fail-safe, the preventive method to prevent abuse or misuse of given authority

Suggestions Social
1

This suggestion is simple.

We got multiple ranks and titles,which have certain status in the game’s management.

 

Rough summary of permissions.

 

CEO - Founder of a Corporation. Full access to all features is given. (Invite, Kick, Welcome Message, Iridium management, Sector Control - SQ, and all other Corporation options in general.)

Vice President - Almost the same level of control as CEO, excluding dreadnought construction start cycle. (Invite, Kick, Welcome Message, Iridium management, Sector Control - SQ and other Corp options.)

Officer - Responsible for recruitment of new members. (Invite, Kick, Welcome Message, Iridium management, Sector Control only.)

 

I have spoken to multiple people.

The main issue here is the abuse of authority, due to “revenge” issues, sabotage or not well thought decisions by some of those members, when the same status was given to other people.

You can’t rely on the system, but the some preventive measures could be added, to limit such abuse or prevent it to some degree.

 

CEO - Founder of a Corporation (one and only)

Vice President - (exact number unknown)

Officer - (exact number unknown)

 

I am suggesting that we should get a feature, which would at least limit and give more control to the CEO (only) and/or Vice President.

If there are multiple Vice Presidents, either all of them get the same options or permissions or the CEO must assign at least one active “main or higher” Vice President to have the same authority as he has, when it comes to control of such features.

 

Under game’s options, there should be a new section called “Prevention System Management Control”, which only CEO can control or Vice President can fully control.

CEO can also check the option under “Prevention System Control Management” to assign this power to Vice President/s.

Officer/s should have only the recruitment power and Iridium usage control for dreadnoughts as well as Sector Conquest management control, same as they have now.

Officer/s should no longer be able to kick people, unless, if CEO have such option disabled in the game’s menu.

 

Prevention System Management Control (check/uncheck - enable/disable) under the game’s options in the game’s menu.

Other sub-options.

 

Iridium Management Options for the Corporate Account (check/uncheck - enable/disable option)

 

Set the maximum amount limit/cap for Iridium Boost option: (example: 3000 Iridium only) “slider option”

Set the time limit for the Corporate account: (example: 1 - 24 hours) “slider option”

Set the amount of times it can be used: (1 - 20 times) “slider option”

Set the minimum amount of used Iridium per each boost: (example: 1000 Iridium minimum and maximum of 10000 Iridium) “slider option”

Vice Presidents/Officers can invite and kick members/players only with the CEO’s permission or final confirmation: Yes, No option

Limit the amount of people that Vice Presidents/Officers can kick daily: (1-149), Unlimited

Vice Presidents/Officers can kick other Vice Presidents: Yes, No option

Officers can kick other Officers: Yes, No option

Approval from the CEO needed, if someone wants to promote a member to Officer or Vice President: Yes, No option

Approval from the CEO needed, if someone wants to kick a member/Officer, Vice President: Yes, No option

Banned members/players cannot send an application to join a Corporation again: Yes, No option

Automatically release the control to the Vice President/s after days/hours of CEO’s absence: (example: 1-7 days or hours)

Notification notice in Corporate chat, when a player joins or leaves the Corporation.

 

 

 

Sincerely,  Koromac

2

Maybe officers must mail CEO or VP about  some problems with our teammates and only CEO and/or VP be able to kick them out from corp.

+1

3

Maybe officers must mail CEO or VP about  some problems with our teammates and only CEO and/or VP be able to kick them out from corp.

+1

Yes, but sometimes things are not as simple as they seem to be.

In my own Corp, I would definitely only entrust people wish such power, if they are really mature and smart enough not to give invites of the same rank to a different person without my approval.

If that would be the case, then this wouldn’t really be needed. It is still happening and the issue is more common than you might want to think.

