REVAMP Groups!

That's why I suggested making the structure non-heiarchial. You can still simulated a heirarchial system of organization, but any other system would also be available to you.

Your "military-style" group would have one folder of each rank, with fewer and fewer permissions as the rank decreases.


A mall owner might make a group with one big folder for all the retailers with little or no permissions set for them, and a smaller one for mall managers that have greater leeway to make changes. The group owner would have full "CEO" rights, as any friends they apoint to that category.


I do want to change my design slightly to say that the owner wouldn't be at top level in the list. They would also have to be in a folder so that their group title can be set with the folder's name. That folder should be in bold, however, to set it apart and mark it as full permissions. (And can't be anything but full permissions.)

Edit: Sorry, didnt read the second page... I take back my last statement =P

Even better reason for this!

tonight I log on finding I have 10 IMs of ppl in The Source Membership telling me that someone is trying to recall me (only officer and founder) as an officer. So the tools suggested here would have prevented such a thing from happening!

As long as the rank structure is freeform.

The folder method would work nicely because the founder could make any number of folders and put any number of members at any level.

Another method would be assigning rank level numbers to each member, this would be a linear structure rather then a tree type structure, but it would be much simpler to impliment and would still be so much better than the current binary rank.

I spoke to some Lindens. They are currently working on the group system! (YAY!) As for number rank, I find it too linear. The freedom that a folder system (with permissions per folder and all thjose options mentioned above) I think would be one of the best solutions for SL.

I also want to add that the current group system is pretty old and dates back to beta. I was notified that LindenLabs are aware of the situation and that they are currently working on it. And that theya re aware that the group system just dosn't work post 1.2 changes!

So again I can't stress this enough, please add whatever you want to see in the new group system here! I always direct ppl to this thread (Lindens and users) Please add your 0.02 $!

Bump for Philip!

I endorse this incredible idea and hope the Lindens see this post.

Group revamp, unlimited groups, etc etc... please pretty please.

what ever he said!

This is definitely an area where one shoe does NOT fill all. Just from simple topology, there are many non-hierarchical structures which you cannot implement with a hierarchical model. This is one reason why it's common in MMOGs to select totally different org types like Military or Anarchy rather than attach options to a generic tier structure.

Decouple ranks and permissions, it's the only way to support all group organizations equally.

Sure, by all means use an inventory structure to define ranks and their labels, since ranks are inherently hierarchical. But don't make the permissions change automatically with the level in the rank, otherwise you are necessarily providing more support for one type of organization than another. Even the simplest of examples shows the flaw, eg. not being able to promote a member temporarily without a change of title (unless you hack it).

Decoupling is the answer to half of the problems in engineering. And this is one.

*bump*

I like this idea and would like to see something like it implemented.

However it should be implemented with the ease and possibility of any form of group being able to be formed with it and all current functionality being able to be done with it.

I asked this question to Philip yesterday. I think I caught him off guard... (sorry Philip) I picked up off some people that LL has been working on a model for new groups for some time now. (En august when I became aware)

I would like to see more yay/nay/suggestions on this thread! A response from LL would be great!

P.S. Just a little reminder the group structure that I proposed can make pretty much any type of group, not simply army style rank groups (even thought that's what I would liek it for) For example if you wanted a group where all are equals... you would simply have one folder with all the names in it! Or even 2 categories the folders would be parrallele not imbeded!

bump! (I will bump until they post! Post something like "yes we are looking to remake the group structures!"

boing again.

*sigh*
when this thread was started we could only be in 10 groups and they said it was an architecture; and now we can be in 15, hmmm.

If the architecture is bad then it's time to renovate, nock down some walls.

bump, with a suggestion to read Morgaine's point a few posts up.

Amen!!

Yes, with Morgaine's caveats.

neko

I'm Huns Valen and I endorse this thread.