RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel General Discussion



Message

One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 8:00:07)

Im gonna support the whole idea of Co-Founder on a faction and support VIX's Founder sets what he wants Co-founder to be able to do. because I would never let anyone besides myself control who gets kicked from the faction just to be safe.



ngshuyi94 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 8:13:48)

This is a good feature and will only do factions good.

Personally im fine with both founder-step-down as well as the co-founder feature but i would say that the co-founder feature would be less abusive(if u follow the format VIX gave).




rej -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 8:42:22)

quote:

Small idea about Co-leader Spot In faction:


Co-Leader Permissions :


That's would keep the faction more safe + you won't be caring or scared that maybe your co leader might remove a member that u wanted it badly , like this u can limite them by permisson ;)

Well yeah i think 2 Co leader is enough, and it would keep the faction more controlled by The leader and by the 2 Co leaders.

Why 2 Co leaders ?

If the 1st Co leader was busy There is another Co leader that can takecare of the faction while the leader + the 1st leader is Busy , and like i said both of them have Different Permission.

Example:

GoldSlayer1 permissions will be ( Adding Members + Removing members + Promoting + Demonting )
TurkishIncubus Persmissions will be ( Changing Titles + Changing Flag Style )

i don't See any point of 2 Co-leaders u trust and both of them accepted their permissions to fight each others for whatever was the reaon.

And about Changing Flag Style it's not bad idea either.

I hope this is Helpfull for your idea soulprisnerx .

-VIX


Hmm... seeing the idea laid out so beautifully, I change my mind, and support the idea completely. :3



SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 8:53:27)

@ rej


quote:

And about Changing Flag Style it's not bad idea either.



u support this too ???

i mean it would be really annoying , if any Co-Founder changed your flag looks , when you already saved the one you like and then some one changes it!!

I am ok with this feature , if this to has a setting of letting the Co-founder , Edit the flag or not .



goldslayer1 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 8:55:44)

quote:

i mean it would be really annoying , if any Co-Founder changed your flag looks , when you already saved the one you like and then some one changes it!!

then tell ur co leader not to change it.
u said it didn't matter as a feature.
so why would it matter if ur co-leader changes it? just tell him not to.



SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 9:03:01)

lol , u make a Co-founder some one whom you know really well and trust him completely , and DA he would be your good frind too .

now do really expect him to listen to you all the time , nor you can warn him all time ( his your frind , u would be a bit liberal to him ) so he would change the flag style and then u ask him , y did u change ??? he would be ... " cmon bro , once let me keep how i lyk , cmon once please ???? ) now what could "you" do -.-" ??



VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 9:04:09)

I've got an awesme idea , i will post them in a pic explaining about eveyrything as soon as i get back to home.



rej -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 9:44:26)

quote:

u support this too ???

i mean it would be really annoying , if any Co-Founder changed your flag looks , when you already saved the one you like and then some one changes it!!

I am ok with this feature , if this to has a setting of letting the Co-founder , Edit the flag or not .


I didn't, but in Vix's idea, the founder can choose if the co founder can edit the flag. Since it's only an option rather than a requirement, it's perfectly fine. So, yeah, supported.



Mr. Black OP -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/26/2012 18:54:56)

I like both, my idea is a founder can temporarily step down for a certain amount of time like a week, a month, or until he decides to take control back (kinda like yours) and then his designated co-founder will receive all the powers of the founder, but until the founder steps down he is just a glorified officer, also the original founder cannot be kicked. Just my idea.



VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/27/2012 8:50:20)

Edited some things :
-----------------------

quote:

Edited Things! More Clear:

  • Small idea about Co-leader Spot In faction:
    [image]http://i41.tinypic.com/m2fwg.png[/image]

  • Co-Leader Permissions :
    [image]http://i43.tinypic.com/2s0ya10.png[/image]

    That's would keep the faction more safe + you won't be caring or scared that maybe your co leader might remove a member that u wanted it badly , like this u can limite them by permisson ;)

    I'm Sure u guy asking why there is " Check Boxes " Near every member , I will explain :

  • The leader ONLY can put a check near the memeber that he will be kicked soon , The Co Leader can see the member that has a Check near his name so he can only kick the member that has a check near his name. so the leader can set the kick for Co-leader .

    Well yeah i think 2 Co leader is enough, and it would keep the faction more controlled by The leader and by the 2 Co leaders.

    Why 2 Co leaders ?

    If the 1st Co leader was busy There is another Co leader that can takecare of the faction while the leader + the 1st leader is Busy , and like i said both of them have Different Permission.

    Example:

  • GoldSlayer1 permissions will be ( Adding Members + Removing members + Promoting + Demonting )
  • TurkishIncubus Persmissions will be ( Changing Titles + Changing Flag Style )

    i don't See any point of 2 Co-leaders u trust and both of them accepted their permissions to fight each others for whatever was the reaon.

    And about Changing Flag Style it's not bad idea either.

    I hope this is Helpfull for your idea soulprisnerx .



    • -VIX



    SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/27/2012 9:00:55)

    @ VIX

    hmmmm, kinda confused.... the permission of Co-Founder , i understood that is ( if its ticked , then the Co-Founder can perform the action and not ticked , then he cannot perform the action )

    but wats the tick boxes in front of members ???



    VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/27/2012 9:08:30)

    quote:

    I'm Sure u guy asking why there is " Check Boxes " Near every member , I will explain :

    The leader ONLY can put a check near the memeber that he will be kicked soon , The Co Leader can see the member that has a Check near his name so he can only kick the member that has a check near his name. so the leader can set the kick for Co-leader .



    TurkishIncubus -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/27/2012 9:32:36)

    Like the all other good ideas this will never happen :P, Vix's idea is good but we all know thats not gonna happen.



    SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/28/2012 5:09:02)

    @ VIX

    quote:

    The leader ONLY can put a check near the memeber that he will be kicked soon , The Co Leader can see the member that has a Check near his name so he can only kick the member that has a check near his name. so the leader can set the kick for Co-leader .


    or wat if i say this ...

    The Founder of the faction put a check near the member , who should not be kicked and is important and the following member can only be kicked by the Founder and when the the member is Ticked in front , its shows a Star in front, to the Co-Founder only . And this way he would come to know , and would not be able to kick the member . what say??? :)



    VIX -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/28/2012 5:40:12)

    @Soulprisnerx: we can't decide about this,I've mentioned this thread to Nightwraith and he replied saying :

    quote:

    Nightwraith:
    @EpicDuel_Vix That looks actually looks pretty good. Bookmarking for future reference.


    I'm Sure they are Clever to make this thingy Pretty fair to everyone, it's just an idea and Titan \ Nightwraith will think about how to make the functions and things...

    So it's up to Nightwraith&Titan to decide about this.

    -VIX



    rej -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/28/2012 19:43:25)

    ^Excellent. That means we have a chance (however small it may be) for this to be implemented.



    R3lic -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/28/2012 21:21:04)

    I support the idea of co-founder. Not to be pedantic though; but I think its a bit of a misnomer. I think executive officer or X/O is better.

    CO-founder to me sounds like they helped found the faction with you originally [ie co-founded it together]. I think a lot of founders will agree the people who helped them start their faction are not necessarily the same as the people who stick with them through thick and thin and wind up being their right hand and in many cases may even be the factions true leader. Maybe in the end your original co-founder is not really part of the spirit of the faction, maybe the biggest helper to the faction is someone who came a day or two later... Co-founder doesnt really sound revokable. Executive officer is. Its earned.

    Anyways thats all semantics really,,, I think co-founder is a great idea, whatevr you call it. But again I think executive officer is way a better title... [but what do I know?]

    As for step down: I support this too. But I dont like idea of partial step down. If you step down you step down for good and get out of the way. You shouldnt be allowed to be "half pregnant" when it comes to your faction. Thats just bad leadership. If you ever come back you would have to get invited back by the new faction owner and or reinstated as founder if your successors steps down willingly and appoints you.

    Bottom line step down should be serious and not taken lightly and done for the good of the faction. Not cause you need a vacay. Ive thought of stepping down from my faction so someone else could be leader for a while [G00ny:P]. If I gave it to him there is no take backs... it his. If he gave it back that would be his choice IMO.



    Mr. Black OP -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/28/2012 21:28:18)

    ^
    Many people have things in life other than ED, so a partial step down would work better since if a person was going out of town they could have someone take care of it until they were back. The founder of the faction did pay with REAL money for the faction since it costs varium, it's like getting a pet sitter, they take care of the pet (or in this case the faction) while the owner is away. But like the little girl from the taco commercial said, "Why can't we have both?" By this I mean having both options open.
    So basically "partial step-down" will be better for casual players and "permanent step down" would be better for the more competitive players.
    I like Executive Officer better than Co-Founder too, but maybe Head Officer or something like that would work too.



    SouL Prisoner -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/28/2012 22:35:06)

    ^ & ^^

    Co-Founder means u pretty much own half the Faction, u have half rights over the faction (as a part u played and you earned the title)

    but other names for Co-Founder , as suggested by relic and zman , the thing u suggest is kinda more like a rank , while Co-Founder is half owner , now the person who owns it has more right then some ranking leader....



    Shadow Jester -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (2/29/2012 4:25:48)

    Co founder /cough. It will bring back Legit /cough
    Aww Vix...You like goldslayer how sweet.
    I like the idea of Co Founder. Many legendary faction founders could add someone else to help them while the founder is alway



    Sir Nash -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (6/10/2012 8:58:32)

    Great idea, it will make the factions alot better with this



    Guppy -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (6/10/2012 9:10:24)

    Lolwut?
    Both would be pointless, if the founder leaves and both are put in, the co-founder wouldnt be in affect because the founder would still have power. See where am I going?
    And as for what you said goldslayer1, makes no sense.

    quote:

    cause u think you may get hacked.



    dark warrior31 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (6/10/2012 9:14:34)

    Supported!



    goldslayer1 -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (6/10/2012 9:24:08)

    @suika
    u might want to quote as to what ur referring to since i have multiple posts in this thread.



    Wind -> RE: Founder step-down VS Co-Founder . (6/10/2012 9:39:05)

    Great Idea Soul!

    Some idea's have been thought about, where as there are some other small issues that may occur as well.

    But one of them I found is, the Co-Founder for whatever kicking all the members, which the Founder wants still. So maybe and extension of the Co-Founder kicking members "idea", maybe only implement that the Co-Founder can only kick members which he or she recruited. Just a thought :)



    Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.09375