4

nope, this is also not used in any other game

 

Whoever the CEO promotes receives full rights and the trust to behave accordingly

 

In case you can give an example of another game offering this we can discuss further

5

nope, this is also not used in any other game

 

Whoever the CEO promotes receives full rights and the trust to behave accordingly

 

In case you can give an example of another game offering this we can discuss further

I agree. The suggestion should stay open for now. It isn’t a top priority, but we can always discuss it, or pretty much simplify it. We can make it less complicated, if need be.

One option should be present though. Daily restriction of Iridium for the Corporate Account, when using Boost option. At least this option should be available under game options for the CEO.

The CEO should be able to set a maximum total limit of (corporate) Iridium to be used for each day, in case if some Officer decides to use all the Iridium (Boost option), then leaves the Corp and joins another Corp.

I agree that in the end, it all comes down to the human factor.

 

The other way is that we include strict penalties in the game rules, to punish such actions, if they were proven to be intentional and against the rules in general.

We need an updated In-Game Policy with much stricter approach for such actions.

6

there is and will not be an In-Game Policy how player have to organize their corps

 

This is up to player

7

Actually i think the problem with iridium will solve itself since corps will never again have so high iridium stored and boost option dissapeard.

 

Aditionally i thought about espionage and i think its just not worth the trouble. To effectively make a sabotage attempt u would need to be at least officer and even then u cannot do much. The worst u can do is fire some inactives from da corp which are better off anyway, the rest will just come back by itself.

 

So abusive options are really very very low.

8

Actually i think the problem with iridium will solve itself since corps will never again have so high iridium stored and boost option dissapeard.

 

Aditionally i thought about espionage and i think its just not worth the trouble. To effectively make a sabotage attempt u would need to be at least officer and even then u cannot do much. The worst u can do is fire some inactives from da corp which are better off anyway, the rest will just come back by itself.

 

So abusive options are really very very low.

Well, some Officer fired 149 members.

9

What if: you can promote up to your rank but you cannot kick your own rank, so for VP you cannot kick other VPs. For CEO then I guess you have to give up your rank so there is only one CEO.

And maybe put a cap on number of users an officer can kick per day :slight_smile:

10

Here are my thoughts on the matter.

A corporation starts off with one CEO. The CEO can create different ranks with customizable names. There is a finite choice of permissions. Here is an example (there will obviously be more options than this):

  • Change Announcements

  • Recruit Players

  • Kick Corpmates

  • Manage Dreadnoughts

  • Create Wing

The CEO will be able to delegate permissions in a sort of checklist manner. For instance, a VP will have all permissions while an Officer will only be able to recruit and create wings. Furthermore, a ‘Professor’ can only create wings.

This way the CEO has complete freedom to control his corporation.

11

Dynamis:

 

We had a wannabe ‘spy’ who made it into an officer post and kicked our entire corporation roster. No disciplinary action was taken by the company against the individual, despite requests to make a distinction between the cutthroat tactics of EVE and this game.

 

So I guess it’s fine to sabotage other player’s corporations. Consider it a game mechanic. Installing safeguards would only hinder the potential influx of money from frustrated players having to rebuild entire corporations, and that would be a very bad thing indeed.

12

@SF: Did ur people come back without much fuss or had u real problems with getting em back?

13

Dynamis:

 

We had a wannabe ‘spy’ who made it into an officer post and kicked our entire corporation roster. No disciplinary action was taken by the company against the individual, despite requests to make a distinction between the cutthroat tactics of EVE and this game.

 

So I guess it’s fine to sabotage other player’s corporations. Consider it a game mechanic. Installing safeguards would only hinder the potential influx of money from frustrated players having to rebuild entire corporations, and that would be a very bad thing indeed.

 

So the game publishers/admins are responsible for your decision of making this person an officer? That like legally giving someone your assets and then blaming the government because you got “robbed”

 

Nowhere in the game rules does it say its against rules to kick people out of a corporation you’re officer in. You made a decision, knowing the possible consequences, now deal with them

14

So the game publishers/admins are responsible for your decision of making this person an officer? That like legally giving someone your assets and then blaming the government because you got “robbed”

 

Nowhere in the game rules does it say its against rules to kick people out of a corporation you’re officer in. You made a decision, knowing the possible consequences, now deal with them

Exactly. Monitoring wouldn’t be bad, but it’s also not necessary, if you got reponsible people. I just thought that I should mention this system. It could still be present in some form, less restrictive and more simplified.

