Multi-Organisations membership

[Archonious]

Yea I really think you are limiting yourself Archonious if you choose not to use the multiple org set up.

But its your org you do whatever you want.

If I would joined with any of organisation, it would be controlled and long relationship. If you read topic, you can see, that leaders can set excludings (like an alliance).

 

I don't find it bad, no limits = chaos. I don't need it. I want (I think some others as well) tools for control. Simple.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Hotwingz]

Ban people from joining religion orgs in your organisation's Management System. We are (almost all) with you on that boat.

Oh? I know its a little bit of topic but do we already have religion in DU? Can you point me in their direction to see what they say?

[Hotwingz]

If you read topic, you can see, that leaders can set excludings (like an alliance)

 

Yea I mentioned the RDMS and tag system earlier.

 

Like I said its your choice, I have no problem with an option like you are asking for.

[Anaximander]

Oh? I know its a little bit of topic but do we already have religion in DU? Can you point me in their direction to see what they say?

Order of Meru. :|

 

Talk to Yamamushi, he's the guy who's serving the Kool Aid  owns that org.

 

There's also Raptor Squad, which is the bestest religion ever.

[ShadowLordAlpha]

Order of Meru. :|

 

Talk to Yamamushi, he's the guy who's serving the Kool Aid  owns that org.

 

There's also Raptor Squad, which is the bestest religion ever.

I have seen one or two more but i doubt i would count raptor squad as one of them (especially since RaptorJesus is in my org )

[Anaximander]

I have seen one or two more but i doubt i would count raptor squad as one of them (especially since RaptorJesus is in my org )

RaptorJesus is not recognised as our religious figure. :V

 

Nukes are our angels, Raptors are we, memes are our sermons and Paranoia our mentality.

 

 

[Hotwingz]

Order of Meru. :|

 

Talk to Yamamushi, he's the guy who's serving the Kool Aid owns that org.

 

There's also Raptor Squad, which is the bestest religion ever.

Ah, thanks.

 

First time I hear of Raptor Squad being a religion. Perhaps a way of life but religion....

[Anaximander]

Ah, thanks.

 

First time I hear of Raptor Squad being a religion. Perhaps a way of life but religion....

We even have Raptor heretics. :|

 

Check our org's thread in the forums, you'll understand

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

And that is additional reason why I don't want see any virtual religions and other trash in my organisation. I am not interesting to separate people in my organisation. And I want to have technical option to keep all these religions and cults away. We don't need another stupid reason for conflicts inside. If somebody want it, then he/she an option. I don't want it, why can't I have an option?

 

Nobody force you to join organisations with limited structure. What you against?

Isn't that what called a choice? When you choose what is better for you?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

I don't know that I care what you want to do with your organization - you can limit it however you wish.

What I commented on is your general vision about traders and pirates - which sounds prejudiced.

You can be prejudiced if you want to be - I hope that our community, in general, is not prejudiced -- and I hope that NovaQuark does not support that kind of prejudice with the specific design you have suggested.

 

I am specifically against your suggestion of a crude on/off switch.

I am probably in favor of a fairly robust permissions system.

 

If you don't want people in your org to join multiple orgs, just kick people who join multiple orgs.

Nobody is forcing you to accept people who are members of multiple orgs.

[Archonious]

 

If you don't want people in your org to join multiple orgs, just kick people who join multiple orgs.

Nobody is forcing you to accept people who are members of multiple orgs.

So people who don't want multiple organisation members need to waste their time (which cost money and they pay for that) to sort it out, just because you find it prejudice in your opinion. So you force everyone follow your model and expect troubles because you want that.

 

I hope NQ will not listen so egoistic opinions and will give opportunities for everyone, not for little group of people.

 

Archonious

[Lethys]

Rdms is your friend....if player is part of another org = no rights at all. So he can't do shit. Easy

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

I can not trust anyone who is member of other organisation (unless agreements and discussions with leaders). Being member of multiple organisation allow to use knowledge, data, infrastructure or even resources for other organisation. It is fully unacceptable for me.

