Limiting who gives folder rights

[kenyonandelliot]

When you give people the 'editfolderrights' right, you should be able to set what folder rights they are able to get. Like if you have a LAT Admin you can limit the rights they can give to the levels folders just incase they're aren't the brightest. It could work with change rights too. It would also restrict what they can give to themselves too, if they're that sneaky type.

[killerogue]

Don't give them change rights. :]

[Tyhm]

Only reason to give them Change Rights is the Proper Admin can't be arsed/won't be available when needed. In which case you need a different Proper Admin.

[zokemon]

It does work like that...
You can't give anyrights that you do not have your self (except for the case with the "editfolderrights" right which allows you to add any folder to your self or others.

[kenyonandelliot]

Originally Posted by zokemon

It does work like that...
You can't give anyrights that you do not have your self (except for the case with the "editfolderrights" right which allows you to add any folder to your self or others.

No it doesn't.. I was talking about the editfolderrights.. It should be the same as change rights.. You can't give folders you don't have and you cant give yourself more folderrights then you have..

As a matter of fact, one of our admins deleted everything a while ago..

[zokemon]

Originally Posted by kenyonandelliot

No it doesn't.. I was talking about the editfolderrights.. It should be the same as change rights.. You can't give folders you don't have and you cant give yourself more folderrights then you have..

As a matter of fact, one of our admins deleted everything a while ago..

You just said what I said was wrong then in your reasoning you just went on to prove what I said was right o.O

[Tyhm]

Thus it would appear you're in agreement: If you have editfolderrights levels/*.nw, you can grant folderrights levels/*.nw only, and can't grant yourself folderrights *.*. If you have editfolderrights-master, you're the admin-owner-god-king and can grant anyone whatever folder rights you choose. This would be preferable, though arguably not a priority for the aforementioned reasons (that of not giving people editfolderrights at all and the folderrightsgiver just paying attention to who needs what)

[kenyonandelliot]

True, but if they're looking for something to add before releasing something or making a release to RC they could consider this, if they want to.

[elite_master]

What if that LAT Admin goes corrupt and gives his/her LAT's all the rights that the LAT Administrator has?

This would include Change rights, since the LAT Admin can change the rights in the first place, unless somehow he hacked rights or something out of the ordinary.

What he means is:

LAT Admin has change rights:

BUT, the manager sets it so the LAT Admin can ONLY give LAT's warpto rights, proper folder rights, possibly comments, and possibly view attr's, if required, not so that the LAT can give set attr's, change rights, and whatever else.

Would have been good if this came out in the graal-got-haxd years (2004-2005) when every server was getting "hacked" by kids with level 4's, who really shouldn't have had them.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by elite_master

What if that LAT Admin goes corrupt and gives his/her LAT's all the rights that the LAT Administrator has?

This would include Change rights, since the LAT Admin can change the rights in the first place, unless somehow he hacked rights or something out of the ordinary.

What he means is:

LAT Admin has change rights:

BUT, the manager sets it so the LAT Admin can ONLY give LAT's warpto rights, proper folder rights, possibly comments, and possibly view attr's, if required, not so that the LAT can give set attr's, change rights, and whatever else.

Would have been good if this came out in the graal-got-haxd years (2004-2005) when every server was getting "hacked" by kids with level 4's, who really shouldn't have had them.

Allow me to ask a question: Why does your LAT Admin have change rights anyway? They don't need it, if they would like to hire a LAT, talk to the Manager. It's a good idea to have a Manager that's only job is to MANAGE! They shouldn't be busy developing, etc. Their job should be to make sure all staff are working, prevent abuse, deal with players, etc. That way you don't get into

LAT Admin finds a good LAT. Wants to hire. Admin is busy scripting a MUDLIB, and doesn't read PMs. Owner is never online, is probably smoking weed in the back yard. Co-Manager is off abusing powers and setting peoples max HP to -1, and there's someone trying to delete the server.

The end.

