klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
My best friend and co-owner of our group KlamKnights and I have been having a discussion over an issue that has gone on for a long time. He believes that we should have a shared profile for equal ownership of the group, which is a good idea, but I have personal reasons myself for not wanting this. What I propose is a relatively simple feature for groups: co-ownership. I absolutely loved the group games feature, it allowed us to get rid of a shared games profile, and just have the group as the owner. Group payout has been awesome, too. I'm sure that there might be some technical problem with this, but this is an argument that my co-owner and I have been losing hair over for a long time, and this would show him that I'm not against his idea to "look superior," but for the reasons I've described to him.
Condensed version:
I propose a co-ownership feature for groups, where instead of it saying "owner: [profile name]," it will list multiple "owners" of a group. |
|
|
|
Support!
Also, I'm the best friend referenced. |
|
|
just to make sure, you mean that both people have complete and total power?
either way, support, it's a good idea |
|
|
or you could just put a co-owner rank and give him special permissions |
|
|
@Jimmy
The problem is that new members will still view the person with the title of Owner on the group as the actual owner.
Also, it doesn't address things like group payouts, updating the group shout, changing the group description, or updating the logo. |
|
klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
Yes, Orangebaron!
The problem with this is that some people might see the owner and immediately think that they're the complete owner of the group jimmy, where in my case this is simply not true. Additionally, there are certain things - like the description and group payouts - that no one but the official "owner" can control. |
|
|
Support all the way!
Keep moving along. |
|
Jman88sJoin Date: 2011-12-11
Post Count: 19445 |
I like the idea,
but groups with NBC leaders and group holders, it will lower reasons to buy BC. It might sound stupid, but it might be like what happened to NBC shirt creators if ROBLOX does this. It would probably have to be BC-only or something. qq
| On your mark, get set. We're riding on the internet! | |
|
PattyFlapJoin Date: 2010-04-10
Post Count: 71 |
I support. An update that I would be finally happy to see. :))) |
|
klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
@Jman88s,
thanks for the post! Yeah, you're right about this - obviously it would be up to the ROBLOX team to decide, but I'd expect that each ROBLOX member who'd be an "owner" of the group would need BC. I can imagine this check could have similar code to the Change Owner feature on the group page. |
|
|
|
You CAN give co-owner! Just make a rank with everything checkmarked.
The best YouTube channel is TheCoolestBlue YouTube channel. |
|
SwegFishJoin Date: 2010-05-04
Post Count: 29 |
Yay |
|
klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
@coolesttwo,
that's not really co-ownership. The group "owner" still has the ability to exile the other member as the "superior," and the other member can't change things like the group emblem and description. |
|
|
Support. This could be useful as long as only the original owner can remove a co-owner. That is my only suggestion.
Forget not what the pain has taught you but what caused the pain. Stay in the present and leave the past in the past. |
|
klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
That's a good idea InActive, though some may want co-owners and owners to have exactly the same amount of power. Thanks for the suggestion! |
|
MxddisonJoin Date: 2014-02-14
Post Count: 7403 |
Like @InActive said, as long as the original owner can remove the co-owners.
Support |
|
klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
@Mxddison,
after talking to an intern on Twitter, it looks like the only manageable way to have this feature would be to make sure that the original owners could remove the co-owners, and they might not be able to manage things like payouts. |
|
|
klammanJoin Date: 2010-02-06
Post Count: 436 |
I really do hope that this idea becomes a reality someday. When it comes to things like group payouts and exiling between the co-owners, I think the solution would be a consensus. A message would be sent as a notification that would allow the user who didn't change the description, or payout rate, etc., to accept or decline the change. I don't think that there should be a sole "owner" in this case, just two co-owners, because if they really are 50/50, complete equals, how would it be fair if one owner were able to kick another? |
|
AddyktJoin Date: 2007-08-27
Post Count: 216 |
Support |
|
|
If something were to happen, there would be no way to actually remove the opposing position.
It sounds neat, but let's say YOU paid for the group, but you and your friend share the exact same position because ROBLOX did implement what you wanted. Now what happens if your friend and you get into an argument, and you no longer can get rid of him from the group YOU paid for? There wouldn't be a way considering you can't kick each other.
You may say, "oh, but that wouldn't happen between us."
You also have to think of the thousands of other groups it WOULD happen to.
I think it's a cool idea, but it needs more thought to make it efficient. |
|
|
Host the group on an alternate account you own with the name MyGroupNameGroupHolder, create a rank called "Owner" with all privileges and move the both of you into that rank, and bam, people look at the two of you as equals. |
|
GamatrusJoin Date: 2014-03-11
Post Count: 283 |
Great idea, my friend (stepkama15) and I are actually making a city roleplay game and this would be an amazing feature. My friend and I support this and hopefully this become a reality. Please try your hardest to get this to become a reality because this would really help in a lot of cases.
ServingTheLaw | chiken nagget |
|