It is not way to prevent spying or something. 

That first post makes it sound like you want to prevent spying.

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

So people who don't want multiple organisation members need to waste their time (which cost money and they pay for that) to sort it out, just because you find it prejudice in your opinion. So you force everyone follow your model and expect troubles because you want that.

 

I hope NQ will not listen so egoistic opinions and will give opportunities for everyone, not for little group of people.

 

Archonious

Sure. If you want to waste your time to sort that stuff out, then waste your time sorting that stuff out.

The devs will introduce their model and I don't expect trouble from their model.

You are the one expecting trouble if the devs don't implement your model.

I expect trouble if the devs introduce your model.

 

It seems as though ego is in the eye of the beholder.

Because you are the one demanding that your model be implemented - so that your "valuable" time isn't wasted.

[Anaximander]

That first post makes it sound like you want to prevent spying.

He is scared of spies good sir. He doesn't know you can use spies to spread misinformation :|

[Archonious]

Sure. If you want to waste your time to sort that stuff out, then waste your time sorting that stuff out.

The devs will introduce their model and I don't expect trouble from their model.

You are the one expecting trouble if the devs don't implement your model.

I expect trouble if the devs introduce your model.

 

It seems as though ego is in the eye of the beholder.

Because you are the one demanding that your model be implemented - so that your "valuable" time isn't wasted.

Demand? All I want is an option to choose (technical), not an obligation as you want. That is the difference. Hope NQ smart enough to give options to choose different models of organisations with technical support.

If you so afraid and if you believe it is only me who want that, why to worry about? Or maybe it would be more popular than you say?

 

No respect at all,

Archonious

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

Yes. Demand:

So people who don't want multiple organisation members need to waste their time (which cost money and they pay for that) to sort it out, just because you find it prejudice in your opinion. So you force everyone follow your model and expect troubles because you want that.

I hope NQ will not listen so egoistic opinions and will give opportunities for everyone, not for little group of people.

Archonious

I am not afraid. I expect NQ to provide  a great system that supports multiple organizations.
You are the one who is afraid they won't. That's why you started this thread.
All I've said is that I hope the system is not as crude and simplistic as the model you suggested.
I believe the NQ devs are smart enough not to implement your specific model.
I also expect them to implement a model that provides some of what you're asking for.

[Archonious]

Yes. Demand:

I am not afraid. I expect NQ to provide  a great system that supports multiple organizations.

You are the one who is afraid they won't. That's why you started this thread.

All I've said is that I hope the system is not as crude and simplistic as the model you suggested.

I believe the NQ devs are smart enough not to implement your specific model.

I also expect them to implement a model that provides some of what you're asking for.

Sorry, but that is facepalm. All I want is a choice. So if the organisation want to be filled with multi-org members, then do it, nobody stops you. If an organisation does not want, then it blocks it. If it wants to make some excluding, then it makes some specific excluding. Simple as 2+2. And everyone happy. Every player can choose a suitable structure for his/her playstyle.

 

Your position "EVERYONE MUST DEAL WITH THAT" is not a choice. Just because you think it is great, it does not mean it is great for other players.

 

P.S: I think it is pointless to discuss with you "Choice, Variations and rights to choose", so if you continue, I will perceive it as trolling or offence. As result, you simply join to PinkyTwerk to ignore list (you may perceive as threat, warning or something else).

 

Archonious

[Dygz_Briarthorn]

Please do put me on ignore.

Thank you.

[Archonious]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Dygz_Briarthorn.

 

 

Done. Thanks. Goodbye

[Fitorion]

so Archonious just invalidated any point he was trying to make and proved he can't have civil discourse with anyone.

[Archonious]

so Archonious just invalidated any point he was trying to make and proved he can't have civil discourse with anyone.

I understand that some people enjoy this "religions, fan clubs and other". But personally, I find it fully useless and extra risk for my organisation and members. I do not saying "Everyone must", I'm saying "Everyone may".

