Friend Account Hacked

[AngelCheese77]

Seriously? I had thought the master rank was out of limits for normal promotions and only the master could choose a successor for themselves. But even without that it pretty stupid that the promote permission allows one to grant others any rank regardless of one's own. In every other permission system I've seen it's only possible to manipulate lower ranks (so if the ranks are master, officer, member and recruit, then officers can promote/demote members and recruits but can't promote anyone to officer and can't demote other officers).

The issue is with how SE makes the default settings for each rank when an FC is created. They make it (IIRC) that each rank can do everything pretty much. It is on the FC creator to fix each rank's permissions right away.

[NekoHina]

The issue is with how SE makes the default settings for each rank when an FC is created. They make it (IIRC) that each rank can do everything pretty much. It is on the FC creator to fix each rank's permissions right away.

Exactly and most people do not check permissions. It can lead to some bad situations. SE should make the default with no permissions instead of all of them allowed at the start. It makes no sense.

[Canadane]

Exactly and most people do not check permissions. It can lead to some bad situations. SE should make the default with no permissions instead of all of them allowed at the start. It makes no sense.

I think SE doesn't want to baby us.
It's our FC's we run them as we wish. It also absolves SE of liability, though they'd probably have some way around it regardless of default settings.

[tdb]

It's our FC's we run them as we wish. It also absolves SE of liability, though they'd probably have some way around it regardless of default settings.

How does giving too broad permissions by default absolve SE of liability? If it doesn't occur to players to check them, doesn't that make SE responsible? Seems to me that setting safe permissions by default would be the thing to do to avoid liability.

Or did the "it" which absolves them refer to something else?