100M GIL taken

[Lexia]

People need to realize that there are essentially only two ranks when it comes to promotion: owner and then everything else. SE has said that it is not a bug, it was intentional and they won't be fixing it (not that I agree).

Do you have a link to the specific statement from SE about this?

Yea I would agree, ranks are thing created by the FC leader not by SE.

[JunseiKei]

Do you have a link to the specific statement from SE about this?

Greetings,

First let me apologize for the frustration that this situation has caused.

It is difficult to create a system that is both flexible for users and that can safeguard against any number of situations. Limiting the use of the ability to promote could have negative implications for users that are using the feature legitimately (for example, if a leader has left, and a new one needs to be appointed), so we have to be mindful of that before making changes.

However, even with that said, we understand the request for adjustments and the team will be looking carefully into how best to move forward.

Posted some 3 years ago. While they said they would be looking into how to best move forward, they also did not acknowledge it to be a bug in the system and actually confirmed that it is intended.

[Kosmos992k]

Posted some 3 years ago. While they said they would be looking into how to best move forward, they also did not acknowledge it to be a bug in the system and actually confirmed that it is intended.

Thanks. Do you think there is any point in requesting some QoL changes to prevent these elevation of privilege attacks?

Yea I would agree, ranks are thing created by the FC leader not by SE.

Using a rank hierarchy, promotion/demotion and privilege assignment system created by SE to allow masters to manage their FC. I have never seen a guild system with this kind of design flaw, let alone a system where the design flaw is described as an intended feature. There are lot more simple ways to handle transfer of responsibility due to absence than building a complete rank and privilege system along with promotion and demotion capability. If the system was intended to cover that specific situation of an absent FC master, why are there 15 ranks and why all the different access privileges that can be assigned/revoked? The system appears to offer something that it in fact does not offer, that is a design flaw.

[JunseiKei]

Thanks. Do you think there is any point in requesting some QoL changes to prevent these elevation of privilege attacks?

I cannot prevent someone from typing anything. It's the other person's choice if they hit backspace or not. Or a moderator, which I'm not.

What I am advocating is it's 3 years since that was said, spread the word on 'this is how it actually is' instead of holding out on a change [that may never happen] and giving more opportunity for con-artists to work.

[Kosmos992k]

I cannot prevent someone from typing anything. It's the other person's choice if they hit backspace or not. Or a moderator, which I'm not.

What I am advocating is it's 3 years since that was said, spread the word on 'this is how it actually is' instead of holding out on a change [that may never happen] and giving more opportunity for con-artists to work.

I agree with spreading the word, but I also think that we should not allow SE to think that this is a non issue.

[Lexia]

Using a rank hierarchy, promotion/demotion and privilege assignment system created by SE to allow masters to manage their FC. I have never seen a guild system with this kind of design flaw, let alone a system where the design flaw is described as an intended feature. There are lot more simple ways to handle transfer of responsibility due to absence than building a complete rank and privilege system along with promotion and demotion capability. If the system was intended to cover that specific situation of an absent FC master, why are there 15 ranks and why all the different access privileges that can be assigned/revoked? The system appears to offer something that it in fact does not offer, that is a design flaw.

The point I was making about the only 2 setting is that there pretty much is just FC master and everything else as it is up to the FC master to determine what permissions those ranks that the FC master creates has.

[JunseiKei]

I agree with spreading the word, but I also think that we should not allow SE to think that this is a non issue.

Unfortunately, while I may agree, the likeliness of it changing will be slimmer and slimmer as time passes on. The summoner egi glamour system was put in, despite not being an issue and a far newer request (example). The issue only stems from people not realizing promote means literally to any rank other than owner.

[Claire_Pendragon]

Simply should have split it to be either promote upward, or only promote up to your current rank.
If the Leader decided to do the former, then the FC just has to deal with it, even if the leader leaves.

[Kosmos992k]

The point I was making about the only 2 setting is that there pretty much is just FC master and everything else as it is up to the FC master to determine what permissions those ranks that the FC master creates has.

I understand. However I don't see the point in the FC master making any ranks with a system that is horribly flawed. What's the point of all the different access rights and ranks with a system so deeply flawed? It's almost like those creating that aspect of it were not aware of how deeply flawed the basic promotion capability is.

[Dustytome]

Simply should have split it to be either promote upward, or only promote up to your current rank.
If the Leader decided to do the former, then the FC just has to deal with it, even if the leader leaves.

What's the point of having "promote upwards" as an option at all though? If there's a rank that has all inclusive access to temporarily take over for the leader, anyone with promote privs has access to that rank at any point in time regardless of the leader's status. Just add hierarchy to the entire rank list and if someone wants to make a backup leader rank they can entrust that directly to someone and just tell them to pretend they don't have certain privs unless something happens to the leader.