|
Post by The Dark Master on Aug 1, 2009 14:59:19 GMT -5
Maybe...Are staff allowed to do it?I dont think many normal members (well I can) can afford it.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 1, 2009 15:06:05 GMT -5
10,000 is far too much. I was thinking more around 6,300... ... ... XD
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 2, 2009 2:48:18 GMT -5
I think this is a pretty good idea and would be pretty useful. You could have ur own mini-forum of a sub-board and a few sub-sub-boards in it. (If this turns out to be possible) Then you could have ur own custom coding to make it more personalized, like an extra chat or something, with an extra member or two to help run it.
|
|
|
Post by dagamer on Aug 2, 2009 3:24:19 GMT -5
I IZ AN AGREER! That does sound like a cool idea.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 2, 2009 4:58:27 GMT -5
I disagree with the moderation rights or the member group idea. The first is selling staff positions. There is no other way to put it. The latter causes a lot of trouble with board permissions, etc. Let's face it, if they got a board, they could see the staff board and would have a staff rank. Also a staff membergroup, which means nobody can buy both a board and a group (see below).
As for making the boards... If people really want their own board, why not go make another forum? That's how it's been done before... Anyway, do we really want a board with sub-boards almost as common as threads in it?
If we do choose to do this, the custom coding sounds good, so long as they are reviewed first... I don't think it should be allowed any sub-sub boards, though, although I do believe there is a code for those.
Please keep in mind that 20K DBs doesn't necessarily need 10K posts. Look at me. I've never modified my dan-ball count without selling something, and I'm already over a million. Man, those chatango supporterships go for a lot...
Anyway, lots of other people have over 10K DBs, and several have over 20K. I can't really say they haven't modified their DB counts, though.
Anyway, the reason the prices are so high is that we don't want any random person be able to come in one day, post a bunch, buy the board/group, as could happen if they were only 2000-3000. They would still be new, but with their own group/board.
As to the member groups, perhaps they can allow people into those groups, so long as they don't sell positions in the groups? This would be VERY useful to various groups. Also, keep in mind that the groups are all member-only, no staff. I suppose staff members could make one, with the same powers as their current position, but nobody else could join it (unless there was a MemberGroup2 or something, and then they would have to pay extra).
Of course, all of this is theoretical, as I am against the member group idea (you have no idea how many problems it would create with the viewing permissions, the codes, etc), but the user-owned board idea is okay, so long as they can't assign mods to it, and any codes they add are reviewed by us (us being high staff).
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 2, 2009 11:11:19 GMT -5
Qwerty, you have to make it for member groups to be able to see the staff board. You would make it so the owner is a moderator, and set it so they can only have their powers in the boards they are set to moderate. Then you would set it so they would only see the staff lounge.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 2, 2009 12:05:18 GMT -5
Why would we let people with their own boards see the staff lounge when they aren't truly staff?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 2, 2009 13:30:04 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant to say you would set it so they couldn't see the staff lounge. That was a typo.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 2, 2009 13:35:56 GMT -5
Ah, well the only way to do that is to set the membergroup as "not staff." I don't remember what one is able to change for someone who is classified as "not staff," but I don't think that such a user can have ANY staff powers...
With that in mind, it would be nearly (if not completely) impossible to give someone some kind of staff powers without letting them have access to the staff lounge...
...unless I changed the viewing permissions of the staff lounge to only allow certain membergroups to see it. I have to side with QwertyuiopThePie that no one should be given staff powers just because they run their own board. The category moderator could just look over that full board (and all sub-boards in it) to ensure that nothing prohibited is taking place. If the sub-board owners want powers to be able to put in neat codes, then they should just ask High Staff to insert such a code into the appropriate sub-board.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 2, 2009 13:41:07 GMT -5
nuh uh. When you modify a category you can set what member groups can see it. You just make a new member group called "User board Mods" and have them not be able to see it.
