any officer can sell it from beneath me.

Founder should be able to select from this type of group and the old kind of group....

add that and I'd support it.

Mega Ditto's

Briana Dawson

LL should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and look at established systems that have always worked well. On IRC some bots have levels of trust ranging from 1 to 15 for instance, and permissions are assigned to a level of trust. So instead of having just officer and member, and instead of adding "founder", we should have a whole screen full of input fields where we would enter the level of trust for each person and another where we would enter the level of trust required for each group operation.

I don't know if I'd agree that IRC works well at all, to be honest. Its a nightmare to try to keep a channel locked down and using bots to "babysit" isn't exactly easy. The #secondlife channel has a bunch of ops who strive to be there 24/7 to avoid the channel being hijacked. Over the years, some elegant systems have had to be designed out of necessity, but in a scenario like SL I think we can come up with something a lot easier and at least a little bit better.

Regards,

-Flip

Flip it seems that you missed the point of what eggy was saying and instead focused on the negatives of IRC (and there are many).

With escalating levels of trust, and permissions assigned to each trust level, we get a highly dynamic group managing system.

I for one cannot think of anything better, but it's not like i sit here trying to think of ways to make SL better.

Briana Dawson

I take it you haven't been to IRC networks like DALnet or the like wich have Chanserv. Chanserv is an IRCOP bot built into the IRCd itself that watches the chan for your 24/7 and is relatively hard to hijack because Chanserv doesn't have to be in teh chan to watch it and you can't really attack chanserv without crashing the IRCd forcing it to reboot wich counteracts what you wanted to do in the first place. Chanserv does everything an eggdrop bot can do like op'ing & deop'ing people and such, but with far less security flaws. It works in conjunction with another server side bot called Nickserv wich is necissary to use in order to own a chan and recieve any OP privilage for extended periods of time. Nickserv also protects your nickname from being used by forcably changing the perps nick to GuestXXXX if they dont' enter your registered passcode. Unregistered nicks can't hold any channel status but Voice (+v) wich allows you to talk in a modderated channel and even if registered, you can't hold any op privilage without being in Chanserv's OP lists for that channel. Its a really effective system and I've run many IRC chans with little incedent.

I haven't been on DALnet since the mid-90s actually, but that does sound pretty good, for IRC. I just don't see the model being replicated in SL - far too complex, and the systems are incredibly different. The average IRC user is fairly well technically versed, and generally the type of person who likes figuring out things about technology in general. I don't think that is SL's target market any more, although it probably was in 2003.

Briana, I'm all for more options, but we also have to weigh simplicity versus configurability (kind of like the attachment culling debate). A full screen of group options might cause more confusion than is necessary to 99% of the population, and while I'm for better group controls and options, I'd also like to see the group solution be simple enough that we can easily explain how it works in Live Help!

Regards,

-Flip

I would like to second Travis' motion: There has been a subforum installed by Jeska called Zoning/Covenants/Group Empowerment, where exactly these issues should be discussed. Actually some of the points mentioned here have been discussed there already with solutions proposed.

Furthermore you can find the transcript of the first meeting with the Lindens regarding current plans about new group tools over there , too.

Actually thanks to scripts there's no more memorizing simple chanserv commands as you can simply right click on a name and goto the chanserv submenu then add them to whatever autolist you want them to be in. Everything has been simplified. So I don't see how this can't be implemented. All you really need is Owner, Mods, Users for a chain of command where Owners have more power then the mods (like mods wouldn't be able to kick another mod or the owner out of the group).