Poll: Allow multiple role-based permissions within alliances? eg. General, Officers etc

Dude17

What do you think about having multiple ranks with different role-based permissions? Eg. Officers able to reposition AW defenders within their bg but not kick anyone. Lieutenant may be able to reposition defenders in any bg, but not kick anyone. General may be a backup leader etc.

The reason for this is to allow for a clearer division of responsibilities, without risking giving too many players “admin access”. Personally, I’m not a fan of a few players being responsible for all the operational tasks, rather this should be shared amongst the alliance as much as possible, to avoid burnout.

Also interested in hearing what approach your alliance currently uses. Thanks!

Shadowstrike

I get your proposal, I've had plenty of guys who wanted to be officers but it was usually those who were the most vocal about cleaning house if they had the opportunity.

So in the grand tradition of "those who seek the most power are the ones least worthy to have it", if you're worried about giving somebody admin access, then they're not officer material at all.

Dude17

Yes, I support this idea

Shadowstrike said:

I get your proposal, I've had plenty of guys who wanted to be officers but it was usually those who were the most vocal about cleaning house if they had the opportunity.

So in the grand tradition of "those who seek the most power are the ones least worthy to have it", if you're worried about giving somebody admin access, then they're not officer material at all.

Indeed, I find that the best officers are the reluctant ones - they are calm, reliable, organized and most importantly ego doesn’t get in the way.

“Status” aside, this is more about clear division of labour & RBAC (role-based access control). But yeah, it’s just a game so it may be overkill

Shadowstrike

Dude17 said:

Shadowstrike said:

I get your proposal, I've had plenty of guys who wanted to be officers but it was usually those who were the most vocal about cleaning house if they had the opportunity.

So in the grand tradition of "those who seek the most power are the ones least worthy to have it", if you're worried about giving somebody admin access, then they're not officer material at all.

Indeed, I find that the best officers are the reluctant ones - they are calm, reliable, organized and most importantly ego doesn’t get in the way.

“Status” aside, this is more about clear division of labour & RBAC (role-based access control). But yeah, it’s just a game so it may be overkill

I get that part. Everybody we promoted was also very reluctant and more level-headed than some of our more aggressive candidates. And yeah, once you have a reliable amount of people you can trust, everything kind of Finds Its Niche because you can have someone you trust and who's proven to be a capable officer just handle the little things like setting up Alliance Quest or helping with Defender placement.

For example we're working with a full crew of 30 and including myself and our leader, we have a total of 10 officers. We usually have three officers per battle group in Alliance events and run the same groups in both events so that way there's no confusion.

The big boss oversees everything and delegates the tasks to who he knows is best equipped to handle them and even as ridiculously structured as it sounds, we still have fun, we talk everyday on Line, cracking jokes, talking rank up choices and strategies and we know about each other's families and deal with whatever personal or tactical issues that need to be dealt with and all of that is a journey that took years to build, so just take it one day at a time. It will figure itself out.

Mackey

No, I have a different idea (in the comments)

I think all that's needed (from my own xp) is having certain roles for BG defence placements. The amount of times someone changes things and then doesn't fess up is a joke.

OR have some form of log so we can see who moved champs last.

Beyond that I think its just a team effort of leadership to ensure everything runs as smooth as possible.

Dude17

Yes, I support this idea

Mackey said:

I think all that's needed (from my own xp) is having certain roles for BG defence placements. The amount of times someone changes things and then doesn't fess up is a joke.

OR have some form of log so we can see who moved champs last.

Beyond that I think its just a team effort of leadership to ensure everything runs as smooth as possible.

Agreed. Defence placement was my main motivation. An audit trail would definitely resolve that.