forums.rs

Forums

Inactive Clan Owners Thread is locked

Quick find code: 86-87-286-65225376

of 31
Thylordship
Apr Member 2023

Thylordship

Posts: 1,372 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I like your suggestion in that it solves a lot of the current problems, but it seems to create a few new ones:

1) You lose a whole rank and no way to install another leader if you don't want to be the leader if you're the only dep owner.
1a) You can't even leave because then you're clan has no more options.
2) This seems to rely on the fact that the clan in question even has deputy owners, let alone owners that want to lead and are still active.
3) Conversely, if there are 2+ dep owners, you now have 2 people that can do whatever they want with the clan without punishment and the chain of command gets broken as they can override each other.
4) Infinite kicking rule could easily be abused with this if desired. This is assuming that there's not enough space to hold 2 presets of permissions so after the leader returns, you have 2 ranks now with infinite kicks.

I like the idea but I don't like those problems there with all the variables present. This only works really with 1 or 2+ dep owners who can perfectly agree that are active enough to do this and will never go inactive. Seems like quite the burden to bear...

Though I would like to say it's interesting you've gone from saying that a clan should just start over with new everything before and now with this system in place you feel the clan name is the only thing that matters... Shouldn't the only thing that matter is nothing gets destroyed and the community stays the way it was, not the name of the clan? What's so special about a name?

11-Dec-2013 16:08:27 - Last edited on 11-Dec-2013 16:08:40 by Thylordship

Pescao6
Aug Member 2007

Pescao6

Posts: 9,075 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
@Thylordship:
1. Sometimes a Clan has to die for another Clan to be born.
2. I would assume that without an Active Owner (or Deputy Owner), the Clan is already dead. I once saw an Organizer attempt to re-create a Clan his former Owners had closed; it lasted about a month before it collapsed.
3. I've seen Clans use a shared account as the Owner having all Clan Leaders as Deputy Owners, and I've seen Clans where Deputy Owners have as much authority as the Owner. In both cases, when the people in charge couldn't reach an agreement, the Clan splitted apart into different Clans.
4. Although highly unlikely, it can still be abused today by adding a bunch of Alt Accounts as Admin+ and using them to kick lower ranked Clanmates.
5. As I said before, New Name = New Clan.
*
Pescao6
of
El Imperio Latino

Hola Noob! Klk? What's up?
~
Discord: Pescao6#0001

11-Dec-2013 17:00:04

Scret
Mar Member 2018

Scret

Posts: 25,434 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Pescao6 said :
@Thylordship:
1. Sometimes a Clan has to die for another Clan to be born.
2. I would assume that without an Active Owner (or Deputy Owner), the Clan is already dead. I once saw an Organizer attempt to re-create a Clan his former Owners had closed; it lasted about a month before it collapsed.
3. I\'ve seen Clans use a shared account as the Owner having all Clan Leaders as Deputy Owners, and I\'ve seen Clans where Deputy Owners have as much authority as the Owner. In both cases, when the people in charge couldn\'t reach an agreement, the Clan splitted apart into different Clans.
4. Although highly unlikely, it can still be abused today by adding a bunch of Alt Accounts as Admin+ and using them to kick lower ranked Clanmates.
5. As I said before, New Name = New Clan.

2. Well this has nothing to do with any system or ideas all this shows is they didnt have the ability to start a clan. With enough commitment you can recreate a clan for sure. It collapsed because they didnt have enough personally to do it.

Again i have to say this, there are plenty of clans that run well without an owner and can continue to run well. (not that im saying dont look for a solution)
`*•.¸(*•.¸(`*•.¸+¸.•*´)¸.•*)¸.•*´
+«´¨`•°
SKILL SCHOOL
•´¨`»+
. .•*(¸.•*´(¸.•*´+`*•.¸)`*•.¸)*•.

11-Dec-2013 17:26:07 - Last edited on 11-Dec-2013 17:26:52 by Scret

[#OUEGO5OBM]

[#OUEGO5OBM]

Posts: 11,155 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
We could make this so simple:
- Give all Owner permissions except ability to change the Clan Name to Deputy Owners by default.

Definitely No!

these permissions should never be given by default. 9 times out of ten if something is going to go terribly wrong with a clan it will be a deputy who does it. Hence when we asked Mod Maz to temporarily fix the kick permissions deputy owners were treated no differently to any other admin rank. I should always be up to the clan owner who has what permissions otherwise you totally negate the role of clan owner. Once the permissions are fixed properly by Mod Maz then it will be up to each individual clan owner to decide what permissions to give deputy owners.

