Group Ownership Succession Change

Updates Announcements
#16

as a group owner (for 7 years now)

I want a way to prevent users from rejoining the group after being exiled

I am forced to have a “pending” rank so when spammers do rejoin the group they can’t post.

this wouldn’t be a big deal if I could have more ranks but I have to use 1 of them to sort out people I dont want in the group.

that’s all for legacy features I guess, I have a lot more complaints about the group page that I feel is limiting my interaction with current, and potential members… ruining the “social” factor

14 Likes
#17

This can be exploited, if a user is terminated then that means they did something bad. If you allow them to choose a successor then they’ll just make an alternative account that sits there and wait in case they get terminated and the whole thing starts all over again.

2 Likes
#18

I don’t think groups should be up for grabs at all. It doesn’t belong to the guy “lucky enough” to pass by the group right as it loses the owner. Like limiteds, it shouldn’t go to random people when an owner gets deleted, it doesn’t make sense.

9 Likes
#20

I would keep discussing about the topic, but from the results of previous discussions on the devforums about changes to the site, not much is going to change.

#21

Why do you want ownership to open up after a month?

#23

I disagree. If I’m going to be deleted, my things should be deleted with me. I don’t want to open up all of my projects to the ownership of a random third party.

9 Likes
#24

After a month without having your account successfully reviewed and unbanned, it probably means that the ban was well-deserved. After that point, ownership should open up.

It’s just a precaution for accounts that were unfairly banned.

2 Likes
#25

I feel the same way.

we have been trying to offer suggestions to improve groups for years, instead we never see anything done, and we are kept with rumors of a group revamp coming eventually inconsistently being fueled.

I’d rather be told nothing is happening than false hope.

2 Likes
#26

If they were unfairly banned, they can appeal.

2 Likes
#27

I wasn’t even thinking about copyright or anything, I agree

3 Likes
#28

Only for 30 days. Appeals are no longer looked at after that time frame.

1 Like
#29

Let’s say that you were basically a co-owner of that group and you guys had a lot of good development going on, but the owner messed up and got banned and it was of no relations to the group. You should be able to grab ownership of said group to keep things flowing.

3 Likes
#30

if you’re co-owner you should have access to your assets anyways. the whole group doesnt shut down when the owner is terminated

2 Likes
#31

So the solution is an official feature for co-ownership / successor system – not opening up groups to be taken by randoms again.

5 Likes
#32

By simply letting the group continue surviving. No actual serious development teams will be affected by this update unless something silly like this happens again. What we’re talking about here will, however, affect the more casual users.

Development teams and groups are not at risk, community-related groups are.

3 Likes
#33

Yes, but then you have to create an entirely new group if you want to manage the members.

@EchoReaper I would prefer that, but someone on this very thread mentioned that you could simply give ownership to an alternative account and circumvent the punishments of the ban.

#34

co-ownership is very much needed. There’s no insurance that a group owner you’re partnering with won’t just cut you out and take all the profit.

7 Likes
#35

Why should a group community be able to take over the group without the owner’s consent? We don’t allow groups to vote out inactive leaders/etc for a reason.

@Scriptos Same is true with opening it up for anyone to take. Moderation can review the set co-owners / successors when they delete a user to verify the group doesn’t return to them.

6 Likes
#37

It has worked during all of these years, why would it all of a sudden not?

Yes, just like all things this would have been exploited sky high to kick leaders out and ownership remains with the owner, however if the owner ends up being a silly person and get terminated by breaking the rules and his appeal is denied, then the group as a whole will more or less die off because of the actions of one person. Why not just let someone grab it then rather than becoming dead meat?

#38

Something being possible doesn’t mean having it was a good thing.

That’s not for the community to decide. The owner may want the group to die if someone else were to lead it. We shouldn’t be allowing the community to usurp control over a group just because they don’t agree with the owner – like it or not, it’s their group and it’s their decision what they do with the group. If they want the group to continue without them, then they can explicitly designate a successor / co-owner. Otherwise, the community they spent years building up shouldn’t be put up for grabs by random people.

1 Like