15

I don’t really understand the problem… If you don’t want tpeople to have access, just don’t promote them. It’s hard to put limit when it’s a problem with a player behaviour and not really a game mechanic.

But I agree, if the CEO could change the setting for each rank, it could allow him and is Vice-pres / Officers to manage the corp according to their view, and not be limited by the devs view of it.

 

nope, this is also not used in any other game

 

Whoever the CEO promotes receives full rights and the trust to behave accordingly

 

In case you can give an example of another game offering this we can discuss further

First of all, I agree on the trust part. Devs are not responsible for the behaviour of a stupid jerk.

 

But I can give a detailed exemple of a small unplayed game that use similar thing that Koromac suggest : WORLD OF WARCRAFT.

 

The Guild Master can set up to 10 or 11 different ranks, and specifies permission for each on a toggle on / off, or even grant access to specified amount of thing in the guild bank :

  • acces to guild chat
  • access to officer chat
  • promote member
  • retrograde member rank
  • inviting member
  • kicking member out
  • view guild bank
  • deposit on guild bank
  • take thing on guild bank (limited in number of item / day)
  • take gold on guild bank
  • specific limit of gold used for repair / day with the guild bank (different than the one before)

The last 3 are similar to what Koromac suggest about iridium, if I’m not mistaken.

In my guild for instance, we have a wide invite group, allowing a good flow in new players, but the kicking option is only in the hand of the Guild Master.

 

Nowhere in the game rules does it say its against rules to kick people out of a corporation you’re officer in.

Yup, it doesn’t say so in the rules. But it could be a great option for CEOs to have the possibility to name members in the corp that can invite people in (ease the management of large corp by widening the invite group), but can’t kick… For obvious reason of apocalyptic behaviour.

 

OT ; specificaly about you suggestion, I agree mostly, Koromac, but I think the CEO approval thing could be done directly with him, and he then fire himself the member. It can really be done by just speaking with the lead, or writing him a mail :stuck_out_tongue: I don’t think it need game support.

And a rank should not be able to kick a member from the same rank, that could only enforce some personal / revengeful behaviour.

 

About penalties, I can’t only talk about WoW : a player who manage to “steal” some goods in a wow guild bank is not receiving penalty from the Game Masters. But the stolen items / gold are retrieved and given back to the guild.
I don’t think you need to push penalty on the abuser (it’s a game after all), but helping the abused corp to recover is needed!

 

If my mermory is good, Warframe have a similar customisable system for clan to, even more specific with clanhousing specific related permission.

16

I’d like to have a customized rank system, that you can create groups, give them names and permissions yourself, like on Teamspeak. 

17

I’d like to have a customized rank system, that you can create groups, give them names and permissions yourself, like on Teamspeak. 

There is also another issue. If someone leaves your Corporation, you do not know, who it was.

There is no notification for this, but we have notification for Premium ship (spam) in the global/corporate chat, which is really annoying and disruptive, since we can’t turn it off.

18

There is also another issue. If someone leaves your Corporation, you do not know, who it was.

There is no notification for this, but we have notification for Premium ship (spam) in the global/corporate chat, which is really annoying and disruptive, since we can’t turn it off.

Sure, i’d say there should be an option to disable the premium ship’s notifaction, or at least limit them to friends/followed players/corpmates, so that you see if they buy a ship, i don’t care if random players buy a Rockwell.

And add notifications at least to officers+ if somebody joines/leaves the corp.

19

Now that you say it, it’s true there is no corp log… It’s always great to track what happened when you where offline / to know when a player join or leave when you are online.

20

Removed by Author