[elite_master]

Originally Posted by cbkbud

Allow me to ask a question: Why does your LAT Admin have change rights anyway? They don't need it, if they would like to hire a LAT, talk to the Manager. It's a good idea to have a Manager that's only job is to MANAGE! They shouldn't be busy developing, etc. Their job should be to make sure all staff are working, prevent abuse, deal with players, etc. That way you don't get into

You have trust in your LAT,NAT,Dev, whatever admin. They have change rights because its a crappy private server (Psh, like server managers know any better)

What I'm saying, is this would help alot with the newer server owners, or server owners who get continuously hacked/pwned *coughjiggacough*

Originally Posted by cbkbud

LAT Admin finds a good LAT. Wants to hire. Admin is busy scripting a MUDLIB, and doesn't read PMs. Owner is never online, is probably smoking weed in the back yard. Co-Manager is off abusing powers and setting peoples max HP to -1, and there's someone trying to delete the server.

The end.

Admins don't have to do dev anymore. Owner is never online 'cause all he does is pay, nobody cares about him. Co-Owner is using his staff boots to pk everyone. Manager is running around asking people if they want a job and a level 4 RC. Co-Manager is... Yeah setting peoples HP. Head Admin becomes emo, deletes the server. The Admins are off abusing.

6-8 unneeded level 4 rc's right there.

I'm just saying this would be good for those crappier new servers, where they say "OK! U GON A BE LAT N NOW U GET CHNG RITES N WUTEVR SRVER OPTIN DUZ U CAN HAS TAT 2. O HRER IZ CHNG STAF ACT 2 BTW."

When you give your staff change rights, server ops, ban, dc, or even friggin NC nowadays, you're giving them your server basically. You gotta watch who you can even trust with this crap ;{

[xXziroXx]

Originally Posted by elite_master

You have trust in your LAT,NAT,Dev, whatever admin. They have change rights because its a crappy private server (Psh, like server managers know any better)

What I'm saying, is this would help alot with the newer server owners, or server owners who get continuously hacked/pwned *coughjiggacough*



Admins don't have to do dev anymore. Owner is never online 'cause all he does is pay, nobody cares about him. Co-Owner is using his staff boots to pk everyone. Manager is running around asking people if they want a job and a level 4 RC. Co-Manager is... Yeah setting peoples HP. Head Admin becomes emo, deletes the server. The Admins are off abusing.

6-8 unneeded level 4 rc's right there.

I'm just saying this would be good for those crappier new servers, where they say "OK! U GON A BE LAT N NOW U GET CHNG RITES N WUTEVR SRVER OPTIN DUZ U CAN HAS TAT 2. O HRER IZ CHNG STAF ACT 2 BTW."

When you give your staff change rights, server ops, ban, dc, or even friggin NC nowadays, you're giving them your server basically. You gotta watch who you can even trust with this crap ;{

Ahaha, sooo true! I remember a good bunch of years ago, I swear you just describe all servers I worked on!

[elite_master]

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

Ahaha, sooo true! I remember a good bunch of years ago, I swear you just describe all servers I worked on!

Graal Realms for example >

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by elite_master

You have trust in your LAT,NAT,Dev, whatever admin.

Just because you trust someone doesn't mean they need a ton of rights.

I can do just as much work as a NAT as I can with change rights and a NAT Admin. Personally I don't think there should even be LAT Admin, NAT Admin, etc. because they aren't needed. For hiring, ask your best LAT/NAT/whatever to look at the application and say if it's good or not.

[Tyhm]

Originally Posted by cbkbud

Just because you trust someone doesn't mean they need a ton of rights.

I can do just as much work as a NAT as I can with change rights and a NAT Admin. Personally I don't think there should even be LAT Admin, NAT Admin, etc. because they aren't needed. For hiring, ask your best LAT/NAT/whatever to look at the application and say if it's good or not.

I disagree: There needs to be a final say in matters of "I think we should add guns!/I think we should rebuild the map in the shape of a giant wing-wong!". Also, somebody needs to say when hiring season starts and ends, and somebody needs to keep an eye on the angrier LATs.
That somebody generally needs to be an expert levelmaker/scripter just to have the necessary respect of the team; unfortunately that somebody will never again get the chance to script, what with all the other responsibilities. If you wanna say the General Manager should take the LAT Admin's hiring/firing responsibilities, that's fine - but do you really want the General Manager telling the LATs what they can and can't make? "They don't understand levels, they're not even LAT!"-when the General Manager tells the LAT the server's moving in a direction they don't agree with, that's when servers fall apart.

But that's just how I see it.