SE, Please fix this FC exploit

[Fated]

How does crap like this even make it past the "quality control?"

[16bitBounty]

How does crap like this even make it past the "quality control?"

We have quality control in this game?

[Archadius]

I'm shocked this still hasn't been fixed... Right now the only safe option for all the FC out there is to have the master be the only one with promote/demote privileges. SE this should be a simple fix to make it so you can't promote people above your own rank. There is no excuse for this, especially as now there is a system in place where after 35 days of inactivity, the FC leadership is passed to the next person in line (so an FC is never truly "lost" if someone randomly quits the game).

[Souljacker]

This still needs to be addressed. My FC just ran into this issue as well. We did a company-wide restructuring because of guild bank abuse and removed access to all ranks below High Council. The members who are tagged High Council are the four leaders under the Guild Master and the Quartermaster(coGM) and two weeks ago one of the High Council members decided to promote a regular member to High Council so that she now can access the guild bank.

It's caused our leader to take promotion access away from everyone, and now the entire burden is on her to assign each rank, where before the leadership team was able to manage membership as needed without her online.

It's a big problem that needs to be dealt with and not just ignored. There is no reason whatsoever a member should be able to promote to peer status or ESPECIALLY above his\her rank in the hierarchy. SE, Please address this. We don't want to seem tyrannical in our free companies but you are making it hard to manage one without leaving ourselves open to exploitation.

[Traek]

SE please figure this stuff out already. You really lose credibility as a company when you let simple things like this go on for so long. This should have been a hotfix from 2.0, not an outstanding issue in 2.35+. Please figure it out. If you really think there is a playerbase that enjoys your current system, then make it an *OPTION* for the FC leader to select. Simple.

This is really embarrassing for a 2014 game.

[Niwashi]

I think the issue is that ranks are customizable rather than ordered. If you have "officer in charge of activity A", "officer in charge of activity B", and "officer in charge of activity C", you can customize their individual titles and privileges, but there isn't any inherit order making one of those more important than the other two. You've got multiple ranks with different names and perhaps different privileges to go along with their individual responsibilities, but they're all on the same level. It seems like the entire ranking system in XIV is an extension of that.

Anyone you give promotion/demotion privileges to is assumed to be responsible for setting other players' ranks, irrespective of where those are, because "where those are" is meaningless. There aren't really ranks that are "above" or "below" any others, just ranks that have different sets of privileges. The real problem is that this fact isn't obvious. The ranks appear to be ordered, but their number is simply where to display them in the list rather than an actual higher-ranking / lower-ranking order.

I do think something needs to be done about this problem. But it would likely require first making the rank level itself more customizable than it currently is. Once you can specify which ranks share the same level as opposed to those that are genuinely higher or lower, then they'd be able to add a rule that you can promote/demote only between ranks lower than or equal to your own.

[Brine_Gildchaff]

I do think something needs to be done about this problem. But it would likely require first making the rank level itself more customizable than it currently is. Once you can specify which ranks share the same level as opposed to those that are genuinely higher or lower, then they'd be able to add a rule that you can promote/demote only between ranks lower than or equal to your own.

How about, as a slightly altered solution, it could be set up that you cannot give someone permissions (whether by promotion or altering a rank's permissions) that you yourself do not possess?

[Altiret]

Back before SE implemented activity logs for the FC chest our FC had all of it's gil stolen by a member. It wasn't an RMT - just a selfish thief. However SE's take on it was "you gave them access to the chest, and gave him the right to access the gil. You shouldn't have trusted him."

So I know first hand how this type of thing sucks.

I agree that you shouldn't be able to promote above your own rank - that would be the same as allowing someone to promote themselves.. (though if you can promote above your own rank, you probably CAN promote yourself.. I should try that.. )

However I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict promotion to a very small trustworthy group of people. It's not like you have to go changing peoples ranks on a daily basis. (I should also qualify that our FC is relatively small (<100) and for the most part we all know each other pretty well. So in fairness, if you have a very large FC, it might be different. )

[Talas-Wolvenfang]

This issue has been open for at least 1.5 years.
Can a Dev. or rep pls give status as to what's going on with the fix for this FC rank setting?

Thank you.

[NatSilverguard]

imho, this is entirely the OP's (or the FC master's) mistake. Why, did you give a guy you don't know so much power over your FC? regardless of the current FC role mechanic, giving roles should be reserved to the people you trust and deserve them.

i hope SE will give back your gils, but if it is me, sorry i won't, you lots are too careless to take care of your own. i won't change a system that will benefit a lot more (to be able to replace an AWOL FC master/leader) than to handhold careless people take care of their stuff.