Group Opinion

[MrsShortyTexan0822]

I do believe that this is a very good idea for the founders of the group because if the founder of the group had a partner or something like that and they made them an owner then something happened then the founder wouldn't be able to eject them from the group and the owner would be still in that group unless they left that group. 

[Cindy Evanier]

2 minutes ago, MrsShortyTexan0822 said:

I do believe that this is a very good idea for the founders of the group because if the founder of the group had a partner or something like that and they made them an owner then something happened then the founder wouldn't be able to eject them from the group and the owner would be still in that group unless they left that group. 

If the group is that important to the founder then don't make anyone co-owner apart from an alt. Again, the officer role is there for this eventuality.  Nobody needs an extra permission.  Founder has every option there to keep their group status safe. If THEY choose to make a co-owner, they know the possibilities are limited if they want to get rid of the co-owner.  Any more first time posters coming for a say?

[Tari Landar]

I vote we ask for group founders to be more responsible with their decision making

I also vote people stop using friggen colored text...it's annoying as all get out to us with visual impairments

 

 

 

 

 

And my other personalities agree with me

[Cindy Evanier]

8 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I vote we ask for group founders to be more responsible with their decision making

I also vote people stop using friggen colored text...it's annoying as all get out to us with visual impairments

 

 

 

 

 

And my other personalities agree with me

I believer this is a good idea for the founder of Tari's post as urmm dammnit I forgot why

but now I am vaguely interested to know what happened to cause the OP to need this silly founder permission

Edited August 13, 2017 by Cindy Evanier

[Tari Landar]

I have never understood why people gave folks in their groups more permissions than necessary...then later complain when it backfires.  We have all these nifty roles, and all these options. Either people don't understand them, or they just like to whine when their decision making skills go on hiatus for a while. I'm not real sure, but I've run across it a LOT over the years.

Of course telling them to simply be more responsible is about as effective as nailing prepared jello to a tree...only way less fun. 

A group founder being able to take a group back that he or she has sold off/left...that is *precisely what people would do with this option. I have no doubt whatsoever. That alone, negates the entire idea, it's too risky, and then we'll have even more colors, more fonts and more people complaining "but moooooooom, I need YOU to dress me".

Ok, maybe that was a bit dramatic., lmao. 

[Nick McGregor]

i agree to this it would make things easier 

Edited August 30, 2017 by major2013

[MoiraKathleen]

There is no need for additional rights of a group founder over other owners of a group.  What I don't understand is why someone founding a group would make someone else (a non-alt) an owner of the group.  There is the Officers role which is pre-made in the group setup.  Additionally,  a group founder can make new roles and assign the new new role any group functions that they feel are necessary for the new role.  

[Patrick032986]

On 8/30/2017 at 10:28 AM, moirakathleen said:

There is no need for additional rights of a group founder over other owners of a group.  What I don't understand is why someone founding a group would make someone else (a non-alt) an owner of the group.  There is the Officers role which is pre-made in the group setup.  Additionally,  a group founder can make new roles and assign the new new role any group functions that they feel are necessary for the new role.  

That still doesn't stop people taking over the group founders should still have the rights to take back their group.

[Alwin Alcott]

11 minutes ago, Patrick032986 said:

That still doesn't stop people taking over the group founders should still have the rights to take back their group.

a groupowner can only leave a group by full and total will, and own acting by having one or multiple co owners, ánd the free will and act of clicking of the leave button.

There is no single reason to give them the power to take over the group again.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Alwin Alcott

[Patrick032986]

Just now, Alwin Alcott said:

a groupowner can only leave a group by full and total will, and own acting by having one or multiple co owners, ánd own clicking of the leave button.

There is no single reason to give them the power to take over the group again.

Yes, there is, if it is related to something important business related that is.

[MoiraKathleen]

7 hours ago, Patrick032986 said:

That still doesn't stop people taking over the group founders should still have the rights to take back their group.

What I have understood as best practices when creating a group (after reading many tales of woe here about groups, and seeing the advice given by long-time members) is that when you create a group, assign your alt (or create and alt and than assign the alt) to the group as an owner.  This allows your alt to add you back as an owner if you accidently leave the group.  

My understanding is that a member with abilities to add new members cannot assign the new member to a role with more abilities than the role the person doing the adding has.  So only someone in an owner role can add someone else as an owner, and if the only other owner is your alt, then no one else can take ownership from you.  As Alwin noted above, you have to consciously take action to leave a group owner role. 

For everyone else, including business or domestic partners, add them as an officer role and assign the officer role all abilities.  You could even create a new role called "co-owner" or "partner" that has all abilities available in the group.  The only thing they won't be able to do is add someone else to the owner role, and that is for your protection as owner, and I cannot see any reason why they would need that ability.  

If you leave a group as the owner, due to selling the group associated with a business that you are selling to someone else, that is a business decision you are making, it should not be done lightly, and once done should be considered final (as it currently is).   In this type of business transaction, it is correct that you shouldn't be able to take the group back. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by moirakathleen

[Patrick032986]

On 9/2/2017 at 5:40 PM, moirakathleen said:

What I have understood as best practices when creating a group (after reading many tales of woe here about groups, and seeing the advice given by long-time members) is that when you create a group, assign your alt (or create and alt and than assign the alt) to the group as an owner.  This allows your alt to add you back as an owner if you accidently leave the group.  

