REVAMP Groups!

I'll make this short!

Have our group tools like a directory structure! Rank system (think army) have the top folder liek general, then 2 folders branching off for say the 2 devisions... then each devision liek 4 more folders... and so on!

With these folder option it would be really easy to simply right click on the selected folder and set perms/names such as.. this folder and below does not collect ont he dwell of the group... you much be say a general to collect! Being able to set the options from everything to collecting dwell, changing names, being able to alter group land, being able to invite, mod the description of the group, access group holding (items, objects) IE when we deed!

Questions/comments?

EDIT: This is what I wanted to add at the townhall a couple weeks ago!

I totally agree. The ladder ranking system would have been great for a company I was in. I think that the next update after 1.4 should redo the inventory and groups. Any improvements would make the groups so much more useful.

There are already several Vamp groups. Why do we Revamps too?

bump

I don't think I'd particularly care for a "rank" structure, but I'd like a BBS user-level type system.

But first, we'd need more group-definable permissions.

Then you could create user levels, assign specific permissions/authority to specific user levels. Set default user levels for new members/officers, and assign specific user levels (and associated permissions/authority) to specific individuals, as needed.

Word to that!

selfish bump for the good of SL!

As long as hierarchy isn't enforced. In other words, as long as it doesn't enforce, i.e, one "president", one "vice president", or the like. Once again, there are some groups out there(one?) where all members are equal.

Yes this is a bump! I want as many ppl to respond to this/bump or even email it to the lindens! I emailed [email]philip@lindenlab.com[/email] and I think I will send copies of that email to other dev lindens!

btw michi GREAT suggestion! For example I would use this for my Source group. Let me make an example:

>CEO

-->Land holders

-->Event coordinator
---->instructors (for classes)
---->event holder

-->Store managers
---->employees for stores (at managers disrection ie they can control every aspect of this "sub group" liek if it was their own)
------>maintenance
------>marketing
------>sales

-->Master Builders
---->build team1
------>contractors
------>contractors
---->build team2
------>contractors
------>contractors
------>contractors

-->Lead members (recruiters)
---->average members

IE every branch would be independant form the other (perms and stuff). like CEO would be able to mod everything, Store managers would only be able to mod what's below them in the branche.. this is the same as a directory structure!

If a linden wants to make a mini townhall/meeting about this please let me know so I can put together all the suggestions that other users have given me!

Again I remind you... please post to show your support! This is a MUCH needed feature to solve alot of group limitations and problems!

I believe the recent "earthquake" mischief could easily have been prevented had at least some of this suggestion been implemented.

Requiring someone to be specifically granted (either individually or by being a group member) permission to edit land, this whole fiasco could have been avoided to a large extent.

Second...slightly off-topic but applicable to the desire for implementing it here...had such a person been a member of a group and done this "earthquake", then self-governing would have occured surely. The group would surely have recalled his/her status as a member and ejected him from the group! This seems to kill two LL desires with one stroke - self-governance and player control of their own lands.

I definitely second this.

properly received, endorsed and forwarded

Once again, as long as hierarchy in groups is not mandated.

How can you revamp when you have never vamped?

I support this and also believe the max number of groups to which we belong should be at least doubled, if not tripled.

mmmmm.. I can taste the group spam IMs already.

Increased numbers plz!

oooooh pretty pls! with a cherry on top! and pecans...and um.....pineapple chunks.

This would be great.

Wow... Don't know how I missed this thread before, but I think it's a great idea.

But as with all great ideas, simplification can make it even greatesterish.


Start with a group member list window that is resizable. Enable that list to contain folders like the inventory. Each folder has a name which can be edited. That name becomes the title of all avatars inside that folder, should they have that group active. Right-clicking the folder presents options including Rename, Edit Permissions, Copy Permissions, and Paste Permissions (grayed out if there is no permission set in the clipboard). Nesting folders would not be necessary, since the permissions on each top-level folder can be set directly and completely. Nothing much is gained from nesting, and it adds a high level of complexity to the operation of the interface. Being able to copy/paste the permissions data from one folder to another would make it easy to make multiple groups with mostly similar settings. Avatars at the top level of the list (outside all folders) have full rights and permissions. There must always be at least one avatar name at this level.