 

I didn't write that EVERYONE must choose ONE organisation (as opposite what some people say to me and those who want be solo-org). Imagine if I would do. If I would say, that EVERYONE must have only ONE organisation. Would you be happy? But you doing the same. You saying to me that MY organisation must look as YOU WANT. Or I need pay real money for time to sort it manually every day/hour/minut/second.

 

This is not dialogue, this is demanding and absolutely not constructive.

I didn't see any reason why this is bad, since this is an additional opportunity only (all default opportunities still available).

I didn't see any other variant suitable for different points of view, except demand and selfishness.

 

Everything is written above is what I see and feel. Nothing was changed. So I don't know what and when was invalidated.

If speak about ignore, this is way to stop escalation (there was no progress, demands and basic offence only). It was said before, reply was in same manner.

 

So I would be happy to see more explained opinion.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Lethys]

Many people were just telling you:

 

There is the RDMS. Via that you can just set the rights of those you deem as multi-org members. No problem there

[Archonious]

Many people were just telling you:

There is the RDMS. Via that you can just set the rights of those you deem as multi-org members. No problem there

But situation:

Member A is in 1 organisation only. Basic member. Can use organisation infrastructure. Using resources of organisation. Then (while officers busy or offline), this member join second organisation and set teleport or respawn module work for second organisation. As result, system does not react (modules not enemy). Result system is abused.

 

And once again, how often I need check and waste time on RDMS and all members organisations?

 

What is problem in option to block multiple organisation in your own organisation? If people join, they agree with that.

If they don't agree, they choose another multi-organisation. Where is problem?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

[Limyaael]

I don't want it, why can't I have an option?

Nobody force you to join organisations with limited structure. What you against?

Isn't that what called a choice? When you choose what is better for you?

But you already have the option.

 

1. Anyone who is a member of another organisation can be refused access to any sensitive documents via the RDMS. Have them as basic lackeys who follow orders and that's all.

 

2. If that's still to sensitive to spying for you, refuse their membership. Spell it out in rainbow coloured, bolded letters that you will not accept any members who are members of another organisation. In the final game I'm sure that NQ will leave legates in charge of membership applications. Instead of relying on an automated system to prevent you from allowing multiorg members, be vigilant yourself, like people in the real world have to be if they wish to be restrictive.

[Archonious]

But you already have the option.

 

1. Anyone who is a member of another organisation can be refused access to any sensitive documents via the RDMS. Have them as basic lackeys who follow orders and that's all.

 

2. If that's still to sensitive to spying for you, refuse their membership. Spell it out in rainbow coloured, bolded letters that you will not accept any members who are members of another organisation. In the final game I'm sure that NQ will leave legates in charge of membership applications. Instead of relying on an automated system to prevent you from allowing multiorg members, be vigilant yourself, like people in the real world have to be if they wish to be restrictive.

And we coming back to "We don't care about other people opinions and requirements". Yes, it will be 100% refuse if somebody with 2+ org will apply (in my personal example) and adjust RDMS million times since secondary+ join to the organisation can not be limited. But why to make these troubles if there is another simple opportunity?

If to speak about reality, let's take an army. If you joined one army, you can not be part of another (alliance - is very controlled, not join where you want).

If you join the company (serious), you very limited by the law (agreements).

If you part of government, you limited as well (law as regulator).

 

I do not trust this system (already explained abusable way), I don't like this system, but I do not say that everyone MUST leave/refuse this system. I am the same customer as everyone else, I want to have the same comfortable game, as others. So why you so aggressively demand from me to accept multiple-organisation system which can be abused and hurt to my organisation?

If you don't see any risks in this system, I am happy for you. If you want multiple organisation members, I am happy for you. And you can do that. Simply WHY I can not technically have the opportunity to refuse that? It will work in my organisation only (and those who will share this vision).

 

I clearly understand why you want multiple organisation system, it wasn't a question at all. But all I see, like people trying to "sell" (explain) why this system is good.

 

The question is WHY this choice is not acceptable? Why is it bad? Why are you forcing use system, which somebody can dislike?

 

Thanks,

Archonious