My understanding is that a member with abilities to add new members cannot assign the new member to a role with more abilities than the role the person doing the adding has.  So only someone in an owner role can add someone else as an owner, and if the only other owner is your alt, then no one else can take ownership from you.  As Alwin noted above, you have to consciously take action to leave a group owner role. 

For everyone else, including business or domestic partners, add them as an officer role and assign the officer role all abilities.  You could even create a new role called "co-owner" or "partner" that has all abilities available in the group.  The only thing they won't be able to do is add someone else to the owner role, and that is for your protection as owner, and I cannot see any reason why they would need that ability.  

If you leave a group as the owner, due to selling the group associated with a business that you are selling to someone else, that is a business decision you are making, it should not be done lightly, and once done should be considered final (as it currently is).   In this type of business transaction, it is correct that you shouldn't be able to take the group back. 

If, you say, so I am not to argue about it because I am right, and you are wrong have a good day.

[Phil Deakins]

On 02/09/2017 at 5:45 PM, Patrick032986 said:

That still doesn't stop people taking over the group. founders should still have the rights to take back their group.

Nobody can take over a group unless the creator allows it.

The creator (founder) of a group should NEVER have the ability to take back a group that s/he has passed on. The reasons have been clearly state in this thread.

[Cindy Evanier]

Are we still arguing about this?   Is another new person coming to agree with the OP soon?  

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 hours ago, Patrick032986 said:

If, you say, so I am not to argue about it because I am right, and you are wrong have a good day.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by LittleMe Jewell

[LittleMe Jewell]

5 hours ago, Cindy Evanier said:

 Is another new person coming to agree with the OP soon?  

No, just one of the alts of the OP that has already replied here multiple times.

ETA - Though after looking at previous forum posts by the various individuals, I'd say the most recent post was actually by the account main and the OP and others are the alts.

Edited September 11, 2017 by LittleMe Jewell

[Drake1 Nightfire]

11 hours ago, Patrick032986 said:

If, you say, so I am not to argue about it because I am right, and you are wrong have a good day.

Whenever anyone says this, my only response can be.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Drake1 Nightfire

[MoiraKathleen]

15 hours ago, Patrick032986 said:

If, you say, so I am not to argue about it because I am right, and you are wrong have a good day.

In my opinion, that is a pretty flippant response, and one that makes me wonder if you've read and comprehended the responses posted here about the best ways to set up groups to protect yourself as the founder of the group - and that's fine, if that is how you want to be.  However, the next time you create a group, you might want to, just possibly, quietly come back here and re-read some of the suggestions given and apply them to your new group. 

[CatelinMcGrath]

I agree Founders should have more rights than owners. ***** happens between people and you should not lose your group or not be able to kick an "owner" out as the Founder of the group YOU created.

[HailyIsabelle]

I think this would be a great idea because there are too many groups that I personally had and that I had people added as owners and I could not get them to leave the group so I had to remove the group for good and make a new group. So doing this would be awesome giving the group maker more rights than owners I'm all for it.

[TheGuardianv01]

I also agree to founders having more rights for that exact reason

[Drake1 Nightfire]

1 hour ago, CatelinMcGrath said:

I agree Founders should have more rights than owners. ***** happens between people and you should not lose your group or not be able to kick an "owner" out as the Founder of the group YOU created.

 

53 minutes ago, HailyIsabelle said:

I think this would be a great idea because there are too many groups that I personally had and that I had people added as owners and I could not get them to leave the group so I had to remove the group for good and make a new group. So doing this would be awesome giving the group maker more rights than owners I'm all for it.

 

50 minutes ago, TheGuardianv01 said:

I also agree to founders having more rights for that exact reason

I think all y'all need to look at the dates of threads before you post in them.... this is almost 2 years old... 

[Destiny99nightingale]

i think its a great ida comeing from someone who has had ppl they trusted as owners of a group ppl i have known in rl and sl for years and then they took over the group and i couldnt take owner from them so i had to kick everyone from that family group and make a new one 

[Destiny99nightingale]

ppl do get hacked and then that hacker makes other ppl you dont know owners of your groups and you cant kick them so yes great ida for more then one resion 

[Sasy Scarborough]

When creating a group it should not belong to a person that has a main account, you should FOUND the group with an alt, that way if you do decide to leave as an owner you can walk away. As everyone has said, there are roles that make it possible that a found already has more options, it is up to the people working the roles to understand them. Having your own alts as owners are definitely good ideas. The main issue most have is that owner seems to imply some kind of status that a partner does not have, which is garbage. Change the role names, have an alt that does nothing as the founder and then the owners can all be Maximum Officer roles and then there can be secondary officers etc. Owner roles are actually safe from ACCIDENTALLY leaving, how do you leave something as an owner when there is a big ARE YOU SURE Message that pops up if you try ? or do you have that turned off somewhere because that would be the issue not something having more rights.

None of my important groups have me as Founder, but I sure as hell can bring down the hammer on anyone and in any way as me. While others have powers, they do not have the ones that could remove control from me unless necessary.

There is no status in being the 'owner' role, 100L and search can give anyone that same imagined status.

As for the alts accusations, if I was new here and typing something that I wanted to be seen and feeling that others having an opinion on the subject, because they are like minded, in the same group, crew whatever, chances are I would say to those people I was posting, where I was posting and link to it, much like most that make Jiras do, and then within seconds my friends, crew, group would chime in, that is easily what could have occurred here.