100M GIL taken

[ToasterMan]

No, I understand perfectly. I'm saying you are objectively wrong. It is a feature that is beneficial when used with a minimal level of caution and is 100% optional.

It is a tool, an option, and you are most definitely blaming the tool and not the irresponsibility of the one using it (like you should be).

Please, explain why being able to promote yourself to a rank that's above your own is a good idea at all. As said before anybody who gives someone like their second in command the privilege of promoting people should be able to assume that they wouldn't be able to make themselves Master (Which is where the privilege of taking money out of the chest is) I mean, that's common sense. Organizations in real life follow this in regards to security, Windows Servers follows it, (A local administrator can't elevate themselves to server administrator under any circumstances) and from what I've seen, the game didn't tell the OP otherwise. The game everywhere else gives us warnings when making certain decisions, but it doesn't say anything when OP was going to give that thief those promotion privileges? Are you serious?

And seeming that you didn't listen to me, I'll say it again. I'm not blaming the tool, I'm holding SE somewhat accountable because they were the ones who designed it and thought it was a good idea for people to be able to promote themselves to a rank higher than their own.

[Kaedan]

Please, explain why being able to promote yourself to a rank that's above your own is a good idea at all.

1) It was the original way to allow people to circumvent the problem of an FC leader quitting the game and abandoning the FC to naught. The leader could give one of the officers the ability to promote in the case that they would have to leave the game. Thus allowing the FC to continue and not have to be disbanded if the FC members wanted to continue.

2) The implementation of automatic leader change only mitigates it somewhat. It takes a minimum of a month for it to kick in, so the FC is screwed for that month if the leader has to leave the game for any reason (emergency or otherwise). So the promote ability is a necessary backup tool (and was the original tool for this purpose).

And seeming that you didn't listen to me, I'll say it again. I'm not blaming the tool, I'm holding SE somewhat accountable because they were the ones who designed it and thought it was a good idea for people to be able to promote themselves to a rank higher than their own.

Please stop accusing me of not understanding or listening when it's you who are the one that isn't. You are making the faulty assumption that the feature of being able to promote above your rank is "flawed" and that SE is "at fault" for allowing a flawed tool in the game. What you are incorrect about is that the feature is flawed. It is not.

[Nixxe]

Says the person who purposefully and willfully ignored the explanation of why the feature isn't flawed.

In all fairness, your justifying situation is an extremely niche one that is easily avoided by the current GM having even the slightest shred of consideration for the free company. As you yourself said, there is a tool in place now that can be used to fix the problem, should it arise, but I would imagine the overwhelming majority of the time it's simply not an issue unless, again, the current GM just doesn't give the free company a second thought. Breaks from the game are rarely so immediate or necessary that you can't find five minutes to log in and pass lead. On the other hand, we have a rather opaque mechanism that is rather unusual compared to many or probably even most other MMOs and the workings of which cannot be readily discerned except through trial and error. As I said before, it's somewhat subjective whether the current iteration should be considered more good than bad, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired either way and is very obviously flawed. Your zeal in defending its totality is rather misguided.

[ToasterMan]

1) It was the original way to allow people to circumvent the problem of an FC leader quitting the game and abandoning the FC to naught. The leader could give one of the officers the ability to promote in the case that they would have to leave the game. Thus allowing the FC to continue and not have to be disbanded if the FC members wanted to continue.

2) The implementation of automatic leader change only mitigates it somewhat. It takes a minimum of a month for it to kick in, so the FC is screwed for that month if the leader has to leave the game for any reason (emergency or otherwise). So the promote ability is a necessary backup tool (and was the original tool for this purpose).

I don't think that's a good enough reason to allow a promoting yourself and I am of the opinion that most of the people in this thread agree with me when I say that.

It does seem like that automatic leader change is a bit too long though. Maybe shorten it down to a week?

[Lone-wolfe-02]

Well, you think wrong then. Seriously, I JUST explained it a few posts ago. If you disagree, then make a constructive, well-thought out response that refutes the facts I laid out above.

Right now you're just doing nothing but being insulting and trolling.

Mature, disagree with you so i'm obviously the one being insulting and trolling.

There is already a system in place to counteract a sudden absence from the FC lead, what we don't need is for promotions to behave illogically as it's causing more problems.

[Kaedan]

disagree with you so i'm obviously the one being insulting and trolling.

Well, for one, you did directly insult me: You said, "It takes a special kind of person to think this feature isn't flawed".

Secondly, it's trolling if you simply say "you're wrong" without actually providing any kind of argument... like you have been.

There is already a system in place to counteract a sudden absence from the FC lead, what we don't need is for promotions to behave illogically as it's causing more problems.

And I already explained that that isn't sufficient because the FC would be forced to wait a month. The promote feature allows an FC to recover much faster in the event of the FC leader leaving the game.

And again, it's 100% optional. You don't have to use it and thus never have to put your FC at risk.

[Kaedan]

Then lower how much time it takes effect and then we would have no need for this flawed feature.

1) Not flawed, as I have explained. You can 100% opt out of the feature with no risk to your FC.

2) That's not sufficient. Even if they reduced it to a week or two without logging in, that's still too long a wait for a serious FC. And if you made it shorter than that, then there wouldn't be a point to there being an FC leader at all since the leader would change constantly.

[Nixxe]

Secondly, it's trolling if you simply say "you're wrong" without actually providing any kind of argument... like you have been.

That's not what trolling is.

[Kaedan]

That's not what trolling is.

Trolling encompasses a lot of things. Being inflammatory (which is what saying "you're wrong" and not justifying your statement is) is one aspect of trolling.

[Thaelin_AnCrach]

1) Not flawed, as I have explained. You can 100% opt out of the feature with no risk to your FC.

2) That's not sufficient. Even if they reduced it to a week or two without logging in, that's still too long a wait for a serious FC. And if you made it shorter than that, then there wouldn't be a point to there being an FC leader at all since the leader would change constantly.

You seem to have two completely different points you're making here. On one side, you say it's an "opt out"- almost suggesting every FC should NOT use it as to keep themselves away from any risk of abuse.

Then on the other hand you praise it as being a tool that helps these "hardcore" (severe minority of players, might I add) players recover after the extremely rare case (even smaller now) of an FC leader leaving. So I would advise you slow down, take stock, and actually have the realization your argument in favor of this fundamentally flawed tool is not helping.