Sorry for the bump, but I want to make sure this is still coming eventually. With the recent removal of forums, this is something we desperately need.
18 Likes
If they removed forums because the forums were too challenging or expensive to moderate, wouldnât group-specific forums be much harder to moderate? Not being able to see all of the posts at the same time, I can imagine extremely inappropriate threads and posts all over these private forums.
4 Likes
Honestly Iâm hugely in support of this in general, but 90% because of the group forums. RBX_Lua has a point, though: wouldnât it be much harder to moderate?
But really the 1% of C&G that I really liked were when war group leaders would come together to form sort of alliances and have things that you could only dream of in science fiction movies. This sounds super nerdy but the roleplay aspect of war groups in terms of having big war agreements, peace treaties, and stuff like that made C&G fun at times. Sure, 99% of the time that came with a bunch of ugly hate and HUGE amounts of spam, but it was still extremely fun just to be a part of a community that did take that roleplaying aspect of war groups seriously, ya know?
Without the forums, these roleplay aspects are extremely difficult to do, if possible at all. In order to even have the same level of publicity that the peace treaties of C&G did, someone really well-known in the war groups genre would have to create a new group, invite a TON of people, and then post said treaties on that groups forum. Itâd basically be a group dedicated to BEING the next C&G.
Which, when you think about it, is a really strange thing because that would just basically revive C&G and bring back the ugly hate and spam that C&G was deleted for to begin with.
At the moment I canât think of a solution that would be able to organize group members in one big meeting place (like C&G originally used to do) without there being all the spam, but Iâm sure there is one.
2 Likes
Perhaps now that the forums are gone, these could be some of the new features they promised.
11 Likes
Would be quite nice if groups could get some love considering how outdated theyâre becoming.
14 Likes
I honestly just miss the general community that the C&G forums provided. Yes, there was a lot of chaos and toxicity, but there were still a few people that I became close with. The thing that sucks about the removal of the forums is losing contact with people who I became friends with, but wasnât close enough to at the time so I have no way of contacting them now. :\
2 Likes
Friendly reminder that something like the succession system that Lilly proposed here would prevent catastrophes caused by this websiteâs poor moderation system.
EDIT:
This has been fixed!
20 Likes
Idea:
Group pins.
Only the owner of the group can set it.
If you get hacked, the hacker must know the pin to edit permissions/pay/etc
19 Likes
I strongly support this.
2 Likes
Has not been fixed. We need successors. If someone is terminated, I want my group to go to someone else.
3 Likes
The issue in which groups can get commandeered by any random person that comes across it has, in fact, been fixed.
I guess that aspect of it is, but there are still many issues with that.
1 Like
Iâm sorry for the revival here, but Iâd like to add a suggestion to this group overhaul idea!
Now this suggestion may contain some loopholes that need fixing, but itâd really be beneficial if these are resolved.
(It may sound a bit similar to the âDivisionâ idea already mentioned now that I read the existing ideas a bit better.)
Branches
So my suggestion would be a system that allows you to create a group as Headquarters and create sub-groups as Branches connected to it.
About the Headquarters
The Headquarters (HQ) would be the âmainâ group, per say. The HQâs leader and those permitted would run every branch they own. A HQ should have a (coloured) tag as pre- or suffix indicating that theyâre the HQ.
The HQ manages the finance of every individual branch unless they grant permissions to a branch to do it themselves.
Possible Available Permissions
The HQ would be able to grant or revoke various permissions such as:
- Financial Permissions;
- General;
- Level 1;
- Earn funds; (e.g by games)
- Send funds to the HQ;
- Level 2;
- Spend funds; (Only for group stuff such as new roles)
- Earn funds; (e.g by games)
- Send funds to the HQ;
- Level 3;
- Spend funds; (For group payout, new roles, etc.)
- Earn funds; (e.g by games)
- Send funds to the HQ and the other branches;
- Level 1;
- Taxation;
- Enable tax as percentage or amount in R$;
(This would be a numeric inputfield where you can input an amount of Robux thatâs periodically sent to the HQ for each Branch individually)
- Enable tax as percentage or amount in R$;
- General;
- Branch Management;
- Set Branch Manager;
(Would be an alphanumeric inputfield where you can select someone thatâs in that specific branch by filling in a username; the HQ owner is also able to set certain permissions for the Branch Manager.)
- Set Branch Manager;
As long as the Robux stays within the branches and HQ, it should not have the 30% market fee because it practically canât be abused (right?). Obviously, the earned stuff by the games or the store they own do have the 30% - 90% market fee just like everything else.
About the Branches
Branches are shown in a tab called something like âBranchesâ in the HQ. All branches have their own funds jar, but these are mostly managed by the HQ by default.
Branches can create games and have an amount of available roles for their own.
Every Branch has their own set of permissions thatâre similar to the ones the current groups have. The HQ owner, Branch Manager or those permitted are able to change these permissions for their own branch.
A link to and / or an icon of the HQ is somewhere visible on every branch as well to keep the flow.
Howâs it going?!
I was also wondering how the Group Overhaul is doing right now and if itâs actively being worked on?
Thanks for the time 
21 Likes