Edit Permissions opens a window with a multi-column list of all permissions. One of the columns contains checkboxes to turn each ability on and off for all members of the folder. This checkbox may be grayed out if you do not have permission to change that setting. Another column of checkboxes sets those players' right to edit that ability of other group members. This checkbox may also be grayed out if they don't have the change rights themselves. If they don't have that ability, they (by default) don't have the right to change that ability in others. To have the right to change, they MUST have the right to use.


So a standard group can be made where the "officers" are all at top level, and all "members" are in a single folder. The abilities of the members can be set as the officers like, most likely with all permission-modification rights removed.

You could also make a group with only one top-level name (the "president", a folder for "officers", and a folder of "members" to limit the powers of the officers somewhat as well.

Or you could make a group with many folders of "rank" where the permissions and perm-mod rights of each folder are slightly more restrictve than the last.

In a standard group style, if none of the members have land edit permissions, but you want three members to be able to do some landscaping, you copy the permissions of the Members folder, make a new folder, paste the permissions there, allow land edit ability, and move the avatars into that folder. When done, return them and delete (or leave for later use) the new fodler.

In a "president" style group, if the pres goes on vacation, a trusted member can be promoted up to top-level rights to manage the group, or a new folder with only one or two rights turned off can be made to hold them.


Beyond such obvious rights as land edit and build, rights to allow the creation of new folders and the moving of avatars between them should be included. It would not be possible for a player to move an avatar's name out of a folder that has more rights than the player has themselves. (In other words, if you don't have land edit rights and player A does, you can not move them.) Of course, any top-level name can move anyone, since the top-level names always have FULL rights and permissions.

The list of permissions and rights can be continuously updated and expanded with each new version as new features come online or additional controls are requested by group operators.

In essence, Nexus's idea would allow groups to form ANY political or orginizational structure they wish. I think this would be an excellent improvement to Second Life, with a simple interface to control it.

Awsoem stuff Tiger! That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking!

I do have one point to add, I would actually liek to see nested perms!

Perm list,
- obvious mod/copy/resell
- sell land
- buy land
- invite members
- set land properties
- change stuff in the group description
- set L$ received from dwell (fixed or %)
- set L$ received from sales (fixed or %)
- set L$ received from gifts (fixed or %)
- set L$ received from sale sales (fixed or %)
- allow to bid in auctions
- allow promotion
- allow demotion
- ban member WHERE (x rank - index) IE officer can't boot lvl directly below him but may boot 2 lvls below (officer - 2)
-kick member WHERE (x rank - index) IE officer can't boot lvl directly below him but may boot 2 lvls below (officer - 2)
-set object as group object
-modify group inventory in X folders(this would have to be added.. kinda like the library)
-add group inventory in X folders(this would have to be added.. kinda like the library)
-remove group inventory in X folders(this would have to be added.. kinda like the library)
-hold X type of vote
--recall to X lvl
--promotion to X lvl IE president could set it so no one can be voted as a second president, or president could disable voting alltogether

I'm out for now, add some in your posts or private message me in the forums and i'll add it to the list! Again please keep adding!

I'd like to see something done to expand the usability/purpose of groups. This and these are definately good ideas.

All good suggestions! Please consider, Lindens. Thank you!

I support this - along with the creation of OTHER group models as well! In the long run, I'd like to see a group structure tab that allowed for the creation of groups modeled on:

- co-ops (each person is equal)
- corps (board controlled)
- single-owner businesses (leader controlled)

Maybe this would be possible with the suggestion above, I"m a little onclear as to whether it would be possible to have more than one person at the "CEO" level.

Oh, and fix the damn voting tools! Does anyone use them any more?

Hey Bhodi, as Tiger said the model here we are proposing...


Keep the ideas/questions/comments/approvals comming!

Yes, additional group structure would be handy.

errrr... BUMP!

Nex,

Great idea, but this is assuming that all groups are for the purpose of owning land or sharing income, which we all know not to be the case. As a mall owner and manager, I created the AMDC Group not to share land or to share income, but to help with the management of prims (due to the proliferation of prim thieves) and also for messages to the group. So, where does such a heiarchial system come into play?

Sorry, but I cannnot endorse this idea at this time.