DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
I made a post about this before a while back, however it was too long, and none really gave it a read. So let me sum it up here.
~Groups that can be owned by two people, at the same time.~
Please note: I'm not talking about just making the 2nd person the 2nd highest ranking member in the group, but adding them to the same "Owner" rank as the other owner.
|
|
|
DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
@Trancion Aw ok, can you provide some reasons to why you don't support this idea please? (If you could, that would be great.) |
|
|
Support; as it'd be really useful if you wanted to own a group with your friend.
|
|
NomadnJoin Date: 2010-11-09
Post Count: 2705 |
Support.
|
|
TimeMorphJoin Date: 2010-12-09
Post Count: 10211 |
better than people using joint accounts, my only problem that remains is one of two said owners exiling members, I say there needs to an agreement between both owners if a mass exile needs to occur
"In this world people can change it for the better, and those people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that actually do" ~ Steve Jobs |
|
helloburpJoin Date: 2011-08-26
Post Count: 14376 |
Unnecessary and abusable
|
|
|
|
|
no support but support since I am no big group owner
#code |
|
|
No thanks, I think one is enough.
Having too many owners such as 2 could corrupt some big/small groups. |
|
NKM9Join Date: 2010-06-14
Post Count: 624 |
Support because if you think about it, if you have more than one person in charge, like for instant groups that make games together, then the head devs (or what ever you want to call them) will be able to edit what lower rankings are able to do. The way to avoid abuse, like many of you are against, is by having the original owner still have absolute power over everything and the original owner may invite someone else be be owner with them to the extent that they must also pay 100R$ (the normal price to make a group) for them to also be the owner in the group. |
|
helloburpJoin Date: 2011-08-26
Post Count: 14376 |
But if one of the owners decides to go on an abusing spree then the other cannot stop it.
|
|
DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
INTRODUCTION TO NEW IDEA:
So looking at some of the posts, the big problem here seems to be abuse of this feature, however, after thinking for a bit. I think I've come up with a way where basically the owner is still the original owner, however, this new owner can have almost all the same powers as the original.
STOPPING POWER ABUSE:
Building upon what NKM9 said, the original owner should be in power, however, maybe have a new roleset that has more permissions than normal rolesets. This roleset would cost 100 ROBUX to create, and it would contain more permissions such as "Allowed to give group funds" and other features that are only limited to the original owner, allowing the original owner to pick and choose what they want the 2nd owner to be able to do.
This allows the original owner to still have power over the new co-owner, allowing the original owner to stop any abuse they might cause.
DETAILS ABOUT THE CO-OWNER ROLESET:
Now, as I've stated before this roleset would cost 100 ROBUX to create. The rolesets "Rank" will also be locked at 254 making sure the co-owner rank is always right below the owner rank.
OWNER AGREEMENT TO DO MAJOR ACTIONS:
Now, the original owner will have a say in everything, let's say the co-owner would like to take out 100 ROBUX from the group funds, the original owner would be informed. This could be done via message by ROBLOX (As this same message system is used to inform you of other things like "you have claimed ownership of the group:" or other similar things.) From there, the original owner could accept the request or or decline it.
So, what do you think? |
|
|
In my opinion, this is kind of a good idea. Imagine you were the owner and you had a co-owner in the group. You'll no longer have an excuse not to place him as the second owner. A better idea would be to set the successor if the owner's BC expires, since it's pretty much the only reason anyone would think of adding this. |
|
|
So basically partnerships? Eh, support. In the real world people like to run businesses/organizations with friends, and ROBLOX is a great site to do things with friends.
https://www.roblox.com/library/557814991/Manics-New-Boyfriend |
|
DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
I'd just like to say a thanks to all the people who have supported this post, it really means a lot to me; To the people who have taken their time to look at this post. Thank you, even if you don't support this idea. Thank you for taking your time to click on this post. |
|
|
that's already added.
there can be two players that can have the owner rank in a group.
but someone would need to hold the group.
if I am wrong, please tell me. |
|
|
Make a rank called Co-Owner, and give him the proper permissions.
|
|
|
DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
@chatowillwin You can just create a new roleset, and give them all the permissions. However, they cannot use group funds, and not only this. But their name is not featured on the "Owned By:" under the group logo. I'm talking about making them a listed owner, not just making a rank a pretending they are the co-owner when they can't do half the stuff the owner can do.
I suggest you take the time to read my post "INTRODUCTION TO NEW IDEA:" to get an better idea if you haven't. |
|
DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
Bump. |
|
helloburpJoin Date: 2011-08-26
Post Count: 14376 |
This is really just redundant |
|
DeeruiaJoin Date: 2015-03-16
Post Count: 90 |
@helloburp Care to explain why it is? |
|
|
No support; just create a co - owner rank.
#code if R+ is cool then game.Players.Sufganiyot:BreakJoints |
|