Please please please can we have groups with just two members? Now that groups actually mean something in terms of tax and land/object permissions, this would really help the small partnerships out there.
Pretty please?
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
2 Member Groups |
|
|
Cailyn Miller
mmm.... shiny
Join date: 11 Mar 2003
Posts: 369
|
10-22-2003 11:40
|
|
Julian Fate
80's Pop Star
Join date: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,020
|
10-22-2003 11:56
Agreed; three's a crowd. Groups should be anything over one person. Heck, let us have one person groups too while you're at it.
|
|
Gwydeon Nomad
Registered User
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 480
|
10-22-2003 12:01
Ok I'll bite, what would the possible benifit be of a ONE person group?
|
|
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
|
10-22-2003 12:02
Gwyd, a title!
Oh, I support this product or service. _____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
|
|
Misnomer Jones
3 is the magic number
Join date: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,800
|
10-22-2003 12:03
you can have a nifty personalized title.
I am for 2 person groups. _____________________
|
|
Dionysus Starseeker
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 764
|
10-22-2003 12:03
A wearable self title, for the amusement of those around you, Gwydeon. Something we asked for when they first dismantled the 1 person groups.
Edit: Yep.. I'm slow _____________________
Life beyond Second Life? Nah...
"...you will get as many answers as people you ask." -- Kenichi Chen *hehe... yep* |
|
Gwydeon Nomad
Registered User
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 480
|
10-22-2003 12:07
Titles are over rated
 I could make you a sign  |
|
Matina Appleby
Snow Princess
Join date: 24 Mar 2003
Posts: 281
|
10-22-2003 12:16
To be honest - being in a group just to be in a group is a bit lame to me (imho) - workgroups are good tho and now that groups get features "in terms of tax and land/object permissions" thay are really useful.
However - there is only 1 person I trust 100% in this game and only 1 person I want to share my assets with. We really and let me stress that REALLY need the 2 person group oportunity. Its already restricted to how many groups one person can be in - 10 - if needed reduce this to 7 or 8 but please let us have the 2 person groups. _____________________
|
|
Ama Omega
Lost Wanderer
Join date: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1,770
|
10-22-2003 13:06
Exact same situation Matina. I have an Omega Games group, and I would like to restructure that group to put land on it, have money from the games go to it and be split among the members after covering the taxes on land etc. However there is only 1 person I want to split this with (3 guesses and your first 2 don't count).
I can understand no 1 person groups, thats a lot of overhead for a title (I think they should add titles as a seperate option). However there would be great advantage to a 2 person group. _____________________
--
010000010110110101100001001000000100111101101101011001010110011101100001 -- |
|
Tiger Crossing
The Prim Maker
Join date: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 1,560
|
10-22-2003 13:31
Yes, now that groups demand a slightly higher level of trust, smaller groups (ie 2) should be possible.
_____________________
~ Tiger Crossing
~ (Nonsanity) |
|
Gwydeon Nomad
Registered User
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 480
|
10-23-2003 09:06
<
 *-*< <*-*)> Give us 2 member groups or be attacked by the Evil Kirby Death squad! <*-*)> (>*o*)> |
|
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
|
10-23-2003 15:35
I support customizable titles and I support two-person groups.
Can anyone give me a well-thought-out reason *NOT* to have these? _____________________
|
|
Ama Omega
Lost Wanderer
Join date: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 1,770
|
10-23-2003 16:10
It used to be no limit on group numbers, you could easily create a group just for yourself to have a title. And it only cost $100.