Nvrmind i just read ur whole post...
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Aug 2, 2009 19:04:08 GMT -5
Ah, well the only way to do that is to set the membergroup as "not staff." I don't remember what one is able to change for someone who is classified as "not staff," but I don't think that such a user can have ANY staff powers... With that in mind, it would be nearly (if not completely) impossible to give someone some kind of staff powers without letting them have access to the staff lounge... ...unless I changed the viewing permissions of the staff lounge to only allow certain membergroups to see it. I have to side with QwertyuiopThePie that no one should be given staff powers just because they run their own board. The category moderator could just look over that full board (and all sub-boards in it) to ensure that nothing prohibited is taking place. If the sub-board owners want powers to be able to put in neat codes, then they should just ask High Staff to insert such a code into the appropriate sub-board. Simple solution, make a new position ("sub-board owner") and set it to only be usable in set boards and not be able to view any staff functions, other than stickying and locking in their own board. They would also not get free shop items like staff do.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 2, 2009 19:21:37 GMT -5
Well, now that I am Co-Owner instead of Site Owner, I am incapable of creating new membergroups. I won't be able to test that, let alone carry out such a measure. Come to think of it, I remember being able to make someone have power only in a single sub-board and not in its parent board...
Such a person will be unable to make currency transactions, as profile modification is necessary for that, and profile modification is only available to those who have "universal" or "global" (i.e. inter-board) powers...
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Aug 2, 2009 20:28:21 GMT -5
Actually, they won't be able to see the staff board unless you checkmark the name/group in being able to see it.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 2, 2009 20:51:22 GMT -5
...unless I changed the viewing permissions of the staff lounge to only allow certain membergroups to see it. That's what I said before...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 3, 2009 2:35:59 GMT -5
It's set so all staff members see the staff lounge. We cannot give people moderating rights without making them staff. Therefore, we would have to uncheck "staff" and check all the staff membergroups. Possible, but do we really want them to appear on the list when people look under the "staff" section of the member's list? I use that regularly to check staff ranks, etc, and that would not be a good thing.
Your also not considering the many board permissions errors this would cause... Wait, no, that's about the membergroup idea.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 3, 2009 3:06:29 GMT -5
No no no no, we would not have to do that. The board is set so you can choose everyone, guests, and staff. The staff category itself though allows you to pick membergroups. Therefore, Even if they are staff, if they cant see the category, they cant see the board.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 3, 2009 3:13:45 GMT -5
That's what I just said.
You are forgetting the memberlist problem...
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 3, 2009 3:30:44 GMT -5
oops, i tend to post sometimes without reading the whole post
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 3, 2009 3:39:22 GMT -5
That explains a lot. So, do we have agreement/disagreement? We should take a vote on this: Board: There exists a board, you can buy your own sub board within it. You control all the codes, the description, even whether it is opened or closed, all the codes on it (with high-staff approval), but you don't have moderator-type control over it. If you ARE a category moderator already, however, we may as well make you a mod of your board. Member group: You buy your own non-staff member group. You control how many stars, what kind, the name, etc. You can invite other people to join, but not sell positions in the group. | Boards | Member groups | Yes | 2 | 0 | No | 0 | 2 |
I vote yes on the boards, but no on the member groups. EDIT: I vote the same both ways. Didn't want to make another whole post just to say that though
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Aug 4, 2009 16:09:27 GMT -5
It's set so all staff members see the staff lounge. We cannot give people moderating rights without making them staff. Therefore, we would have to uncheck "staff" and check all the staff membergroups. Possible, but do we really want them to appear on the list when people look under the "staff" section of the member's list? I use that regularly to check staff ranks, etc, and that would not be a good thing. Your also not considering the many board permissions errors this would cause... Wait, no, that's about the membergroup idea. No, it is set so all the staff MEMBERGROUPS can see the staff lounge. The "staff" check only puts their name under the "staff" section in the members page.
|
|