Feature request: Additional permission level for clan founders in the GLS

[webhead]

I think it would be helpful for the GLS to add a permission level. Currently there are leaders and members, but I would like to see an Owner level as well, including the ability to transfer ownership as necessary. For example, this would keep rogue "leaders" from kicking *everyone* else and then leaving (since they wouldn't be able to kick the owner).

[pvtjimmy]

good idea

[rafalluz]

For example, this would keep rogue "leaders" from kicking *everyone* else and then leaving (since they wouldn't be able to kick the owner).

Huh?

Just watch who you give leadership to. Problem solved.

[webhead]

Of course that would be ideal, but the reality is that such situations have come up more than once before.

[jitspoe]

What about scenarios where the person who originally created the clan quits playing, but is still the "owner" of the clan and can't be kicked by the active leaders?

[idias]

Then they could make a request to an admin (I suppose that in this case it's you) or just let them be. Having an inactive leader doesn't mean anything... Right now only one of my current clans leader plays (Although the rest should be coming back). Lot's of clans have inactive players in them and still work... Look at QeHs for example.

+1 For me.

[pvtjimmy]

What about scenarios where the person who originally created the clan quits playing, but is still the "owner" of the clan and can't be kicked by the active leaders?

Then they could make a request to an admin (I suppose that in this case it's you) or just let them be. Having an inactive leader doesn't mean anything...

This. I think having an inactive "owner" isn't that important as long as there's a leader with enough access to still accept and kick other players.

[webhead]

agreed

[SkaDooSh]

Bump. How about these permissions?

Owner:
Able to promote members to leaders.
Able to demote leaders to members.
Able to invite/accept members.
Able to kick members and leaders.
Able to give ownership to a leader.
Able to change basic clan information.
Able to change clan details (name and tag).
Able to "revive" the clan. (Join it while empty)

Leaders:
Able to invite/accept members.
Able to kick members.
Able to be promoted to owner.
Able to change clan information.

So only the "owner" would be able to do the important things. This would prevent many situations that have come up such as:
Clan leader kicking owner.
Clan leader changing name/tag without the owner's permission.
Clan leader reviving a clan the owner does not want revived.

[MyeRs]

SkaDooSh, I do like the idea although I have a question --- What happens if the owner leaves to another team but does not appoint another owner? Does the team still stay alive, until everyone ends up leaving it then its unable to revive? --- Lets say that same team kept the team running for a year or so and got good together in that team, what happens when the original owner who never gave that title away wants back? Does he request and automatically get leadership and doesnt truly have to request?

Also, if an owner goes inactive for say, 6months, can the ownership be transferred to another leader ( One who was in it pretty much as long as the owner ) upon request to Jitspoe? Just questions based off your idea.

[webhead]

Bump. How about these permissions?

+1

What happens if the owner leaves to another team but does not appoint another owner?

I would say that if he leaves, he should be *required* to give ownership to someone else.

Lets say that same team kept the team running for a year or so and got good together in that team, what happens when the original owner who never gave that title away wants back?

I'd say he should request to join the clan just like anyone else, and if the current owner sees fit, he can give the team back to the old owner.

Also, if an owner goes inactive for say, 6months, can the ownership be transferred to another leader ( One who was in it pretty much as long as the owner ) upon request to Jitspoe?

Here's a way I think this could be handled: each clan page could get a link that says "Request Ownership" that, when clicked, would send an email to the clan owner telling him who's requesting. if he doesn't visit the website within a certain amount of time and click Accept or Deny on the request, then the system could send jitspoe an email, at which point he would be the one to resolve it. How does that sound?

[idias]

Won't let you people forget about this.
This is a small tweak that would prevent situations like the [3iob] one...
+1 for Rico's idea

[jitspoe]

How is "owner" really different from "leader"?  It seems the system works fine as-is, so long as the leader does not appoint other leaders that are going to be problematic.

[pvtjimmy]

How is "owner" really different from "leader"?  It seems the system works fine as-is, so long as the leader does not appoint other leaders that are going to be problematic.

If I mess around with the girlfriend of my best friend, he's probably not going to like me anymore...

Adding an owner option would "secure" the owner of being the big boss of his own clan, no matter what happens. This would involve annoying discussions in the future. However, if this requires a lot of technical modifications in the database, I fully understand you think it's not worth spending time on, considering the amount of these cases we are facing...

-edit-
If adding this feature to the database doesn't require too much work, I still consider this a great addition though.

[webhead]

It seems the system works fine as-is

I disagree. There have been plenty of instances where strife could have been avoided if this had been in place. Plus, it's nice to have varying levels of permissions, as in RL we tend to trust people to varying degrees; compare this to IRC, where some servers only have +o/+v, while others add +h, and yet others add +a/+f on top of those.

[SkaDooSh]

How is "owner" really different from "leader"?  It seems the system works fine as-is, so long as the leader does not appoint other leaders that are going to be problematic.

In reality that has not happened, and won't happen. There will continue to be cases that this can solve.

The owner is different from a leader in the permissions they will have. Some things I suggested that only the owner would be able to do:
Able to promote members to leaders.
Able to demote leaders to members.
Able to kick leaders.
Able to give ownership to a leader.
Able to change clan details (name and tag).
Able to "revive" the clan. (Join it while empty)

So basically the owner has power over the leaders and members, while the leaders only have power over the members.

[jitspoe]

I guess my point is, do we really need 3 levels?  If you just rename "leader" to "owner", what's the difference?  What happens when somebody makes somebody else an "owner", then that owner goes and kicks everybody out of the clan?  How would the situations be any different?

[pvtjimmy]

An owner will not be fond of giving away his ownership if he cares about his clans. He might want to install some additional leaders though. Being the owner he will have some kind of protection against being kicked from his own clan.

[webhead]

Also, the idea is that there can only be one owner at a time, just like GG channels can only have one 500-level user (aka owner) at a time.

[jitspoe]

http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10271

If the clan leader didn't make anybody else a leader, it would be effectively the same thing, but whatever.  I just have a feeling that we'll still have these same types of issues come up.

"I made XXX the owner of the clan when I left, but now I want the clan back, and he doesn't play anymore/I can't contact him."
"I gave ownership to XXX, and he kicked everybody out of the clan."
etc.