So many people had such a group, or more than one - easier to just activate a second group than actually bother going in and changing the title. So the 3 person minimum is designed to reduce the number of frivilous groups in favor of 'real' groups. If there is only two people in the group ... well there are two titles per group. However now groups require a degree of trust, dependant on what you are doing with the group. This alone is going to reinforce the importance and significance of groups beyond title givers. And there are lots of legit reasons to have a two person group now, mostly fiscal reasons. It is my hope that linden lab will re-evaluate their stance, reasonings and the benefits of both a 2 person and 3 person minimum for groups. Maybe the number of titles available can be a factor of group size .... A two person group only gets 1 title/rank (officer), 3 to 8 people gets 2 titles/ranks, 9 to 18 gets 3 titles/ranks etc. It would allow more titles for larger groups but never allow a different title for every person in the group. _____________________
--
010000010110110101100001001000000100111101101101011001010110011101100001 -- |
|
Matina Appleby
Snow Princess
Join date: 24 Mar 2003
Posts: 281
|
10-23-2003 16:39
A two person group only gets 1 title/rank (officer), 3 to 8 people gets 2 titles/ranks, 9 to 18 gets 3 titles/ranks etc. It would allow more titles for larger groups but never allow a different title for every person in the group. Aww - so a happy couple couldnt use Mr and Mrs? That would be too sad _____________________
|
|
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
|
10-24-2003 01:20
10-4 on the groups, I remember searching the group list and seeing tons of groups that couldn't possibly be of interest to me 'cause they only had 1 person.
Seriously, custom titles and two-member groups are The Way. It would solve both problems at once: letting everyone have their own title without flooding the group list with little one-off groups. _____________________
|
|
Ironchef Cook
-
Join date: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 574
|
10-26-2003 07:09
I agree with the 2 person groups especially with the changes to group policies.
But one situation where this might be exploited would be the a group with just the av & his/her own bot to split the tax burden. Another issue is if there are tons more little groups flooding the system. I dont think that would be a issue since we all are maxed to 9 groups and it seems most people are always full. |
|
Gwydeon Nomad
Registered User
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 480
|
10-26-2003 08:40
Lindens, any thoughts?
|
|
Matina Appleby
Snow Princess
Join date: 24 Mar 2003
Posts: 281
|
10-30-2003 08:46
Originally posted by Gwydeon Nomad Lindens, any thoughts? Caling Lindens for a coment please... at least give us a good argument for keeping it restricted to 3 persons (so I can give you all my arguments against )._____________________
|
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
10-30-2003 09:33
Originally posted by Matina Appleby Aww - so a happy couple couldnt use Mr and Mrs? That would be too sad I am currently a member of such a group just to help the group owners retain their titles. Please save me before they deed all their stuff to me And yes, two person build groups do make sense now. At least in SL1.0, you could opt not to list your little group; I haven't checked SL1.1. Ironchef is correct about the potential exploit which is why I have two tax-bots |
|
Alondria LeFay
Registered User
Join date: 2 May 2003
Posts: 725
|
10-30-2003 18:47
Odd.. I know there are some two member groups now.....
|
|
Matina Appleby
Snow Princess
Join date: 24 Mar 2003
Posts: 281
|
10-31-2003 01:17
Originally posted by Alondria LeFay Odd.. I know there are some two member groups now..... Took a few days with 2 in our group then we got the delete warning... _____________________
|
|
Dave Zeeman
Master Procrastinator
Join date: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,025
|
10-31-2003 14:45
I've never agreed to the limits that have been placed on groups.
 _____________________
llToggleDaveZeemanIntelligence(FALSE);
Philip Linden: Zeeman, strip off the suit! Dave Zeeman - Keeping Lindens on their toes since v0.3.2! |
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
10-31-2003 16:50
I hereby suggest that every new feature receive the Zeeman seal of approval before being included in the game.
|
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
11-02-2003 07:21
Originally posted by Eggy Lippmann I hereby suggest that every new feature receive the Zeeman seal of approval before being included in the game. I hereby suggest a committee of Zeeman *and* Eggy with contentious and ad hominem debate to be posted on public forum. Oh, help, I think I'm channelling Devlin! llListenRemove(devlin_handle); much better. |
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
11-02-2003 13:41
LOL, I'm flattered
I didnt mean anything by that post though, I was just goofing off |