11-Dec-2013 17:29:50

Thylordship
Apr Member 2023

Thylordship

Posts: 1,372 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
1) Well if that's truly how you feel and think that owner is critical to the clan that he can't be removed... wouldn't removing him from position thus create a "new" clan while allowing everyone else to maintain all the work they've done?
2) Exactly my point, isn't adding a new Owner better then?
3) Also this is precisely my point where chains of command must be preserved and not replacing the leader and multiple mini-leaders would break the chain.
4) Well yes, but even so, there's no reason for Jagex to add another way to abuse it.
5)You seem perfectly okay with a new clan being formed in your first point though... So if you're okay with a new clan being formed, why is this critical now?

@Scret
I'm curious, on that last sentence, what exactly are you saying, because the parenthetical is exactly what I thought you meant lol.

@Golden
But what about all the clans who don't have an owner to decide what permissions or roles everyone other rank should have? You've mentioned before this system another person would act as owner and run things should a leader go inactive... Yet this is unappealing even though it's returning clans to the situation you've praised? If it's the legitimate owners that are the concern, why not just add failsafes or specific rule prevent this from affecting them to avoid this? If it's the lack of choice in who runs it, couldn't this just be solved by giving the ownership to the rightful person if the system chooses wrong?

11-Dec-2013 17:51:43

Pescao6
Aug Member 2007

Pescao6

Posts: 9,075 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
@Daisy:

Basically, you're saying we need a 'Lowest rank to edit permissions' Permission?
'Cause the defaults Jagex picked seem to be causing problems for some Clans.

@Thy:

1. I don't support removing Owners.
2. No.
3. I don't see the problem.
4. Meh.
5. I don't understand your question.
*
Pescao6
of
El Imperio Latino

Hola Noob! Klk? What's up?
~
Discord: Pescao6#0001

11-Dec-2013 18:12:25 - Last edited on 11-Dec-2013 18:22:55 by Pescao6

Scret
Mar Member 2018

Scret

Posts: 25,434 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Thylordship said :
1) Well if that\'s truly how you feel and think that owner is critical to the clan that he can\'t be removed... wouldn\'t removing him from position thus create a "new" clan while allowing everyone else to maintain all the work they\'ve done?
2) Exactly my point, isn\'t adding a new Owner better then?
3) Also this is precisely my point where chains of command must be preserved and not replacing the leader and multiple mini-leaders would break the chain.
4) Well yes, but even so, there\'s no reason for Jagex to add another way to abuse it.
5)You seem perfectly okay with a new clan being formed in your first point though... So if you\'re okay with a new clan being formed, why is this critical now?

@Scret
I\'m curious, on that last sentence, what exactly are you saying, because the parenthetical is exactly what I thought you meant lol.

@Golden
But what about all the clans who don\'t have an owner to decide what permissions or roles everyone other rank should have? You\'ve mentioned before this system another person would act as owner and run things should a leader go inactive... Yet this is unappealing even though it\'s returning clans to the situation you\'ve praised? If it\'s the legitimate owners that are the concern, why not just add failsafes or specific rule prevent this from affecting them to avoid this? If it\'s the lack of choice in who runs it, couldn\'t this just be solved by giving the ownership to the rightful person if the system chooses wrong?

It means Pescao stop saying the clan dies when the clan leader is inactive.
`*•.¸(*•.¸(`*•.¸+¸.•*´)¸.•*)¸.•*´
+«´¨`•°
SKILL SCHOOL
•´¨`»+
. .•*(¸.•*´(¸.•*´+`*•.¸)`*•.¸)*•.

11-Dec-2013 18:15:58

Pescao6
Aug Member 2007

Pescao6

Posts: 9,075 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Scret said :
It means Pescao stop saying the clan dies when the clan leader is inactive.
I said Leaders; not Leader. Meaning ALL of the Owners including all Deputy Owners.

Have you ever seen a Clan run by Overseers? I haven't.

--
EDIT:
I'm done here. This is getting us nowhere.
We're just adding more to read for Mod Maz when she returns.
*
Pescao6
of
El Imperio Latino

Hola Noob! Klk? What's up?
~
Discord: Pescao6#0001

11-Dec-2013 18:24:45 - Last edited on 11-Dec-2013 18:28:19 by Pescao6

Quick find code: 86-87-286-65225376 Back to Top